Klim, I get the whole deal, what I would add is that any statistic is only as good as the collection of data. All covid data isn't worth the paper or drive space it inhabits. If you've got an ACM spike then that's the whole deal. Lives were supposed to be saved by the covid response and they were lost in record numbers. A controlled cull.
I agree. But that makes it especially interesting and entertaining to take a set of data, which you know can only be doctored to support a certain narrative, and then STILL find information in it that exposes that very same narrative as false.
If that does not kill the whole COVID narrative for Canada, I don't know what does. It is immensely stupid and audacious for the government to put this out with no explanation. No Kirsch's survey can do as much damage as the government's stats do, and there is no need to look for those in any cringe places.
Yes. And that's my point: people die as expected as per established (in prior years) mortality age.
Klim, I get the whole deal, what I would add is that any statistic is only as good as the collection of data. All covid data isn't worth the paper or drive space it inhabits. If you've got an ACM spike then that's the whole deal. Lives were supposed to be saved by the covid response and they were lost in record numbers. A controlled cull.
I agree. But that makes it especially interesting and entertaining to take a set of data, which you know can only be doctored to support a certain narrative, and then STILL find information in it that exposes that very same narrative as false.
Here's an an eye popping example of such stats:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231127/t001b-eng.htm
If that does not kill the whole COVID narrative for Canada, I don't know what does. It is immensely stupid and audacious for the government to put this out with no explanation. No Kirsch's survey can do as much damage as the government's stats do, and there is no need to look for those in any cringe places.