DebRD_ATL said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at DebRD_ATL’s question from a different direction. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

One thing that is still open after DebRD_ATL’s answer:

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

Dr.RaviCardio said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.