> No estimation is perfect, nor expected to be, and so your criticism is unreasonable. You're doing exactly the things that you are criticising the study for, a

> No estimation is perfect, nor expected to be, and so your criticism is unreasonable. You're doing exactly the things that you are criticising the study for, and more so. You provide zero evidence to counter their sourced evidence, and ignore and dismiss points that don't match what you are trying to say. They have provided no "evidence" -- they made a model. They have provided no validation of that model, so it could be completely incorrect. Nobody knows. Furthermore, I just showed you that of the sourced evidence they did consider, they dismissed nearly everything that reduced the death rate attributable to Covid, and said it was "too dificult" to quantify. Mathematical models without prospective validation are not evidence. They are not science. They are bedtime stories.