>>13632459>People like you have a tremendous need to simplify and shift goalposts to suit your confirmation bias. Of course you need to muddy the waters if the data simply shows that your solution does not work.
>and you claimed - incredibly wrongly - that Sweden did better than lockdown countries by Australia.No, can you even read? I claimed that "population density" is incredibly retarded measure because people don't live in Lappland/Greenland/Australian deserts. That's it, Australian exponent is fully unrelated to that.
> Like now, your line of reasoning is that because the year on year change in deaths - which is the number from all deaths not just covid - is somewhat similar, so lockdowns have effect. That's separate matter too, but sure: Swedish "apocalypse" turned out to be business as usual in the country you praise.
> It's quite obvious you're just trying to comb through noisy data, assume there's no noise and go, "hah, see?"It's you who argues for the absolutely grotesque measures, so it's you who should prove your point beyond any reasonable doubt. But in fact the opposite point is being proven.
>A confirmation bias is not a fallacy. Its a psychological bias which leads people to consume only information that supports their beliefs.Correct, and that 100% perfect description of covidists.
>compared to properly executed lockdown countries.No true scotsman fallacy. "Lockdowns work, and if they don't (in most of the cases), they are not properly executed". If your medicine "works" in tiny minority of the cases, then it doesn't work.
>TexasCompared to New York or New Jersey?
>JapanYou mean country with lax lockdowns and lax vaxx?
>UK and ItalyYou mean countries with harsh lockdowns and harsh vaxxing?
You can't even cherrypick to support your cause.
