hans_munich said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Happy to go further on any of that.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

One thing that is still open after hans_munich’s answer:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.