[tumetab1]

> I feel like those graphs quite statistically weak. What am I missing?

I think you're just missing the definition of "excess death", it's literally how much more deaths were registered against an average of the last years.

It's just a basic indicator that indicates that something has happened and further investigation is required to clarify the reasons.

If the "excess deaths" was raised because the "baby boomers" generation was dying off a further investigation would be required to identify that.

[thomasfromcdnjs]

Thanks for the reply, stats aren't my strong point, I am sincere with my questioning.

My wording sucks, I don't think my personal judgement of "excess deaths" is "correct", — nothing like that.

It just kind of feels like, as an example, people trying to predict financial markets, throw in a few factors, and a few sentiments and thus, X does equal B^(Y * B)(blah % what)(huh ^ bleh).

The "further investigation" is the "investigation" I was originally begging the question for.

Not trying to antagonize you, I just don't really get why the originally linked article is "True", until further things are investigated.

Science is one phenomena that proves itself, that's great.

Stats seems very malleable, I've met some people who are good at statistics, I've personally visually plotted graphs too, and it all kinda seems bias. (I probably did them wrong)

Can any statisticians chime in? Is this a reasonable dataset?