[jryhjythtr]

Why not? It's the most efficient way I could think of, to display the sheer quantity, timeline, and content of the "Covid predictions" that we were shown in the UK. They are easily clickable, to show the original context (typically a news story or press release). You'll also note that practically all of them extend for at least 6 months.

Also, you "asked for some". There they are - there's a lot of them.

[hamburglar]

Well to be frank I clicked a handful of them and got tired of trying to decipher graphs that didn’t end up supporting this claim.

[jryhjythtr]

Reminding ourselves that you asked to be "pointed to some (graphs predicting more than 6 months)":

It is not clear when the image in first result was published, but given that it includes error bars for dates from March 2020 onwards, I would assume this is the result of modelling performed earlier than March 2020. It covers until October 2020.

Result number two is a direct link to this paper:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-res...

It was published in March 2020, and predicts data till March 2021

Result number three is a direct link to this news story (with an ironic headline, given result number 4 below):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334

It was published in November 2020, and predicts data until July 2021

Result number four is a direct link to this news story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148

It was published in July 2020, and predicts data until July 2021

This is the garbage that was fed to the UK populace on a daily basis - it was like the "modellers" had taken charge.

Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation?

[hamburglar]

> Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation?

I accept that they exist. I don't accept that we were "bombarded" with them. This is, of course, a US perspective, so perhaps your mileage may vary.