I understand it just fine thank you.
1. There's nothing wrong with my numbers, slow down and absorb the words. I mentioned flu and RSV in response to another poster, it was certainly not intended as an in-depth all-encompassing analysis.
2. Of course not, but rather than rely on gut feel or opinion, I'm looking at the big picture using excess deaths, which you're avoiding like the plague. You're getting sidetracked, the whole "argument" is determining if "with" covid deaths are 40% or that covid deaths are 40% over-reported. There are 1.2 million excess deaths with one million covid deaths, so the burden of proof is on you to explain 600k deaths to something other than covid. We know that a relatively small number of those are overdoses and suicides, we know that cancer deaths will show up over years, and we know that covid killed many that were already close to the end of their lives. That pretty much leaves heart-related deaths as the remaining major killer. The tracking of excess deaths tracks covid cases and deaths amazingly well, why do you ignore that? Common sense tells you that deadly heart issues and hospitalizations would not show up quickly and in large numbers, except due to covid, while neatly tracking the peaks and valleys of covid cases and deaths. Your theory that we have 100's of thousands of heart-only excess hospitalizations because our "entire way of life changed" is ludicrous and death certificate data doesn't support it either.
Yes, our way of life changed, but to the extent that it killed an extra 600k is simply your egotistical hard-headed opinion which is certainly not supported by science or facts. You're the one not being honest here and ignoring the best facts available.
1. You mentioned 3 years of covid and excess deaths data the sentence after and directly compared it to 1 average year of flu/RSV data in post #8993 of this thread.
Additionally in that post you seem to say that 30% to 40% of either 1.2 million or 1 million (your writing is not particularly clear as to which number you are applying the percentage) is 500-600k. So even basic math appears to be a challenge for you.
2. No scientist worth their salt would assume excess deaths are due only to covid deaths simply because those 2 values are only off by 20% while simultaneously ignoring the top all cause death categories and assuming those variables are constant and do not contribute to excess deaths. You are trying to fit data by making clearly incorrect assumptions to engineer your desired result. That isn't science, that's advocacy, it's intentional systematic error.
A. Why do you assume that heart disease only shows up due to covid when we
i. Changed normal life and routines keeping workers and students home
ii. Shut down Gyms and other normal outlets for exercise, social interactions, and we'll being
iii. For a couple of years, stopped checking for heart disease and discouraged to outright rejected those experiencing heart disease symptoms from seeking medical evaluation and care
iv. The average weight gain for US adults was 29 lbs significantly changing their heart disease risk
B. Why do you ignore cancer assuming that all cancers are slow and those not diagnosed during the covid-only medical era were all going to be caught in the earliest stages? There are most certainly a significant number of excess cancer deaths in the 2020 and 2021 data due to pausing regular cancer screenings particularly for those that would have fast developing cancers or that would not have been early stage diagnoses.
C. Why do you basically throw out all other all cause death categories as if those not #1 or #2 in leading causes do not sum to an appreciable number?
Look, you came to your conclusion and then went back to make invalid assumptions to best fit your data to within 20% error. Outside of climate "scientists" that is not how science is done.
And there is no burden of proof for anyone to prove some exact number of other cause deaths to prove that your pseudoscience is wrong. Your methods are amateurish and would be rejected at a high school science fair. No one has to use your method and show where it doesn't add up. You started at the desired result and worked backwards. Maybe that's what they do in politics or sales but not in science.