That they have been lying can be considered established as a fact (non-controversial), but still interesting and important is what they are lying about, the numbers and/or the causes.
For NYC, an argument can be made that they lied about the numbers, and that they never actually lost (killed?) over 20,000 people in so short of a time. But what about the worldwide reporting of deaths?
Fraud is definitely there, but what is the nature of the fraud?
Are deaths being "faked" by the millions worldwide, or can we surmise -- given hard-to-fake stats like cremations up by 10% -- that the deaths are real, and just the causes are being lied about?
I agree that data transparency is something to demand from public officials, rather than something to request from them. Whistleblowers have moral high-ground here (releasing hidden data is morally correct).
Regarding that, I'll soon post about the shenanigans during the first quarter of 2020.
But if I answered the question I posed to you, then I'd choose #2 as the bigger lie.
It's not about morally correct data; it's about proof of deaths. Frequencies aren't death records. They are claims about the number of records that exist.
Fraud
Jessica,
That they have been lying can be considered established as a fact (non-controversial), but still interesting and important is what they are lying about, the numbers and/or the causes.
For NYC, an argument can be made that they lied about the numbers, and that they never actually lost (killed?) over 20,000 people in so short of a time. But what about the worldwide reporting of deaths?
Fraud is definitely there, but what is the nature of the fraud?
Are deaths being "faked" by the millions worldwide, or can we surmise -- given hard-to-fake stats like cremations up by 10% -- that the deaths are real, and just the causes are being lied about?
Exceptions prove the rules
I agree with the truth of that premise, but it doesn't answer my question.
If you had to pick and choose the nature of the largest lie, between these options, which would you pick?
1) faked excess death (no actual mortality anomaly in the COVID years)
2) true excess death, but by a cause other than what has been claimed
Faked is the wrong word, because it implies there are death certificates without decedents attached.
The real problem is that people haven't demanded proof.
They are letting numbers in spreadsheets substitute as evidence.
Every death certificate in every country should be public.
I agree that data transparency is something to demand from public officials, rather than something to request from them. Whistleblowers have moral high-ground here (releasing hidden data is morally correct).
Regarding that, I'll soon post about the shenanigans during the first quarter of 2020.
But if I answered the question I posed to you, then I'd choose #2 as the bigger lie.
It's not about morally correct data; it's about proof of deaths. Frequencies aren't death records. They are claims about the number of records that exist.