I can see that the date of occurrence is factual and cannot be manipulated except by fraud. But isn’t this also true of date of registration? The next of kin rocks up at the local registry, usually within 5 days and reports the death. Isn’t that the date of registration? Maybe there’s a third date which is the date of entry into the ONS’s systems. I can see how that can be manipulated.
The date of registration is also legit and, although by law notification is supposed to be within 5 days, this doesn't always happen. But there's another variable here and that is the processing delay for getting those dated certificates showing in published figures (hence why they are always labelled 'provisional'). All in all delays at various stages mean death data can be inaccurate for weeks if not months. Deaths can only be registered when offices are open, hence the dips in counts at weekends and during holiday periods, especially the festive season. Dips are inevitably followed by surges as the paperwork is caught up. These dips and surges play havoc with modelling! This isn't manipulation but simply a function of a system with limited resources and means we really don't know the final death toll until 6 or more months have passed (officers I've spoken to don't trust anything less than 6 months).
So much for governments following the science then, what science, figures, percentages remains to be seen as they shuffled those to suit as if they were a deck of cards.
What I found interesting was a guy who I stumbled across who has been monitoring the vaers system, he started digging when they were reducing the numbers off of it, at the same time some were added but were dated as passed away in hospital at least 15 months prior to being added, it’s not one off either it’s a pattern he’s found. Nothing can justify how any authorities have lied and deceived the public over this debacle.
I can see that the date of occurrence is factual and cannot be manipulated except by fraud. But isn’t this also true of date of registration? The next of kin rocks up at the local registry, usually within 5 days and reports the death. Isn’t that the date of registration? Maybe there’s a third date which is the date of entry into the ONS’s systems. I can see how that can be manipulated.
The date of registration is also legit and, although by law notification is supposed to be within 5 days, this doesn't always happen. But there's another variable here and that is the processing delay for getting those dated certificates showing in published figures (hence why they are always labelled 'provisional'). All in all delays at various stages mean death data can be inaccurate for weeks if not months. Deaths can only be registered when offices are open, hence the dips in counts at weekends and during holiday periods, especially the festive season. Dips are inevitably followed by surges as the paperwork is caught up. These dips and surges play havoc with modelling! This isn't manipulation but simply a function of a system with limited resources and means we really don't know the final death toll until 6 or more months have passed (officers I've spoken to don't trust anything less than 6 months).
So much for governments following the science then, what science, figures, percentages remains to be seen as they shuffled those to suit as if they were a deck of cards.
What I found interesting was a guy who I stumbled across who has been monitoring the vaers system, he started digging when they were reducing the numbers off of it, at the same time some were added but were dated as passed away in hospital at least 15 months prior to being added, it’s not one off either it’s a pattern he’s found. Nothing can justify how any authorities have lied and deceived the public over this debacle.
Agreed. I can only conclude it has been deliberate.