the figures i linked are estimates and therefore you don't know that 2018-2019 wasn't an extremely deadly flu year
lol you're the one who linked these data. By the same token if the data are unreliable then you can't use them to make the claim you were trying to make.
What kind of argumentation style is this? You assert a claim and then give a link to back it up. (>Did you consider that "last year" was an exceptionally high flu death rate year?). But when the data don't bear that out you claim that the data are unreliable and therefore my pointing out the obvious contradiction isn't valid?
Before we even continue down this rabbit hole, will you explain why you used this tactic? I am thunderstruck.
What do you want me to rely on? What do you want me to bring? Potatoes?
These data are what they are, AND you're the one who started the "according to data" game to "prove" that covid19 doesn't exist, don't forget that
1) The information you relied on to draw your conclusions aren't necessarily accurate, and 2) You used these information without considering the fact that flu death can double from a year to the next
So really, there's nothing to "lol" about on this one
Just don't link something to prove your point and then claim it's an unreliable link when it shows the opposite of what you said.
Obviously that would make anyone who you're talking with think you're either not very discerning or not very honest.
What? And where did you pull your numbers of flu death to compare this year to the previous one to finally arrive at the conclusion that covid19 doesn't even exist?
Where, sherlock? Your ass?
And again, it doesn't change the fact that flu death estimates vary for one year to the next, and quite spectacularly
(post is archived)