With reference to original claim, which I sent a link that might be a reference for that, and which you suggested was flimsy, your graph shows overall deaths over (for some reason?) 53 weeks and across several years. How can you ascertain from that graph that 50000 deaths from flu did not occur? Obviously there is a spike in 2020, but considering that the overall deaths coves the whole year, and flu may be present for maybe a good six months of that, it seems it might be in line.. Interesting t that the bmj article only cites dm as providing the faulty claim, whereas the first one I found was independent . Not that one is any better than the other but possibly more respected than the other! From other references I've read for that year best estimates from medical circles hovered around 28000 deaths attributed to flu, and higher back in 2014. But either way, hard to pin down because no one seemed to really care. Perhaps the numbers of people dying as a result of that virus have always been high.
Anyway, just commenting on data and data sets. Not interested in argument. The data shows what it shows and nothing more or less. Anything else we glean from it is either by design (of the statistical layout) or desire (of our previous opinion). All we can say for certain (assuming data is correct, because we should be certain about anythjng) is there was a spike of deaths in March. That doesn't negate the 28000-50000 deaths from flu, I would hope!
Or are we now saying only a few hundred people died from flu i. 2017? I knew 6 people in my sleepy little town that dies that year from it. What would be the odds of that?
Just by my ball park maths that should equate to (by average and ratio) to about 15000, not excusing the sparsity of population here compared to London or Birmingham. And.. I don't even know everyone here!
I'd say (and this was my point) confirmed cases of flu I. Previous years is not even close to all cases, because no one cared the way they do now. And the reason why estimates are higher than bmj is probably because bmj can't work in unknowns sensibly, so they leave them out. Which is fair enough, but it isn't proof of anything, and is kind of insulting to all those who lost loved ones that year..