> Correlation, not causation. The logic you used is the reason the SpuriousCorrelations website exists.

To declare that a correlation is spurious with no evidence is far worse than saying that a correlation might indicate a relationship. Even saying something is a confounding issue implies there's a relationship to be confounded (not that Palo Alto is typical of anywhere.)

And "the pressures of modern life," "struggles with meaning," generic "mental health issues," and "stubbornness against seeking help?" Are those supposed to be unrelated to loneliness, too? Is access to "deadly knowledge" a real or new problem?