Look, this is why governments can so easily whip people into a frenzy. You don’t have to fake any numbers. All you have to do is show them a little sparkline (showing real numbers) and put a fake title on the top.
I didn’t say a “life expectancy decrease” means nothing. I’m saying that that graph doesn’t show what you believe it shows. The concept of “life expectancy” is a predictor of the future, and it is therefore inherently ‘noisy’: it doesn’t have a single value, but a range of possible values. In other words, you can only describe ‘life expectancy’ in the language of probability, and a very small upward (or downward) trend across two values is not statistically meaningful.
Your own life expectancy hasn’t been altered by the fact of more old people than usual dying in 2020. The article explains this:
" This means that the values estimated above for the life expectancies in the year 2020 would apply if the mortality conditions observed in 2020, including the COVID-19 pandemic, will last for all the following years until the extinction of the cohort born in 2020."
It’s hard to tell exactly how those sparklines were computed, but I’m guessing the correct title for that chart would be something like “average age at death in 2020”.
As I pointed out earlier, you only have to go back to 2010 to find the same death rate as 2020. Accusing other people of lying, and then following that up with an hyperbolically false comparison, doesn’t help your case.
And yes, old people dying is fine. It’s what old people do. It’ll happen to me and it’ll happen to you. Getting all bent out of shape about it distracts people from the important business of living.