[icedistilled]

You're confusing data with lying with statistics. See big tobacco, big oil etc.. Their statistics and data is cherry picked and portrayed deceptively. It's a big difference from good faith data. Yes, it's easy for bad actors to muddy the waters with intentionally biased and skewed data.

To equate intentionally misleading data with legitimate data and say "See data is a matter of opinion!, Why vaccinate, reduce c02, stop smoking, or anything like that!" is irresponsible.

Do you believe in vaccinations? Will you take up smoking? Can we spread lead gas fumes around your house? I'm guessing you would not be on board with those. There's a thousand more examples like that. If you aren't okay with them, then at heard you don't even agree with what you said about analysis being subjective.

[hvdfhbj]

I think this is one of those cases where everyone actually is arguing in good faith. Nobody is actually in favour of people dying, and nobody is actually in favour of imposing lockdowns just for shits and giggles.