No I'm not. I'm presenting a very large discrepancy in the data itself. Any inference you chose to make is therefore based on inconsistent data. The choice on how to understand it is yours, I've led you to water.

Besides you need to renormalize the data based on demographic and at risk population as well as taking into account frankly several years of good fortune with regard to flu seasons and being prepared with working flu jabs ahead of time.

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just explaining how the data your using is faulty. Go away find a trusted source who can help understand the details and not just compare 2 big flat numbers that don't reflect the actual situation.

2 big numbers make for nice headlines though. Which again for agendas very well.

Ironically nobody listens to my point that we should have been innoculating at risk people as early as may 2020 when trials started, so frankly I'm not bothered with being accused of fitting an agenda. I'm not, only really to say that the politicalisation of this has distorted data and people's thinkings in a way that's needlessly cost lives. Please stop reading sensationalist numbers without understanding what it means in context.