Fraud or progressive insight? In any case: falsification of history.

25 Comments

1. 

   Michael Sirk on 01/05/2022 at 10:41

   Thank you for this information. This is indeed disturbing.
   Two questions;
   Is there a place where I can find the old values to download?
   I think it determined the expected values and the margin of uncertainty over the last five previous years. Have they taken the 2020s into account to determine the expected and uncertainty margin?

   1

   Reply
   1. 

      Anton on 01/05/2022 at 11:29

      I don't know exactly; the old values can probably still be downloaded from CBS. In their weekly report, they are still working with that in any case.
      Only on the corona dashboard are other margins. Willfulness or misunderstanding? Do they really come from CBS? So why does CBS use two standards? Or does the Ministry process cbs input? I don't know.

      Reply
2. 

   John on 01/05/2022 at 11:47

   increased, from 2,695 to 2,697.

   I think 2 people per week is 104 per year instead of 730 per year?

   Reply
   1. 

      Anton on 01/05/2022 at 12:02

      I have now removed that paragraph and that 104 is only correct if there is excess mortality every week.

      Reply
3. 

   Jala on 01/05/2022 at 13:04

   What worries me most is that we as citizens seem to be trapped, anyway another "Covid" variant will emerge and we will be stuck with pointless and imposed restrictions again this fall and probably winter without being able to counterbalance it let alone refuse it due to sanctions/fines/loss of work & income. Meanwhile, the digital passport is already ready with the QR and we lose our freedom to vaccination obligation and other checks on everything we do digitally, such as banking and our mobile phone. Thank you very much for all the information, clarifications and explanations! If you can make this so clear to someone like me on a site, why doesn't this happen en masse and a government/mismanagement like this is not just denounced and stopped. this should not be allowed in a democratic country like the Netherlands! I think the whole tax system is already criminal when it comes to inheritance from your parental home and your own accumulated savings, but this is really unheard of literally and figuratively and it scares me a lot 🙁

   2

   Reply
   1. 

      Sander on 01/05/2022 at 23:01

      Hi Jala, I already mentioned it here but here is a link to an interview from 2006. Yes I know it takes a long time that interview, maybe first watch from the 56th minute or so. But actually it is a nice story anyway. The link starts the interview with the question about (mandatory) vaccination Greeting v. Sander
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcKIBgg-eQM&t=3589s

      1

      Reply
4. 

   Hans on 01/05/2022 at 14:35

   I have to say that, unfortunately, we no longer seem to be dealing with competent 'authorities' but with competent authorities. And where the authority falls away, grumbling and opposition will automatically undermine the power exercised. The government and its agencies always lose in this way; the only question is: how long this tampering can be seen ?..

   2

   Reply
5. 

   Susanna on 01/05/2022 at 14:41

   Thank you for this clear explanation.
   I hope that you and others (Maurice, EG, Maarten vd Berg, Daniel vd Tuin, Auke, etc, etc) download the original data and keep it very well.
   One day all this fraud and polishing will come to light and then the 'real' data will be needed again.

   In the meantime, I will continue to inform people and I hope that in the autumn, when of course respiratory viruses are circulating again, an even larger group of people will say: cabinet it is time for you to stop with pointless measures and even better, get on with it. We no longer participate in it.

   2

   Reply
6. 

   Sander on 01/05/2022 at 15:02

   Dear Anton, what a story again. Father government takes good care of us. Go back to sleep there is nothing wrong, the government tells us. Yes yes...
   Well it fits nicely with a book I'm reading now, by Marcel Messing. Title is "Are We Waking Up?" In an interview around that book in 2006, he already mentions that in order to achieve a new world order, the most logical step is to declare a pandemic at some point, sow fear and then roll out a global vaccination program. Incidentally, he also mentions other measures such as far-reaching electronic surveillance and restrictions on civil rights, etc. Mmm... already expressed in 2006... Brrrr Hotels

   2

   Reply
7. 

   Cees on 01/05/2022 at 15:50

   Bizarre weather. But.... surely they can't hide this in the total number of deaths per year? So how does 2021 compare to other years? We know the number of people who have formally died from or with Covid. That way you have to see the pattern, right? Only annoying (for us then) that the data are only known at the end of the year.

   2

   Reply
8. 

   Rienus Hotels on 01/05/2022 at 19:18

   I suspect that very soon all criticism and comments will be branded as misinformation by anyone. The logical next step is that your European Digital Pass will not only be linked to your health status, income and travel. Think of logging in to the computer so that everything you eat out can be assessed.
   By the way, I would like to thank you for the work and the way in which it is effectively made clear.

   Fraud seems to be increasingly leading where an unsuspecting citizen expects everything to be fine. In the link a glimpse into the way in which people are politically busy with each other:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2eAsoVYNho

   2

   Reply
9. 

   Ed on 01/05/2022 at 22:45

   All well and good, but you can't just increase the margins of what is normal for weekly mortality at will, without violating the laws of statistics!

   There is a certain chance of a member of the Dutch population dying within a certain week. That probability can be described by means of a Poisson distribution. For the non-statisticians among us: take a look at Wikipedia, there this is well explained.

   The expectation value of this probability distribution is around 3000. In a Poisson distribution, the value of the variance is also then 3000, and the standard deviation sigma is then the square root of 3000, which is about 55.

   If CBS has so far used a margin of 188, that is not unreasonable. That is more than 3 times sigma. In statistics, it is customary to speak of a significant deviation. (Actually already at 2 times sigma).

   And now that margin has been increased by CBS to 500, which is 9 sigmas !!

   We are talking about the Central Bureau of Statistics, aren't we? You can assume that there are people working there who work something like statistics? Then I can well imagine that it is now war with the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Because as a statistician you can't let this go over your side.

   Suppose you let this pass, how do you as a statistician at any time (because that moment comes !) still explain this ??

   Again – because we have already experienced it several times – data is being misused for political purposes.

   2

   Reply
   1. 

      Anton on 01/05/2022 at 22:56

      CBS still uses the old standard, just look at the weekly reports. The corona dashboard is on the website of the national government and there the graphs have been adjusted, while the explanation states that it is all CBS material. So that's... Well, not correct. It goes like with the face masks and the one and a half meters: It is not substantiated, it is not correct, there may even be opposition from CBS now – but the ministry just rams on.

      Reply
10. 

    Neeltje Vermeulen on 02/05/2022 at 17:36

    Hi Anton, I myself started looking for clues in the code and I found this:
    https://github.com/minvws/nl-covid19-data-backend-processing/blob/master/main/sql/data/CBS_Verwacht_Aantal_Overledenen_2020_2012.csv
    On 16 April 2021, the figures for the expected mortality, with margins, were included. So here are the 'alternative' margins already, even before the excess mortality peaks have occurred, to which Omtzigt responded.

    This does not mean that there is no harm in the sense, but it does mean that there was already an alternative determination of the excess mortality limit roaming around the corona dashboard team.

    The file with the 'alternative' margins is most likely manual work: the margins save 1 with the values that are now in the graph, so probably a rounding error. Furthermore, there is a clear typo in the file name: 2012 must of course be 2021.

    My guess is that there is backend code that converts the cbs data into a format that can be used in the frontend (in the code of the frontend you can only see that they expect integers from the backend).
    Something clearly happened in December. Maybe a backend developer just thought to fix a mistake in a calculation by doing the calculation itself, just as happened for this file, not knowing that that's not the right calculation.

    2

    Reply
    1. 

       Anton on 02/05/2022 at 20:22

       Interesting!
       Only: this file of 16 April 2021 contains mortality data up to week 52 of 2021. It seems to me to be test data. But I'm going to compare anyway. Thanks!

       Reply
11. 

    French Moon on 03/05/2022 at 19:22

    Whatever else comes out, Anton: it's great that you stay alert to this!

    2

    Reply
    1. 

       Anton on 03/05/2022 at 19:37

       Thanks Frans. Something has come out: the corona dashboard has been corrected, van Haga is going to ask parliamentary questions about this. If a thief puts something back after a hot act, is everything OK again?

       Reply
       1. 

          French Moon on 03/05/2022 at 20:03

          Are they desperate? That's what I think when they do something so transparent...

          1

          Reply
12. 

    Anton on 03/05/2022 at 19:38

    For everyone who receives notifications on this post: the corona dashboard has been corrected, Van Haga will ask parliamentary questions about this.
    Because if a thief puts something back after a hot act, is everything OK again?

    1

    Reply
    1. 

       Theo Jansen on 04/05/2022 at 11:20

       But if I unintentionally forget to pay for something in the supermarket, brand it at home and then go back to the supermarket to pay for it. Am I a thief?
       Or in this case: if the erroneous information was posted without bad intentions and now corrected, is that culpable? I don't see those bad intentions so quickly, because by publishing a smaller excess mortality, the government has presented the problem as smaller than it is.

       2

       Reply
       1. 

          Anton on 04/05/2022 at 12:12

          You don't notice it at home, you get caught, and it's not the first time you've tried something like this. That feels different.

          Reply
       2. 

          Theo Jansen on 04/05/2022 at 12:43

          But why then propose the excess mortality smaller? I see here more of a human error than a big 'conspiracy'.

          Reply
13. 

    Hans on 04/05/2022 at 12:47

    Human error is normal, but not if it gives the desired outcome. Would the mistake have been made so easily if it had come out that a giant overstefte would have taken place ??

    1

    Reply
    1. 

       Sander on 04/05/2022 at 13:02

       Hi Hans, the point is that they prefer to keep the excess mortality small. Because then a) the vaccine has worked well and/or b) there are few excess mortality problems as a result of possible side effects of the vaccine. So.. on the contrary, it is very useful in the stall to show the excess mortality lower than really, especially since critical (but unanswered) questions about excess mortality as a possible result of side effects have been on the table for quite some time, also in the Chamber. This error is unfortunately a bit a la caught with the fingers in the cookie jar.

       Reply
       1. 

          Sander on 04/05/2022 at 13:03

          Excuse Hans I should have started with hi Theo. With this: hi Theo see my comment above!

          Reply