Yes it does, demonstrably so.
Maybe if you didn't talk out your ass, you might have a point. You've posted 0 informative information in this whole thread though. Now that all your data has been exposed as fraudulent, you only have vague nonsense to hold on to. That California has done better than Florida at every time frame you want to look at should be you re-evaluating your position. Instead that fact doesn't count any more because of numbers you can't provide and would be fake anyway even if you did.
If you didn't fight strawmen all day, you might realize what's being argued here. What *you* posted is not only fraudulent, but was stupid on it's face even if they used correct numbers. Your pseudoscience websites were the only ones that ever "adjusted for age" by just erasing deaths. That you can recognize that these websites lied to you, and you will still defend them for some silly reason. And you've turned it into a crusade because you have categorically failed to recognize why the math presented was wrong. You're not some maverick defying mainstream opinion, you're just grossly and aggressively uninformed.
No, no it does not, it's literally an objective fact you're arguing against.
Florida has done above average when adjusted for age. A place like California just wasn't supposed to merely do better than Florida, Florida was supposed to be a post-apocalyptic hellscape because they didn't listen to Fauci.
Cost-benefit analysis of school closures JUST for the Spring 2020 (not for 18 whole fucking months).
This decision analytical model estimates the potential years of life lost among US primary school–aged children associated with school closures during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
jamanetwork.com
Increase in the gap in education between by race and economic status. I thought you were for policy that does literally the opposite?
Younger students experienced some of the biggest declines.
www.chalkbeat.org
Closing school for 18 months is perhaps the greatest tragedy of the covid pandemic. I've yet to see a single cost-benefit analysis on lockdowns that puts their benefits ahead of their costs. Where's your sources?
I don't strawman. You literally said weighing numbers is stupid, I merely have asked for proof on why that's stupid. The equation was not erasing deaths, it was weighing them. You better get on the horn to the CDC that adjusting for age is stupid...
This report describes COVID-19 death rates by race and ethnicity how disparities decreased among most racial/ethnic groups from 2020 to 2021.
www.cdc.gov
No, because I don't have access to an alternate reality. And neither do you. So we should treat it like the novel disease it is.
"Why didn't states just spend hundreds of billions of dollars and a decade of time overhauling hvac systems in every public and commercial building instead?"
See, states probably focused on masks and social distancing and quarantines because states focusing on years long massive overhauls to basic building design and expensive hvac systems would've still been in its starting phase.
The CDC has those numbers... It's not an alternate reality. How many people are getting hospitalized and dying that had prior covid or vaccination? You think we don't have these records? The CDC has data by age for just boosters. Funny thing is they only released the data for age groups over 50 because most likely boosters don't do shit for those under 50 (as data from other countries has already shown). They literally have the data and won't release it. They also have the data for suicides after Jan 2021 but also won't release it.
Uhh.. what about literally just opening windows? We where told to wash hands that did nothing, but opening windows that helps A LOT was not communicated. One of my friends that's a teacher, their school principle literally instructed them to not open windows and not run a fan (so the air didn't travel around the room, that was his logic), no fucking joke.
How long was Spanish Flu around? Please express the answer as a proportion of the timeframe that Influenza has been around.
I don't feel like looking that up because I know if you use the same time frame as covid, the Spanish flu killed far far more and it's not even close.
The Spanish Flu pandemic ran from 1918 to 1920 and it’s death toll is accepted but not fully confirmed to be 50million people, with an unconfirmed infection foot print of 500million people - a third of the global population of the day.
I’ll let you decide what myriad of factors in the early 1900s would have left so many vulnerable to the disease.
One of the most important factors to the Spanish flu is that it preyed on the young while covid preys on the old. Protecting the young is a lot harder because the young are the workers that keep basic goods and services available, and were fighting in a world war at the time.
