I was with you right up until that last sentence. It doesn't 'expose' a conspiracy or deception in the way you claim. The people that make these decisions have been hidden in the background, thinking they're the experts on everything, largely because nobody read the meaningless pap they churned out. Once thrust in to the limelight, none of them had the gumption or experience to step out of the main narrative they heard from other 'expert' panels. Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
My view is not based on anything I've seen on tv, or read in the media, it's much more direct than that, and if you think the people behind that data are bright enough to operate a conspiracy of the level and complexity you're trying to represent, you have clearly never had any experience of them. There are some that can certainly see an opportunity when it arises, and that will have been watching events for long enough, but they are reacting, not dictating or engineering the big picture. Conspiracies such as those you claim are something I have decades of experience of, and have yet to see anything meaningful that supports the sort of claims you're trying to make.
The data you make reference to to in order to support your initial post. "the funny thing is, this conclusion was obvious in march 2020, it was obvious that something was being hyped out of nothing, that nothing was out of the ordinary, that covid 19 was statistically insignificant in human mortality, that people who were at risk of dying were already at risk of dying from any previous version of coronavirus/flu the early data showed this, then they invented excess deaths and started recording everything they possibly could as covid, most of it completely unrelated, to scare the masses into bizarre behaviour alterations on a global(flat) scale this exposes that it was an agenda of deception from day 1 for ulterior motives, preying on the plebs instinct to do the "right thing" to protect granny"
Sometimes it's worth looking at the source of the data, and the methodology that underpins it, as it's not always possible to compare one data set to another, especially if you're not that experienced in data handling and statistical analysis.
Nobody really knows who they are talking to on forums like this. I've spoken to a lot of people involved in machine learning and data handling, few have actually understood the requirements for statistical analysis, as they're largely just computer bods and spreadsheet builders. That's very far removed from proper statistical analysis and data management. And that's before the expertise required for epidemiology comes in to play.
There are many misconceptions about machine learning, and they are often pushed by computer bods that don't grasp the basic issues with the data and outputs. It's usually people that don't have to deal with the consequences that think they're great, as they don't tend to have a good handle of the bigger picture and issues. Basically, IT bods should remember they are only one tool in a more complex issue, that they are unlikely to actually understand, although they rarely accept that.
Then that'd be something else you got wrong. None of which alters my initial comments, that your claims of a conspiracy are not supported by the evidence. Even an IT bod playing with machine learning should be able to work that out.
