SR,

As usual we have SR using one of his myriad methods to ignore the data. He kept complaining that the data wasn't available and then when I drag him kicking and screaming to it, he decides he's not interested in it. Instead he decides he doesn't like the people who reported the data therefore he'll pretend to ignore it.

Oh, he thinks that because the data is based on other data he likes that means...well he doesn't know what it means but something.

Yes the data is based on the total number of deaths as shown in plenty of places including the site SR found. But as I've tried to explain to SR, the data is then adjusted to account for changes in population numbers, age and gender. Its this part that's bamboozled SR and so he just ignores it.

"You claimed you were talking about total figures and it turned out you were doing no such thing."

But I was talking about total figures - the total number of deaths not just the estimated number of Covid deaths. That you can't can't follow the simple logic of that is revealing.

So to recap, here's what we know:

* Sweden did very little in the way of locking down their soceity and it turns out that the number of deaths in 2020 in Sweden, after adjusting for increased population, age and gender, was lower than the average number of deaths over the previous decade ie not locking down didn't increase death rates.

* Of the 50 US states ten or so, didn't lock down their economies except for very short periods. Not only did those states not see massive increases in deaths despite not locking down, but their outcomes were better than those of states that did lock down. Indeed the places that locked down the hardest had the worst results.

* Looking at the death rates in Europe, those places that locked down the hardest also suffered the worst outcomes as against those that didn't lock down or did so for short periods.

* “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

* This is not the end of the story. Experts are advising that there will be a spike in numbers of deaths due to people failing to obtain treatments or diagnoses while societies were shuttered. Experts are advising there will be increases in deaths due to psychological damage following isolation. Experts are advising that there will be increased suicides due to people suffering financial devastation. All this will play out over the next 5 years so we won't know the full extent of the lockdown devastation for a while yet.

And that's before we even start to talk about the economic impact on the nation and future generations.

Truly the “worst public health mistake in last 100 years”...
http://disrn.com/news/stanford-medical-expert-calls-lockdowns-worst-public-health-mistake-in-last-100-years

If only we'd had some warning....http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9129

"Politicians are simple creatures and the correlation between COVID lockdown policy and electoral success is highly seductive. The prognosis for a future without lockdowns, or the ever-present threat of them, in Australia is consequently gloomy". (Someone named Phil Shannon. Don't know who he is, but he is probably right, especially about politicians being "simple creatures").

Dear mhaze,

Busily spurting ink to cover your tracks only works for squids mate.

This is what you said in your original post: “But now we are able to determine the total number of deaths in the period for each country and compare that to prior periods. Doing that shows, for example, that in Sweden, which effectively eschewed the lockdown mania, the numbers of total deaths in 2020 was lower than the average for the previous ten years.”

“total deaths”. Not age adjusted deaths, not population adjusted deaths, just total deaths. It was not lower than the average over the previous 10 years at all was it. It was higher than any of them by around 7%.

Then when you get called out on it you start flinging caveats around like confetti.

You claim: “But I was talking about total figures - the total number of deaths not just the estimated number of Covid deaths. That you can't can't follow the simple logic of that is revealing.”

No mate the figures I posted were clearly the total number of deaths yet you called them inaccurate even though they were used to inform the dodgy graph in your link.

Look, you need to give this one away. You have hoisted yourself by your own petard and pulling your pants down around your ankles while you are up there is not a good look.

Dearie me SR, you really are tiresome in your ignorance.

I posted a link accompanying my first post which clearly showed that the numbers being used were adjusted numbers. Since that was too hard for you to digest you went off and found unadjusted numbers and pretended they were relevant. Then you demanded that I give you the adjusted calculation and when I did you decided that was too complex and so ignored them. No one who had the slightest understand of this would not at the very least adjust numbers for population growth. SR doesn't adjust figures for population because he doesn't understand how it works. Also, I suspect, because he wouldn't know how to do it.

Since I can't dumb it down enough to make it plain to SR, perhaps these guys can....

http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2021/01/04/sweden-will-have-a-lower-death-rate-in-2020-than-it-had-in-2010/

From that article...

" 90,487 residents of Sweden died in 2010, when the population was 9.34 million (Google). The population today is 10.4 million (Statistics Sweden, a government agency).

The 2010 death rate applied to the 2020 population would be consistent with approximately 100,750 deaths."

We all know that SR will now find some other reason to ignore the facts - its just what he does.

In the meantime he ignores all the other data I've bought forth. I can't decide if it because he just doesn't want it to be true and can't work out how to even begin to criticise it or because its just too complex for him to comprehend.

To make it easier for him I'll summarise what that data shows....lockdowns don't work and were a monumental error.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Are you really saying that we need to go trolling through your anti-lockdown links to learn that instead of the 'total number of deaths' you had touted you were actually talking about adjusted figures?

Don't be ridiculous.

You posted stuff without really understanding it and then had to play catch up. That is fine but you need to own up to it when you do it.

Now you are going from “the numbers of total deaths in 2020 was lower than the average for the previous ten years” to quoting “The 2010 death rate applied to the 2020 population would be consistent with approximately 100,750 deaths.”

Well which is it mate? What are you going to hang your hat on this time?