You can accurately predict the death toll from the number of infections, so the death data has been double verified and is as close to bang on accurate as can be.
You’re dismissing valid data because you don’t believe it to be accurate, however it is very accurate and has been for some time now.
You can disbelieve it if you wish however that is just pure ignorance on your part, and it doesn’t affect the truth of the matter that it is and incredibly deadly disease.
If you can provide any reasons that can be validated as to why I shouldn’t believe the data, feel free to provide it.
You’re dismissing valid data because you don’t believe it to be accurate, however it is very accurate and has been for some time now.
You can disbelieve it if you wish however that is just pure ignorance on your part, and it doesn’t affect the truth of the matter that it is and incredibly deadly disease.
Science is not an institution. There is no faith in science, stop trying to make a religion out of it. The data you gave me shows that there is no pandemic, you chose to interpret it to fit your beliefs.
You do know what the words epidemic and pandemic mean, right?
I never said it was.
The global data clearly shows clear evidence of a pandemic, one that literally doubled the death rate of the UK at its peak.
Yes I’m aware of the difference, are you going to make a point about that or just dance around it like a panzy ass fairy?
Yes I’m aware of the difference
No, what is the definition of those words. You say that there is a pandemic when there is no pandemic. It tells me you don't know their definition.
(post is archived)