Nope, the label on the graph plainly says "US All Deaths - Weekly"
I have been looking at the FluView web site for some time. I have pulled down all of the data into my own spreadsheets and looked at it several different ways. You clearly have no clue as to even the order of magnitude of weekly flu deaths.
Had I done this chart I would have placed those source URLs at the bottom to prevent this confusion, but the author likely expected more of his readers. The weekly flu deaths in the US average close to 500 not 40,000. You are almost 2 orders of magnitude off. Perhaps you should have actually gone to the source pages provided and looked for yourself.
Or you could just stop denying that you failed to read the information provided to you and were wrong. Either or, its whatevs. We are correct and you are not.
Nope. Look at the text on the fucking graph dawg. Its right there at the top.
Nope, the label on the graph plainly says "US All Deaths - Weekly"
I have been looking at the FluView web site for some time. I have pulled down all of the data into my own spreadsheets and looked at it several different ways. You clearly have no clue as to even the order of magnitude of weekly flu deaths.
Those are simply the URL titles of sources. Now go to those and break out the data. Most weekly flu deaths closer to 500.
500 x 52 = 26,000 plus a few "hotter" months during flu season
I took a snapshot here for those with limitations preventing them from actually checking the source:
https://i.maga.host/2PEbZqt.png
Ok chief. Now look above that.
Multiple people have pointed this out to you already. The source URLs even say flu specifically.
You really need to fully read and evaluate what youre looking at. People like you are responsible for spreading misinformation.
Had I done this chart I would have placed those source URLs at the bottom to prevent this confusion, but the author likely expected more of his readers. The weekly flu deaths in the US average close to 500 not 40,000. You are almost 2 orders of magnitude off. Perhaps you should have actually gone to the source pages provided and looked for yourself.
Or you could just stop denying that you failed to read the information provided to you and were wrong. Either or, its whatevs. We are correct and you are not.