I understand the study’s basic methodology. It doesn’t change my point. And I don’t know that it’s never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn’t, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.
No, I’m not. Ironically, I think you are. But I’m tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to.
Maybe, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn’t actually prove it and it admits that.
It’s never going to be provable, that’s why it’s measured as excess deaths.
I understand the study’s basic methodology. It doesn’t change my point. And I don’t know that it’s never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn’t, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.
You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it.
You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths.
No, I’m not. Ironically, I think you are. But I’m tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to.
I agree with you, it’s in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched