I intentionally changed "vast" to "significant" because I suspected you'd use "vast" as a way to weasel out of answering. In my view, 75% is "vast", but that's not the point. I'll take your agreement that it's "significant".

Ditto for my wording around "relatively poor health" vs. trying to pin down a specific number of co-morbidities. As you said, "relatively poor health" can be subjective as to what it includes, but it's indisputable in the case of COVID deaths, which is all I was trying to elicit from you. I don't need to breakdown and argue about every single co-morbidity and cause of death to make the point.

I enjoy debating with you and will throw you this bone. I agree that the CDC chart I linked could be interpreted in the way you suggest or in the way I suggest or both. I read it as probably providing some of both -- i.e., co-morbidities and causes of death. I can't come up with a good reason for why the CDC would present it in that way. One of the most frustrating things to me about COVID has been the poor presentation of reliable data.

As you stated, something like "heart failure" could have been caused by COVID or not caused by COVID, so how is the data user supposed to evaluate it? Obviously, "obesity" and "dementia" are preexisting co-morbidities not caused by COVID, so why are they in a chart that also includes other health issues that could be considered as caused by COVID. "Pneumonia" could theoretically go either way -- it could have preexisted COVID or been caused by COVID.

Anyway -- thanks for the debate. Over and out.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 01/11/2022 8:20PM]