Facts that you cherry pick, whilst ignoring bits that don't fit your narrative even if they're from the same source data. The very same source data.
Translation - I don't listen to anyone else's arguments because it doesn't fit my narrative.
As long the facts are plucked to suit your viewpoint and the common sense and logic dictates you ignore all other sources of information.
Who is my master in this scenario and where in this thread have I pointed to anything they have told me as basis for my argument?
Despite the fact that I've quoted both completely separate and your own source data back at you as evidence as to why you're not considering wider factors and yet you continue to ignore it entirely or throw back NONSENSE, YAWN, YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE BUT YOURSELF!!! Haha, if that's me struggling to debate and justify my views, and others are having the same problem - then perhaps you should look more inwards and where the problem might lie
I could if I took such a broad approach to newspaper statistics as you do, and ignore all other evidential source data - yeah, that'd be grand. But I won't, because I'm not silly enough to believe that either your side of the argument or mine can be fully justified and evidenced from newspaper snippets collated and interrogated by persons that are not in the thick of it with no expert knowledge in the field to which they're applying their 'common sense'. That would be madness.
What I'll do though is learn through critical reading, considering the evidence from all sources available to me and deciding which of those sources is reliable - from that I will take a view. At the moment my view is that a lockdown is required to control what is a widescale pandemic with particularly nasty health consequences. You take the opposite view. That's fine. The difference between you and I is that I'm prepared to alter my view; I wonder if yours will ever change, or indeed does ever change once you've made your mind up to go down a route