Whilst it's true that 6% of deaths occurred with no known auxiliary cause, that doesn't, whatsoever make the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" true, by any measure.
It's not a slam dunk like people are trying to pass it off as with this intellectually dishonest game of semantics.
If a person dies of the flu, but they were hypertensive, they likely wouldn't have been in a hypertensive crisis, statistically speaking, had they not encountered the flu.
I'm all for getting to the bottom of the true, but you don't fight semantics and fallacies with semantics and fallacies. You fight that bullshit with truth and this is not truth.
I have had similar concerns, and here is how I reconcile it:
I believe the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" is true, the issue for me is "by how much". If someone dies with co-morbidities, how does it affect the count? Do you get to cherry-pick which co-morbidity to count it against?
In your example, if someone were not hypertensive, would they have died of the flue? It is less likely. So hypertension is clearly a contributor. Shouldn't it be included in some count?
But we are dealing in meme warfare here, not intellectual debate. The point needs to be made quickly, as a way to spark discussion.
It is more of a headline, closer to the truth than the official numbers.
I agree with your sentiment, especially when people try to argue that the 6% of the cases were the only cases that should have been counted.
Whether they should’ve been counter or not is a worthy debate but it definitely goes to the threat to the perfectly healthy population. Because this all went undefined in their numbers it was used as a fear tactic to drive their agenda. True honest reporting would’ve again made this a much less severe panic driven flu. The inflated numbers in deaths and positives due to the shady testing all point to an agenda. Couple that with the hysterical push for the vaccine and and any thinking person would suspect foul play.
Let's assume Covid19 exists in its true form...
Whilst it's true that 6% of deaths occurred with no known auxiliary cause, that doesn't, whatsoever make the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" true, by any measure.
It's not a slam dunk like people are trying to pass it off as with this intellectually dishonest game of semantics.
If a person dies of the flu, but they were hypertensive, they likely wouldn't have been in a hypertensive crisis, statistically speaking, had they not encountered the flu.
I'm all for getting to the bottom of the true, but you don't fight semantics and fallacies with semantics and fallacies. You fight that bullshit with truth and this is not truth.
I have had similar concerns, and here is how I reconcile it:
I believe the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" is true, the issue for me is "by how much". If someone dies with co-morbidities, how does it affect the count? Do you get to cherry-pick which co-morbidity to count it against?
In your example, if someone were not hypertensive, would they have died of the flue? It is less likely. So hypertension is clearly a contributor. Shouldn't it be included in some count?
But we are dealing in meme warfare here, not intellectual debate. The point needs to be made quickly, as a way to spark discussion.
It is more of a headline, closer to the truth than the official numbers.
I agree with your sentiment, especially when people try to argue that the 6% of the cases were the only cases that should have been counted.
Whether they should’ve been counter or not is a worthy debate but it definitely goes to the threat to the perfectly healthy population. Because this all went undefined in their numbers it was used as a fear tactic to drive their agenda. True honest reporting would’ve again made this a much less severe panic driven flu. The inflated numbers in deaths and positives due to the shady testing all point to an agenda. Couple that with the hysterical push for the vaccine and and any thinking person would suspect foul play.