Your claims of "vast time series data" would be more believable if you actually linked to some of it. It's interesting how you can't suspend your credulity to

Your claims of "vast time series data" would be more believable if you actually linked to some of it. It's interesting how you can't suspend your credulity to encompass the idea that there are alternative hypotheses for excess deaths, but you are more than happy to assert the existence of "vast datasets" to defend your own opinions. Here are a few plausible alternative hypotheses that actually have substantial backing evidence, which can be obtained with trivial googling: * Excess deaths due to missed treatments (we know this is happening, e.g. for cancer) * Excess deaths due to untreated acute medical emergencies (e.g. physicians in NYC noticed the curious phenomenon of heart attacks disappearing from ERs during the height of lockdown * Excess deaths due to drug and alcohol abuse (again, we know it's happening) I'm sure there are many others worth consideration. My point is not to assert that any of these are automatically true, but that they merit consideration, and anyone who doesn't fairly consider them is probably not engaged in good-faith debate.