Yeah, and what do you read for 2017-2018? 61k (average estimate)
And what do you read at the bottom of the table?
>Estimates from the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 seasons are preliminary and may change as data are finalized.
Again
You don't know
You're betting, and it has no consequences for you, until now
You would be putting your savings on the table you would be much less keen on drawing definitive conclusions based on uncertain information
Imagine the following: You tell everybody around you covid doesn't even exist, it's a big nothing, the jews etc. And people around you are convinced. And then, one of your relatives gets it, and shit happens
...
Do you realize the implications? You aren't just going to look like a fool forever, everything EVERY CLAIM you attached to that bogus information you gave your relatives will be discarded as "yeah but that's coming from the loon who told us it was nothing"
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.
(post is archived)