We are saying that China's numbers are less than the US because if they were fucking up at a level even close to what the US is going through the evidence would be clearly visible. You cannot hide millions of dead. You can hide the bodies, but not the holes in the population and social structure that comes from losing this many people. So far your only evidence is a report that their case numbers were higher than reported from six months ago. Have anything more recent?
There's evidence that deliveries of urns to cemeteries was substantially higher than reported death counts [1], as well as gigantic drops in active subscriber counts in China's telecom providers [2].
I also vehemently disagree "the evidence would be clearly visible". History is littered with genocides on a massive scale that were successfully covered up. We still don't know exactly how many people died in the Holocaust or Holodomor, for example (estimates vary by millions). So this claim that you cannot cover up deaths is clearly false.
It's also very likely the US is over-reporting numbers.
For example, studies have shown US death certificates have "major errors" the majority of the time [3], and several US states have counted unrelated deaths as "COVID" deaths, including Washington State (later partially corrected) [4].
I also disagree with your claim that evidence of China's data manipulation does not count because it's 'six months old', you can't wave away evidence like that.
A single claim about a delivery of urns but nothing reported after about those urns being used. They could easily have been ordered in anticipation of things going pear-shaped and then re-sold when the death rate remained stable. As for the telcom subscriber number, the very article itself posits a more rational expanation -- migrants who would normally have a second cell plan for their current work city not getting these during the economic downturn.
It looks like you are still grasping at straws and lacking evidence for the claims being made.
Actually, I provided multiple sources and you provided no counter sources beyond conjecture (like your claim that news articles become false after 6 months). You still haven't addressed the evidence backed by US intelligence, unless you're calling them into question.
You provided two small pieces of data that are each not even strong indicators of your claim let alone conclusive evidence and expect us to pat you on the head and pretend that you delivered some sort of courtroom fait accompli? I guess people are right, the standards here have dropped significantly over the past few years.
The evidence 'backed by US intelligence'? WTF are you talking about? Did you not even read the articles you provided as your 'evidence'? None of them reference US intelligence sources. One is a trade rag describing a single data point without context and the other is a mid-level conservative paper that used random twitter pull quotes to tart up a minor story being passed around the wire services.
