What does steep mean in graphics
The wrong calculator
Many people are frightened and believe this man. You don't see at first glance that the man here has no idea what he's talking about. He says a few haunting sentences, throws down a graphic that is scary, and who should be able to check it all so quickly? Nobody can judge the graphic that is thrown on the wall for a few seconds so quickly. And it follows for many who are accompanied by fear and panic: Everything has to be like this. The government has decided, the parliament nodded silently (2).
The really dramatic consequences of the fire accelerators thrown out for the economic crisis (3), the threatening deprivation of existence for many, the fatal consequences for some (4), everything must be, because the lockdown is the only course of action can. Karl Lauterbach proves this. And he justifies it. Proven! With graphics that he submits. But which he cannot explain!
Here's the proof.
According to Markus Lanz, Karl Lauterbach had brought two graphics to the TV appearance.
Markus Lanz introduces the presentation of these two graphics with these words:
“There are two graphics that you have brought with you - using New York as an example, I believe - that makes it clear what it means when you suddenly have to deal with such reproduction numbers and when suddenly this sheer force of the number really takes hold . What does this number tell us? The weekly death toll in New York State. "
The graphics that the ZDF now projected on the wall, this is:
Indeed, this graphic makes your blood run into your veins. Everything flows smoothly, and then this red line comes, cuts the picture, strives towards the sky and - we hold our breath in panic - the steep red line, it will destroy us all - except for Karl Lauterbach and the totalitarian state of measures save us!
To be clear: Yes, in New York and in Lombardy, as in a few other exceptional situations, there was a considerably higher death rate than usual. Why that was so remains to be clarified. Above all, it remains to be clarified how much has to be attributed to the corona virus and how much of the panic and inadequate supply that were triggered by the measures and how much must be attributed to other factors. Obviously, there is no evidence that the shutdown measures saved people, because the dramatic developments took place in New York as well as in Italy in spite of the drastic measures, from which it is difficult and only cynical to deduce that these measures were correct!
One cannot explain the very different death rates in one and the same country - for example Italy - and in the world if a highly contagious aggressive killer virus were to kill people. It cannot be explained why there are significantly fewer deaths per inhabitant in Sweden than in Italy, Spain or New York.
But let's get to that, as it turns out that Karl Lauterbach has no idea about the graphics that he brought with him: He says about this first graphic:
“Well, here you can see the horizontal lines, so to speak, that is the usual flu wave that always exists, and the gray flu wave, that is where there have been a particularly high number of flu deaths.
Markus Lanz says something questioningly: "Okay".
Let's look at the graphic again and look for the "gray flu wave". Karl Lauterbach can obviously only have meant the gray line running at the height of around 2,000 weekly deaths - there is no other recognizable gray horizontal line.
And his "explanation" that this gray line shows a flu wave in which there have been a particularly large number of deaths is definitely absolutely wrong and shows that he has no idea.
Rather, the gray line says: "Total Weekly Death Average, 2015-2019". So the line is about the "average total weekly deaths 2015-2019". Lauterbach confuses flu deaths with total deaths! That may not matter in a private conversation - in this case he even harms himself in his argumentation - but here sits a politician and alleged "health expert" who, with the help of this graphic, wants to justify a year and a half shutdown - with the most serious existential consequences! And he can't explain this graphic properly. How absurd and dangerous is that?
Let's take another look at the graphic, which shows that the author (5) of this graphic also depicts a falsified picture (6): If we arrange things correctly in the graphic, it looks like this:
All components of this newly arranged graphic are taken unchanged from the original, nothing has been changed, except for the arrangement and the coloring!
Now you can still see a dramatic event, but it is visually related to reality. You can now see that there is a large average number of people who die each week, that is the dark blue area. Then you can see the flu waves as a purple area, and the red line now shows the increasing number of those who have died "with" or "to" Corona per week (7).
Let's get back to Karl Lauterbach.
He then goes on to say:
“And you often hear from laypeople that this is nothing more than a very severe flu! But here you can see in red the number of fatal outcomes - deaths (!) - in New York when Covid-19 hit New York. That immediately goes into a completely different dimension! "
The man who cannot properly explain the graph looks down at the “lay people” from above because people dare to make a highly reasonable comparison with the flu. But what does this graphic do that he brought with him? She does exactly what Mr. Lauterbach accuses the layman of being “stupid”. Doesn't he know what the graphic he has brought with him and used as a mental weapon contains? He uses a graphic that compares the flu wave with the corona virus wave to explain to people that you can't compare them. How bizarre is that after he has just "explained" 2,000 flu deaths a week to us as a normal, albeit extraordinary, flu event?
But what is even more important here is that the doctor, epidemiologist and politician in a crucial situation for the people of this country is unable - or unwilling - to see through that this graphic provides a distorted picture. A distorted picture because the essential - namely the average number of people dying - is made invisible, as the red line cuts through everything. And in fact, Mr Lauterbach actually fell for this trick when he does not recognize that this graphic shows and shows the total number of weekly deaths and instead thinks that the gray line is a particularly high number of flu deaths.
You can see further analysis of this graph and the New York City numbers in note (8) below.
But even with the second graphic that Mr. Lauterbach brought with him, it becomes apparent that he has no idea how to read such a graphic:
Here is the graphic of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (9), which shows the course of two lines over a period of three months. Both lines show the development of the number of those who died each week. Red is the multi-year average, blue is 2020 this year, with the rapid rise of the blue curve to the right of the graph.
Mr. Lauterbach explains the following about this graphic:
“This is also a common misunderstanding, I have also heard it from colleagues - from virological colleagues (!) - that it would not be reflected in the overall mortality rate at all. So that, let's say, people otherwise die of other reasons, the overall mortality does not change. "
"There are well-known scientists who say that at the end of the year the number of deaths will be roughly ..."
"Colleague Streeck even said that on one occasion, so I ..."
(mumbles and switches back to the "explanation" of the graphic):
“And here you can see how high, how fast the overall mortality rose when Covid-19 hit England. That means that if the epidemics were allowed to run, we would not only have a significant increase in overall mortality within a very short time, but also in the middle age groups, so not only among the very old. "
It's obvious: Karl Lauterbach doesn't understand this second graphic in the slightest either.
He says the graph would show how fast the Total mortality has risen. The total mortality results from the area below the line and not from the peak of the (blue) line. The blue line does not show the "total mortality" - from a year or at least a longer period - but it shows that present Mortality, the one week mortality, not 52 weeks. Nor is it about the mortality of individual age groups, as Lauterbach claims - only all cases, "all causes" are shown!
If Mr. Lauterbach really understood this graphic, he would know that these two areas have to be compared as follows (10):
And if you compare them in this way, even a “layperson” can see directly that these two areas are about the same size, even if the blue graphic on the right rises steeply. It just has less “belly” in the middle (11)!
And then what is the meaning of this comparison? The statement is exactly what Karl Lauterbach wants to discourage with his false "explanations". If these two areas are the same size, then the steep rise of the blue curve does not play a role in the long-term comparison! In this case, the high number of current deaths is distributed over a longer calculation period and "disappears" in the statistical ups and downs of a year - in this case it is only a little over three months.
Almost everything that Karl Lauterbach says about the two graphics is a wrong interpretation. The man who acts as a judge over people and experts, who wages a war of opinion against other scientists, who wipes away the example of Sweden and who also the arguments of the Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina, pushes away with the stroke of a pen, in a conversation of far-reaching importance, this man cannot properly explain two graphics that he himself brought with him - although he had enough time to study them!
On this basis, how can this man claim that there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths if the lockdown had not been enforced (12)? At the same time, this man is not ready to deal with the example of Sweden, which obviously proves the opposite!
He is fanatical of his belief - or his intention - that the state must order the shutdown if fundamental rights are abolished for a year and a half!
I recommend watching at minute 46:52 how he wants to tighten the torment screw with euphoria. What do he care about the unemployed, what do he care, the SPD politician, the millions of atypically precarious workers who are left with nothing or almost nothing, what do he care about basic democratic rights, what do he care about those people who will die sooner as a result of the measures?
The really catastrophic thing is that Lauterbach - in close collaboration with other and relevant media - manages to spread fear and panic and even to be portrayed as a competent health expert. In the meantime, Karl Lauterbach has been playing ping-pong with other "experts" and is riding the argument of the "second wave". What should we believe him when we've seen the cluelessness he displayed with these two graphics?
In the meantime, we can also see that Karl Lauterbach misrepresented things in the data from EuroMOMO, which in the latest report for the 17th week - until April 26th - for 20 European countries and also especially for Sweden, look like this, that the curves of the deceased go steeply down again:
This course of the curve, which first rises steeply and then quickly descends again, also contains the message that it cannot be a killer epidemic like the plague. Because new parts of the population are not constantly affected, regardless of their age. Otherwise the curve would have to stay at a high level and could not drop rapidly (17).
Mortality researchers give an explanation - indirectly - for example as follows. I quote in detail because this quote from 2015 is almost on the list of prohibited statements and you might be arrested in Denmark (13) if you as a normal mortal say that cold spells can also cause increased mortality:
“Mortality in a population has a regular seasonal pattern, with a higher mortality observed in the winter months than in the summer months. This seasonality of mortality is mainly caused by deaths among the elderly. This pattern can be attributed to a number of factors, including seasonal transmission of influenza and other respiratory viral infections, and increased deaths from bacterial infections, including bacterial pneumonia, and cardiovascular disease in winter. In periods of extreme cold, an increase in mortality can be observed, which can be explained by a direct effect of 'cold spells' on the risk of death, especially in the elderly and vulnerable population groups. "
Why is this quote an indication that the curve can also go steeply downwards again? Well, as “hard” as it sounds - and I say it from a statistical perspective, without wanting to injure affected relatives: Because those older people who “lived” at the end of a flu epidemic cannot die again afterwards. If any other person were affected by an epidemic disease, the epidemic would take a different course, and the course would be comparable to the plague, for example. You don't have to be a virologist to understand this!
Finally, let's come to the situation in Germany, which has nothing to do with what Mr. Lauterbach tells us. Now that we've seen him clueless about the two graphics, we won't be surprised anymore.
In order to get clear statements, it is sensible to only stick to the death rates (14) and only use simple, clear, publicly available numbers (15), numbers that cannot be subject to speculation or any substantial influence of interest. There is no doubt about the dead - and as long as the total number of dead is actually correct, we can reliably calculate with these numbers despite all attempts at manipulation.
And if you create a graph from these unequivocally established numbers, it looks like this in comparison to the 2014/15 flu wave and the average weekly number of people dying:
The number of deceased who are assigned to the coronavirus by quasi “official” bodies is only 17 percent of those who died from the flu wave of 2014/15 if you apply the EuroMOMO figures to Germany. And this number is much smaller compared to the average number of people dying each week!
The probability is high that parts of those who died “to” or “with” Covid-19 are significantly lower. Then an applicable picture could look something like this:
Here you can see clearly how "dangerous" is in the overall picture of this event, which is driving Germany into a shutdown and the lifting of basic rights. And no, Germany is by no means standing because of (16) of the measures so “good” there. This is exactly what the examples of Italy, Spain, New York and Sweden stand for!
The above examples show how clueless Karl Lauterbach is about the two graphics. We have to put this circumstance in relation to the economic threats to the existence of people on an unbelievable scale, which come about through the politically totalitarian measures!
We see that our current, already only pseudo-democratic conditions give people power without justification and control, which they can abuse against all people. Changing this is the most important conclusion to be drawn from the totalitarian panopticon that is going on before all of us.
Sources and Notes:
(1) Markus Lanz, ZDF, April 16, 2020:
(2) dipbt.bundestag.de; br.de; bundesrat.de
(3) Rubikon, Conrad Schuhler: “On a crash course” or Wirtschaftswoche from March 25, 2020: “Even economic crises can increase the death rate” - “It is important to balance the economic costs against the consequences of infection and the costs of reducing the Weighing up the infection rate. ”And Telepolis of August 30, 2012:“ Recession drives people to suicide ”.
(4) Rubikon, Jens Wernicke: "An end to the emergency regime". See also KenFM, Ernst Wolff: “Open letter to the medical profession”.
(5) This graphic was developed by Max Roser from the University of Oxford.
(6) The first thing that can't be right about the graph is the heading referring to New York State, which doesn't match the average number of people who died. New York City has approximately 8.6 million residents and a death rate of 1.176 percent. This results in a weekly number of 1,950 deceased. In New York State, the number would be roughly 3,200 deaths each week. So it must be New York City, so the heading is wrong.
(7) The curve of those who died from the flu should actually follow the ups and downs of the usual death rate. The author of the graphic does not do this, however, but relocates it to the bottom of the graphic, where it does not belong for reasons of presentation logic. Since I want to make the rate of the usual flu deaths visible, I have now arranged it "floating" above the average figure. The red line now shows the increase in the average number of deaths that is attributed to the coronavirus - regardless of whether this allocation is correct or not. The question is why Max Roser did not stick to the representation - here the entire USA - as it uses his source:
Here you can see the flu deaths as a red line and the wave movement between winter and summer mortality. There has to be food for thought when someone replaces a good graphic that provides an overview with one that puts things in the wrong light!
(8) Starting from this graph, one can go further to get information about the real conditions. It looks like this, for example: In the following I continued the curve with the numbers as announced by NYC Health:
The curve then looks like this:
We see this rapid increase in the number of those who have died. The number of deceased as of April 23, 2020 was 10,290. This number can be found in the area under this red curve:
The red area shows all 10,290 reported additional - or not additional - deaths true to scale. We are seeing a very prominent event. It remains to be seen whether all deaths can actually be attributed to the coronavirus or whether a significant number of deaths must be attributed to the indirect effects of the measures. But regardless of that - let's look at the number of deaths again in a different form - with the same red area - compared to the flu deaths and the average total number of those who died each week:
The area of the red rectangle is the same as the triangle towering upwards and again represents the 10,290 deaths. There is no doubt that an alarming number of people have died, but the classification of the number of deaths in a larger context allows us a more realistic view! And now it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that a considerable number of people only died "with" and not "from" Corona. Then the graphic can possibly also look like this:
Once again presented differently, it looks like this:
Those who have died in the last few weeks for whatever reason are largely taken from the average total number of those who died each week in this graph. There are doctors and scientists who explain it that way. I cannot say whether this is true or not. In any case, precisely this scenario cannot be ruled out!
(9) Oxford Covid-19 Evidenz Service: The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine develops, promotes and disseminates better evidence for healthcare.
(10) This is why small boxes are drawn in the graphic - methodically very correct - so that the area can also be “counted” if necessary.
(11) Yes, we do not yet know what the annual average will look like in England. But here we were talking about the three months.
(12) Karl Lauterbach on the same program: “That means, if you hadn't done the lockdown, then hundreds of thousands of people would have died in New York - in New York alone. And so the lockdown was the only option, so I'll say to avert the catastrophe. ”Compare minute 3:37
(13) Danish law against "Corona false reports"
(14) The dead have died, there is no doubt about that. That is why I have only turned to the number of those who have died. The Romans said, "Mater semper certa est", the mother (of a child) is always fixed - in contrast to the father. In the same way, we can adhere to a similar principle here: "Mortuus semper certus est". It is always clear whether someone has died. Yes, not all of the deceased can be attributed to the corona virus with certainty, but there is no uncertainty as to whether someone has died. If you were to say that there are actually more "corona deaths", you would have to take them out of the pot of the "usual" deaths, so to speak, which would not change the total number of deaths. If one were to say that there are fewer "corona deaths" than stated, it is essential to look for another explanation of "excess mortality", but in this case too there would not be more or fewer deaths - unless death certificates are forged, what I do not want to assume.
(15) I mainly counted on the graphics from EuroMOMO as a basis. I obtained the current information on the "corona deceased" from the WHO myself. The death rates come from de.statista.com and laenderdaten.de
and the population data from api.worldbank.org.
Regarding the effects of the flu waves, I have developed a model that depicts the EuroMOMO graphics and therefore enables a reliable comparison. However, it is a model and not an exact illustration of the death rates in the individual countries. However, since the 20 European countries that provide EuroMOMO with the data are part of the whole, one can speak of a model that will essentially describe the order of magnitude correctly.
And EuroMOMO has very exact figures for creating the model. There are annual reports from EuroMOMO on the “excess mortality” versus an “estimated baseline”. These extremely revealing numbers look like this:
- 2014/15 winter flu season: 43.63 deaths per 100,000 people
- 2016/17 winter flu season: 29.21 deaths per 100,000 people
- 2017/18 winter flu season: 33.80 deaths per 100,000 people
For Germany these excess mortality rates result in:
- 2014/15 winter flu season: 36,200 "additional" deaths
- 2016/17 winter flu season: 24,200 "additional" deaths
- 2017/18 winter flu season: 28,000 "additional" deaths
Literally from the reports:
"The excess all-cause mortality rate, i.e. the deviation from the estimated baseline, for the 2017/18 season was 33.8 (95 percent CI 32.8-34.9) per 100,000 population across all ages ". Translated: "The overall excess mortality rate, i. H. the deviation from the estimated baseline was 33.8 (95 percent CI 32.8-34.9) per 100,000 inhabitants of all age groups for the 2017/18 season. "
"The total excess mortality per 100,000 population across all age groups was 43.63 (95 percent CI 42.30-44.96) in 2014/15 compared to 29.21 (95 percent CI 27.97-30.45) in 2016/17". Translated: "The total excess mortality per 100,000 inhabitants in all age groups was 43.63 (95 percent CI 42.30-44.96) in 2014/15 compared to 29.21 (95 percent CI 27.97-30.45) in 2016 / 17. "
(16) I have already argued in this article why the measures cannot be (compelling) evidence that fewer so-called “Covid 19 deceased” are recorded in Germany than in other countries, where, despite the measures, many more deaths are to complain about. Prof. Homburg has proven this very logically for the question of the number of reproductions, which was below 1 even before the measures.
(17) The data from the 17th week of EuroMOMO, which are available in the meantime, show an event that is more extreme than previous flu waves. Nevertheless, the total number of those who have died so far, who are assigned to the corona virus by the WHO, is still well below the 2014/15 flu wave: The mortality rate in the 2014/15 flu wave was - as already quoted - at 4.36 people of 10,000. By April 30, 2020, the WHO had assigned 128,665 deaths to the corona virus for the 20 countries that EuroMOMO is monitoring. With 434,355,713 inhabitants in these 20 countries, this results in a death rate of 2.96 out of 10,000 people, which is significantly less than 4.36! While in Sweden 2.4 people out of 10,000 died, in Italy it was 4.6, in Spain 5.2, in France 3.6, in England 3.9 and in Belgium 6.6. All countries mentioned except Sweden worked with lockdown and school closings! The explanation for why the peak of the curve can rise very high, but the mortality rate can still be lower than in the 2014/15 flu wave, is this: If the curve drops again quickly, the area under the curve may be smaller than at a curve that doesn't rise that high, but is wider.
Bertram Burian, Born in 1954, was a teacher and interim director at a Vienna New Middle School. He completed a university degree in political education, worked as an inventor for many years and got to know Marxism as a young man in the late 1968. He says: The question is not whether Karl Marx or Karl Popper were right - they were both right and wrong at the same time. In fact, it is about everyone's good life as part of an intact biosphere. That also means that we need a new economy and, above all, must aim for the good of the 99 percent.
- Pokemon y how do you get past the connecting cave
- Where to find Heracross Heart Gold
- How many people died in quicksand
- How to draw misaki tokura rule34
- What are crucial capsules used for?
- Diesel dz7206 what kind of battery
- What is P&L Responsibility Definition
- What is Naftin 1 Gel used for?
- Big Hyaene against Loewe, who would win
- Cbeebies birthday cards, how to make
- Xenoblade Quest, which means courage
- Steve Carell owns what she said
- What is a R6P AA battery
- Dentist 49738 is in what county
- What is dopamine antagonist
- Usns Howard Lorenzen Drive
- How to undermine a relationship test
- Yung hod who you
- How to invest in oil sources
- Natalie Howard met the hay expression
- What is art definition essay on family
- What are hydrochromic materials used for?
- How To Hard Reset Kata T2 Tablet
- How to open jnlp extensions