> Is a straight up death count not enough for you? As opposed to what? And on what timescale? How can you be so absolutely sure that the numbers are what yo

> Is a straight up death count not enough for you? As opposed to what? And on what timescale? How can you be so absolutely sure that the numbers are what you think they are? That the counter-factual would have absolutely produced the death tolls you think they would? And how can you be so sure that the deaths that did happen weren't just more spread out and delayed, rather than averted? And at the end of the day, how can you be sure that suicides, and other missed medical procedures and tests won't result in greater long term deaths and suffering than would otherwise have been. In short, you're way more sure than you should be. You don't seem to have an ounce of doubt that you've assessed the situation correctly, or have been misinformed intentionally or otherwise. You have the faith of a true believer, rather than the measured skepticism of a scientist.