mhaze,

It’s not about "parsing" a word like "seemingly" or "inherent" to change the meaning of the article; it’s about understanding the nuance and the context of what’s being said in the article.

It's laughable, too, that you think my entire argument has been reduced to that this when every other one of my arguments remains intact. We can revisit any one of then you like, if you don't believe me.

It seems it's a tactic of yours to ignore nuance when it's convenient to you, then accuse others of "parsing" when they point it out. It also appears that when you're defeated, you focus only on your opponent's last point, forget every other point of theirs (all of which still stand, in this case), and then act as if they've been reduced to nitpicking over that one point that you've chosen to focus on.

Then declare yourself the winner, of course.

The BMJ article doesn’t provide the support for your interpretation that you think it does, and that’s why the details matter.

//And getting the numbers all wrong as JD did above, was also a well known SR trait.//

Where are my numbers wrong? (Obviously I won't be holding my breath for an answer on that one.)

" In contrast, Covid-19 caused over 14,000 deaths in Australia as of August 2024 ." ..... JD

"In Australia since the start of the pandemic to the end of 2023, 22,315 people have died from or with COVID-19" http://tiny.cc/3g9jzz

Predicted excuse:

1. Typo
2. 22K is greater than 14K

mhaze,

My apologies there. It appears I downplayed the difference in the flu and covid death rates with my figure of 14,000. You’re right: the difference in death rates between the flu and covid was indeed 22,315 by the end of 2023.

Of course, that doesn’t exactly help your case, does it?

Not even where Sweden is concerned. Sweden has less than half our population and still had a higher number of deaths (approximately 24,000).

Given you were willing to shoot yourself in the foot just to provide me with an incorrect figure, I’m guessing you don’t have any others to cite.

//Predicted excuse: … 2. 22K is greater than 14K//

Well, it’s not exactly an “excuse” when there’s nothing that needs excusing now, is it?

Somewhere in there there's an acceptance that he got the figures wrong.

"Not even where Sweden is concerned. Sweden has less than half our population and still had a higher number of deaths (approximately 24,000)."

You still don't understand why countries should be compared on excess deaths rates rather than declared covid deaths. Little wonder you misunderstood my original post and so many of the links I provide.

If you're interested, go back to some of the previous threads on this where I explained the issue to people like SR.

Mhaze,

Yes, I got the figure wrong, and since the error didn’t help my case, I take it your point in highlighting it isn’t to paint me as dishonest. I can therefore only assume that your goal is to make me look unreliable. But not even that’s going to get you far given you had to shoot yourself in the foot just to do it.

I suppose it’s a case of “Well, if I’m going down, then you’re at least coming with me.” Is that it?

//You still don't understand why countries should be compared on excess deaths rates rather than declared covid deaths.//

What do you mean by still? I’ve mentioned excess deaths here. (It appears your tactic now is to make it look like I haven’t been understanding you.)

More to the point, excess deaths STILL don’t help your cause. In fact, they again make it even worse for you (again):

Australia: 337 excess deaths per million people.
Sweden: 1,500 excess deaths per million people.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths

There goes the other foot!

"Australia: 337 excess deaths per million people.
Sweden: 1,500 excess deaths per million people."

Your link doesn't mention any such numbers. Doesn't even mention excess deaths.

"1,500 excess deaths per million people"

Exactly 1500? What are the chances? Or just fabricated?