I have commented before, from a scientific perspective, how the application of microscopic attention to scientific observations or theories that you want to reject is a common form of dishonesty; and most modern professional-researchers (self-styled 'scientists') are neither intelligent, nor competent, nor truth-seeking enough to understand this. Indeed, they are deeply-invested-in Not understanding it.
We see the inverse side of this phenomenon in relation to the birdemic (and other phenomena that the media wants us to regard as significant, common, universal - such as 'racism' or 'global warming'...).
This works by putting a microscope onto one thing, but not another; thereby psychologically amplifying one but not the other phenomenon, making it occupy grossly disproportionate attention.
Compare the birdemic with a bad influenza year, such as 2014-15 or 2017-18. A truthful, truth-seeking comparison of the death rates suggests that the birdemic and flu are not-significantly-different in dangerousness.
However; the microscope has been applied to every aspect of the birdemic, but not to flu - and this produces so much distortion that a detailed comparison is (if we are honest) impossible.
We can only say that we could not be confident that there was any significant difference in overall mortality.
However, nobody with power/ influence is interested in flu.
Nobody puts a microscope onto flu by looking for extra cases, by interviewing flu victims, by funding vast amounts of research into the 'distinctive' clinical features of (say) the 2017 strain of flu, compared with previous years.
Nobody changed the rules to insist that anyone who had previously at some point, or was probably currently suffering, flu; would be classified as having-died-from flu. Nobody prevented post mortems that might confirm a non-flu cause of death.
Nobody sent teams of reporters to the worst hospitals, mismanaging flu by providing Intensive Therapy to doomed 85 year olds with multiple pathologies - who later inevitably died, after blocking the scarce facilities for several weeks, so that potentially curable patients could not use them.
Nobody interviewed every sufferer from flu (which - as well as hospitalising and killing a vulnerable minority; also can feel absolutely horrible; and often debilitates people for several weeks) - nor did anybody list celebrities with flu.
And when the flu deaths stopped and hardly anybody was ill from it, as always happens, when the weather became warmer and sunnier and people go outside more; nobody introduced mass population testing for flu - using an unvalidated and unverifiable test that almost-certainly has (like all known screening tests) an extremely-high (but unknown, because not validated) false-positive rate when used in a non-pathological population.
Nobody then called positive (unvalidated) flu tests 'cases' - and then claimed that this meant the disease was getting worse, despite no more deaths.
Nobody pretended that the inevitable geographical and social variations in flu cases (or indeed deaths), which are known and seen for all infectious respiratory diseases. There are (nearly) always different mortality rates from infections by class, race and correlated with IQ for instance. This doesn't mean anything except that people are different, and different people are not randomly distributed.
Nobody suggested that flu needed universal +/- compulsory vaccination, nor that universal flu vaccination would be universally effective (which it never is, and cannot be).
And - most of all - nobody treated influenza outbreaks by the wholly-hypothetical methods of universal (indeed Global) lockdown and social-distancing - forever! Instead, the influenza pandemics were managed by tried and tested methods, methods that had controlled and terminated all previous respiratory viral pandemics.
But then people assumed that the birdemic was different-from all previous respiratory viral pandemics such as flu...
But why did they assume this? Oh yes; because a microscope was applied to the birdemic, from the very beginning (or maybe before it had really begun); which (from the beginning) totally distorted perception and warped judgment, and led to unprecedented chronic, monomaniacal panic...
But why was the microscope applied to the birdemic in the first place - when there was Never anything to suggest it was significantly different from any other bad flu year?
That is the proper question - and the answer is known.
However, if you haven't already seen all this - and don't already know the real reason for the birdemic from your own direct personal experience; then there is no point in my writing any of this; nor of you reading it.
Because you are incapable of learning.