All you’ve done is passive-aggressively thrown out pedantic but simple phrases like “error margins” and “bounded uncertainty,” though only in order to imply the overall death number is true.
Hardly. I’ve instead said that even if they are off, and I agree that they are, they are not off far enough to change the arguments - there are bounds to how far off they can be - and gave a specific example of how those limits work even when overly generous with alternate interpretations.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3945874/posts?page=78#78
But your implication says nothing whatsoever about whether “covid” is what the media tells us it is.
The article isn’t about that and doesn’t discuss the number of dead *at all* - but rather whether the solutions they tell us of are based on expectations from reality, or on an untethered ‘beautiful theory’, which I contend is no longer feasibly connected to reality.