Again and again: skeptics are not offering critiques on which reasonable minds may differ. They just don't engage this at all—and now to boot hide under the banner of "facts" and "data."
"It's all hype. The doctors are coding everything as Covid."
Sure. Fine. Again: The *total number of people dying* all across the world is way above normal, sometimes several times above. Is that a coding error?
Bergamo lost 0.4% of its entire population in estimated excess mortality, and that was with an aggressive lockdown.
Great. So you've just reinvented epicycles: It's only really awful so far because the hypothetical mechanism I've just posited permits it to only be bad there.
Sorry, but you're changing the subject. I'm not speculating about the rate. I'm talking about the number of people *already documented to have died.* How do you account for that?
It would strengthen this claim if you pointed to any epidemiology evidence from earlier outbreak regions or past pandemics. Otherwise, this is more epicycles.
You don't get to wait for RCTs to decide how to steer out of a storm. And if that's your position, then you have to say it's as likely to be worse than we think as it is to be better.
Now we're talking.
+347% Guayas, Ecuador
+299% NYC
+96% London
+161% Madrid