Marcus is not even close to roach, and he is merely presenting information that differs from your own opinion about the virus and it's impact.
Surely, there is some incorrect information out there, and there is also some difference of opinion regarding which information is more important - therefore conclusions reached will be different based upon which evidence is given greater weight.
Not sure if you noticed, but marcus keeps mentioning super-scary "
second wave of covid-19" like it's a proven thing that's coming to kill more and more.
That is called speculating.
Any adult reader should be able to recognize that any of us need to come to our own conclusions regarding how much weight to give to any person on the interwebs including their evidence and logic for positions that they take.
I am not saying anything new to assert that this is a fucking bitcoin related thread, so many of us are not even assessing how much knowledge or background any many of us might have in terms of making various medical or epidemiological claims.
Notably people are interested in the virus topic, even if it is NOT specifically about bitcoin, but individual members are going to choose how much to read posts about the virus and how they might relate to either bitcoin or if they happen to be interested in that particular important current event.
When it's just a hypothesis with no scientific evidence to back it up.
Now, who is exaggerating? People study these kinds of things, so yes there is science... but whether you believe the science is credible or adequately backed by facts and logic might be another question, but asserting that there is "NO" science is inaccurate.
In fact, there is some evidence for "no second wave" hypothesis:
Two months after the first peak: still nothing. No second peak.
There is rarely NO such thing as one science or absolute conclusions... Sure some sciences are harder and based on things like math, but even in the harder sciences, there can be some disagreements - maybe not about the results of 1+5, but sometimes more complicated ways of calculating can be controversial in terms of whether they yield accurate and absolute results to describe the asserted phenomenon.
In other areas of science, especially if they involve a lot of variables, including human behavior, then there are going to be a lot more areas for debate and even clearly stating the premises or the assumptions.
Therefore, more complicated theories might end up having more support on one side versus another and even sometimes the predominant theories end up getting proven to be wrong by more minor theories. .. so fair enough to proclaim that one version, speculation, theory might have more evidence and logic backing it up than some other version, speculation, theory, but sometimes with anything that is involving ongoing gathering of facts and even theories that might shed light on the facts, then the more prominent or convincing theories might evolve through time. Furthermore, some aspects of human behavior can end up changing the results, but those changed facts would not necessarily mean that the earlier theories were wrong, even if they ended up playing out in a different way based on changed behaviors.
