Queensland Chief Medical Officer, Jeannette Young said something she wasn’t supposed to say – she said the quiet part out loud…..
“I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got covid, probably wouldn’t die. We are not in a position that I need to ask young, fit, healthy people to put their health on the line (by) getting a vaccine that could potentially significantly harm them”

So, according to the CMO, even though the risks to an 18 year old of dying from the A-Z jab are vanishingly small, they are still significantly greater than the risking of dying of the WuFlu.
This is an old person’s disease. The AVERAGE age of those who’ve died in Australia is ~85.Only 5 have been under 50 and they had co-morbidities. A healthy 18 year old is effectively safe from it.

Yet the mantra has been that we all need to be vaccinated, down to kids and even babies. Things like ‘we’re not safe until we’re all safe’ sound catchy but aren’t true. That’s why the CMO’s words were so shocking – she’d strayed from the accepted narrative. The government has lockdowned themselves into a bind where they can’t admit that the under 50s are and always have been safe. So they need to fudge it by saying they’ll be safe after receiving the unsafe jab. That message was muddied by Ms Young. She forgot what the approved message was.

So the under-50’s will dutifully line up and get a jab that they’ll be told will make them safe when in fact they were already safe. Then the government will declare that that the crisis that never existed is averted and we can go back to normal.

In the meantime the Inter-generational Report tells us that our grankids will still be paying for this lunacy in 2060.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed – and hence clamouring to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Mencken

Very interesting, and does this mean that younger people who contract the virus cannot pass it on to the vulnerable age group?

Dear mhaze,

Garbage.

She quite rightly reacted to the decisions of one of the worst PMs this country has seen.

We have had the cheapest and second least effective vaccine available inflicted on us. I certainly don't want nor expect those under 60 to have to suffer it. In Germany vaccines are on demand and you get to choose between four of them.

I seriously don't know why people aren't calling for the LNP heads to roll. What a shocker this roll out has been.

What you want is the virus to be let loose in the younger age group and you scream about the economic cost of not doing so. But here we are with lower unemployment than before the pandemic, good growth figures, and reveling in high iron ore prices because Brazil let the virus run due to its rightwing lunatic of a leader and decimated, either through illness or death, its mining workforce as a result.

Jeannette Young was right in saying that taking AstraZenica for purely medical reasons makes no sense, but young people may take it for a variety of other reasons, such as:

1) whatever reasons make them take illicit drugs, the thrill, the danger, the social status, rites-of-passage, etc.
2) in expectation to be released or exempt from restrictions and lockdowns sooner, even flying overseas.
3) employment opportunities.
4) to protect their grandparents.
5) as a national-service, risking their lives just like others of their age did in Afghanistan.

People, young and old, should have their own choices respected.
What goes on here is completely wrong: we should have been able to import our own vaccines, any vaccine, any time, we should never have to ask permission for it, not even from doctors, let alone governments.

Stupidity and incompetence continues; dud government, dud opposition. Next year the dud population will once again vote for one gang or the other. Australians are now totally committed to big government control.

Mhaze you lost the argument on the virus, now you are losing the argument on the vaccine. Those of us with a memory will recall back in March 2020 when warned Covid-19 was about to hit Australia Morrison's response was; "I'm going to the football", he's been at the football every since. The government has failed the Australian people with its shambolic vaccine roll-out.

Morrison put his head in a noose with the AstraZeneca vaccine, his strategy was not to protect the Australian people, but to win an early election. With Australia well down the list of countries administering full vaccination, and having relied on a not fit for purpose vaccine for under 60's, Morrison panicked and threw the health advice out the window in a vain attempt to make himself look good.

The best premier Queensland has ever had, certainly in modern times, Annastacia Palaszczuk called the lying Morrison out. The Queensland Chief Medical Officer, Jeannette Young then called out Morrison and his "medical" advice. All Queenslanders should give thanks to Annastacia and Jeannette for standing up to the dangerous clown Morrison.

Well, as usual the usual suspects have missed the point.

Let's see if I can make it more understandable for them.

The CMO of Queensland was saying what we all now to be true but which the powers-that-be have been trying very hard to ignore. That being that people under 50 are effectively safe from the virus. Yes they might get it but its not gunna kill 'em. Indeed, what she was saying was that a drug which could cause deadly blood clots in maybe 1 in 10 million cases is significantly more dangerous than the virus for those under 50.

Now, those of us who've followed the data have known this for a long time. But governments the world over, with a few exceptions, have assiduously ignored it and have forced those who are effectively safe from the disease to act as though they are in clear and present danger.

Governments talked themselves into a lockdown corner and universal vaccines are the only way they can get out of that corner other than just owning up that it was largely for nothing. They are prepared to force the under-50 population to take the risks of the jab rather than admit the error.

Dear mhaze,

Oh more rubbish from you.

“That being that people under 50 are effectively safe from the virus. Yes they might get it but its not gunna kill 'em.”

Tell that to the over 700 under 50s who lost their lives due to Covid in the UK in January of this year.
http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report

That was with a million recorded cases for that month so about a 1 in 1500 chance of dying from the disease.

So no she wasn't “saying was that a drug which could cause deadly blood clots in maybe 1 in 10 million cases is significantly more dangerous than the virus for those under 50”

She was essentially saying was given our situation in Australia where lockdowns have allowed a very low fatality rate through the course of the disease in this country and thus thankfully a very low mortality rate in unders 50s, why give them AZ when we have brought enough time to crank up the availability to import and distribute less problematic vaccines to that cohort.

The math is pretty simple even for people as challenged as yourself.

Out of the over 24 million doses of AZ injected thus far in the UK there have been 68 deaths linked to it. This is not insignificant at all, but compared to the potential toll of the virus (24 times 700 is 16,800 deaths), it pales in comparison.

Struth SR, this is what she said..."I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got covid, probably wouldn’t die."

Repeat "if they got covid, probably wouldn’t die."

Squirm as much as you want but she's saying what the data is saying. This virus doesn't affect healthy people under 50.

You might want the truth to be different but the data doesn't care what you want.

For crying out loud, under 50 doesn't conflate to 18 year olds.

I have placed data in front of you to show the risk from Covid is many times that of the risk from the vaccine in the under 50 group as a cohort.

That you choose to ignore them to keep bleating out the discredited line you have decided to defend come what may doesn't change that fact.

The CMO expressly mentioned the risk of blood clotting for the 18 year old and that specific example the risk of injecting the cheapest, second least effective vaccine courtesy of Scott Morrison isn't worth it and they should be advised to wait until better one is available.

But for you to keep banging on about Covid not killing under 50s when it patently does, in vastly more significant number compared to vaccine reactions, is puerile.

Get over it.

SR,

Just because she mentioned 18 yr olds as an example doesn't preclude other age groups that are equally safe.

What is it with you and your batty notions? Oh she said 18 yr olds so she doesn't include 17 yr olds or 19 yr olds?

I've shown you that only 5 people have died from the virus in Australia and all had comorbities. (on average twice that number die from falling of ladders each year). To ignore this you run off to data from the other side of the world. And that makes sense to you?

Oh I forgot.... making sense doesn't matter does it?

But again the point has passed you by. The young are safe from this virus and the CMO said that when she's supposed to stay schtum. The young and healthy are being conned into taking a vaccine against a virus that is not a danger for them. Don't believe me...believe the CMO. Or do the SR thing and just make up your own data.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Well that got a laugh.

So official data from the UK Health Ministry is made up data now?

So pray tell Dr mhaze, what do you have to say to the parents and other loved ones of the over 700 people under 50 who lost their lives to Covid in January in the UK? That they are a false statistic?

And you are quoting Australian number which are the direct result of the lockdowns you so widely condemn. Well cognitive dissidence is concerning in most people but in your case the levels are too extraordinary to take much offense at all.

You silly, silly whacker.

Do be careful SR. One of these days you might slip up & say something that is not straight out of the far left propaganda play book.

If you ever did, the shock may kill some of the less immune.

Dear Hasbeen,

How is it going old cock?

Must be good since you have decided to but in with some pearls of wisdom.

Pray tell old boy, what comment from me in any way resembles something out of the "far left propaganda play book"?

You lot carry on like pork chops about sticking to the facts and figures, but when your arguments are shown to be dross by someone quoting relevant facts and figures you call it far left propaganda.

Pretty childish stuff.

If they could get everyone in the whole entire world to just stay home for two weeks this whole thing would be over...

I wouldn't take the jab if they offered me 100k

SR,

So you have become an anti-vaxxer? Not a huge surprise! While bleating about the slow vaccine rollout you are running a scare campaign against the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The AZ vaccine was chosen by the UK for 3 main reasons:
1 it was easy to mass produce and thus far cheaper and more available
2 it could be stored in a domestic freezer and did not need -70C which enabled a wide reach of vaccination centers.
3 while it was slightly less effective than other vaccines in preventing infection it was nearly 100% effective in preventing hospitalisation or death.

The chance of developing blood clots is 1000th of the chance experienced by using oral contraceptives and as far as I know all deaths have been of persons with co morbidity issues.

SR wrote:"Well that got a laugh.

So official data from the UK Health Ministry is made up data now?"

Nowhere did I say, suggest or intimate that the UK data was made up. So, yes, it did get a laugh. But poor old SR doesn't know who's being laughed at.

The UK data has passing relevance to Australia. The facts are that in Australia 0.5% of those who died of or with the virus were under 50 and all of them had significant other health issues. SR doesn't like that data because it makes a nonsense of his assertions, so he goes searching the world to find data he prefers. But that's the way SR always works - reach the conclusion and then go looking for some data to give the conclusions a veneer of validity.

The facts are that the virus is harmless in Australia as regards healthy people under 50. The government and the authorities know this but have sought to gloss over that fact because they want to con the under-50s into getting a vaccine that will do them no real good but may be, under some currently poorly understood circumstances, dangerous. The Qld CMO screwed up by telling the truth on that and the authorities have been scrambling ever since to try to get back on narrative. Still they must be gratified that the nation is full of SR's who can't and won't look passed the propaganda to see the facts.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You write: “I wouldn't take the jab if they offered me 100k”

And I defend you right to make deeply ill-informed decisions. As long as you and others like you do not impede us achieving herd immunity I am happy to accept free-loaders like yourself profiting from the short term risk myself and others face in getting vaccinated. When the border restrictions do finally come down I think you might be singing a different tune.

Dear mhaze,

This really is getting drearily repetitive. You say:

“The facts are that the virus is harmless in Australia as regards healthy people under 50.”

What self serving tripe.

That was only achieved because of the very lockdown rules you deeply reject.

I know your line probably gets a run at your local men's shed but it is just dross.

Time to retire it.

I had written:

“Tell that to the over 700 under 50s who lost their lives due to Covid in the UK in January of this year.
http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report That was with a million recorded cases for that month so about a 1 in 1500 chance of dying from the disease.”

You attempted to retort with:

“Squirm as much as you want but she's saying what the data is saying. This virus doesn't affect healthy people under 50.
You might want the truth to be different but the data doesn't care what you want.”

I replied quite rightly:

“I have placed data in front of you to show the risk from Covid is many times that of the risk from the vaccine in the under 50 group as a cohort.”

You snipped back:

“Don't believe me...believe the CMO. Or do the SR thing and just make up your own data.”

As the only data I presented was from the UK briefing, this is indeed what you have claimed is made up.

So yes you did: “suggest or intimate that the UK data was made up”.

Grow up.

Shadowminister,

The “Estimated risk of TTS per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses (first dose) <50 years 3.1” so crudely a 1 in 30,000 chance.

http://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-does-the-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-cause-blood-clots

The pill has a risk factor of 1 in 1000.

However the fatality rate for type of clotting presented by the pill is far lower than that of the vaccine.

So yes there is a legitimate concern over this particular vaccine. Why on earth are you dismissing it? Because it shows your leader in a bad light? Well sure does.

SR,

From your link:

"There has been a link established between the AstraZeneca vaccine and a very rare but serious side effect called thrombosis in combination with thrombocytopenia. There is a very low chance of this side effect, which may occur in around 4-6 people in every million after being vaccinated." and of those that do die nearly everyone has comorbidity.

shadowminister,

The preface to the table talks about the "revised" risk.

"From early April to 16 June 2021, 60 cases of confirmed or probable TTS have been reported in Australia. This includes an additional seven cases reported in the past week in people between 50-59 years, increasing the rate in this age group from 1.9 to 2.7 per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses. The revised estimates of risk associated with first doses of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca are listed in the table below."

http://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-revised-recommendations-on-the-use-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-17-june-2021

My guess is they haven't updated the lead statement.

Hey SteeleRedux,
I'm going to repeat for yours and mhazes benefit that which I wrote on another forum thread:

"If SteeleRedux thinks that after the jab his immune system will be strengthened and make him more protected against catching the virus, and that if he does catch the virus his symptoms will be less severe;

- Then he should be able to get his jab without criticism from those who are not having it.

Likewise if mhaze thinks that the vaccine won't make any difference in protecting him from covid, and that the risks associated with the vacinne are greater than the risks associated with covid, or whatever he believes;
If he doesn't want the jab, then he too should be free to not get the jab without criticism from those who are having it.

Now, this would be great in a perfect world, but
Unfortunately we live in the real world, where no-ones free from criticism and everybody criticises everything;

So what of it?

What's the actual danger to those who do get the jab by those who don't have it?
- How are the vaccinated put at risk of harm by the unvaccinated?

And conversely
What's the actual danger to those who don't get the jab by those who do have it?
- How are the unvaccinated put at risk of harm by the vaccinated?

- I've actually heard arguments on both sides too -

Obviously the vaccinated people think we need some kind of herd immunity.
I'm not sure how they assume this really works, since these 'vaccines' don't make you immune.

On the other side I've heard that unvaccinated pregnant women who are exposed to vaccinated people can spontaneously abort, etc.
- Sounds fairly serious if true.

I haven't been keeping up on the facts.
I don't know whats true and what isn't.
- Does anyone? -

[Cont.]
"And I defend you right to make deeply ill-informed decisions."
- Thanks, I appreciate that.

"As long as you and others like you do not impede us achieving herd immunity I am happy to accept free-loaders like yourself profiting from the short term risk myself and others face in getting vaccinated. When the border restrictions do finally come down I think you might be singing a different tune."

No, that's not going to happen.
I want you to know that I don't want you to take that risk for my benefit.
Personally, I'd be quite happy if everyone said no.
To unsafe and untested vaccines.

If the stuff I've heard about spontaneous abortions and disrupted menstrual cycles are true, than the vaccinated present just as much a risk if not more to the unvaccinated.

You're worried about protecting yourself against the virus, you're older and your immune system is not as resilient as younger people,
I understand and appreciate your position.

But what if you getting vaccinated causes some other person to spontaneously abort and lose a life still in the womb?

Ultimately I just want you to understand other peoples arguments and positions.

My girlfriend watches the pressers religiously.
She's not planning on getting it either, as she has concerns in regards to her allergies.
She thinks it's all going to end up in a battle between the vaccinated V's the unvaccinated.

Given your sentiments about achieving herd immunity and what might happen if people with vaccine hesitancy make the nation fall short of the 80% target, she might be right.
I guess well find out soon.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You wrote: "Personally, I'd be quite happy if everyone said no.
To unsafe and untested vaccines."

Untested? Are you serious?

So many countries have gone before Australia resulting in millions upon millions of people being our test subjects. This has exposed issues like a small risk of blood clotting.

There have been numerous vaccines that have been shelved along the way as well as a huge number of people to test efficacy because of countries which have had the virus run rampant through them.

In terms of the sheer number of 'test' subjects I would venture that very few vaccines would have had validations the prime 4 Covid ones have had.

Now you might not have asked for other to have a vaccine on your behalf but you sure as hell stand to be the beneficiary of it, so a little gratitude regardless wouldn't go astray.

Hey SteeleRedux,

All I can say to you on the matter is that I don't trust any of those people with my health.
What they want to do is normalise fast tracking.
I'm not sure that's in anyones best interests.
- And it seems to me they have other agendas.

http://odysee.com/@Housatonic:0/ep-74-a-185:5?src=open
I've shared this video above numerous times.
It's been removed from youtube now, but everyone should watch it.
It's a long video, and it's slow to start but the info in there you wont get elsewhere.

I don't trust these people.
I don't trust Fauci, Lederberg, Southam, Clinton, Biden, or any of the people from Georgetown University.
I don't trust Bill Gates when he says he wants to reduce global population, and his father was a eugenicist who worked for Planned Parenthood.
I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies, and I think all the medical 'experts' are just plebs following other peoples orders and directives.

I'm sorry I just don't trust any of this.
I want to see how you're all doing 5 or 10 years down the track after the jab.

You say maybe I'll change my mind.
Well if I do, it will be because they're covertly spiked the water supply with drugs to make me see things more 'your way'.

- Though I'm a person of ethics, and I don't see how it will work on me.

http://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/

"Now you might not have asked for other to have a vaccine on your behalf but you sure as hell stand to be the beneficiary of it, so a little gratitude regardless wouldn't go astray."

I'd love to be able to show you gratitude, for what you may see as 'doing your part' for the good of the nation, and for me.

Honestly I would, if I could, but I just don't trust any of it.

How do I benefit if you get the jab?
Tell me, so I can see it your way.
How do we get herd immunity, if the vaccine doesn't make one immune?

Look at us all fighting amongst ourselves.

"In terms of the sheer number of 'test' subjects I would venture that very few vaccines would have had validations the prime 4 Covid ones have had."

Fauci unable to recruit 3400 volunteers for "allergic reactions" study of COVID-19 vaccines
http://brassballs.blog/home/nih-niaid-ap-associated-press-fauci-unable-recruit-3400-volunteers-allergic-reactions-psychological-study-covid-19-vaccines-side-effects

"Drugmakers and the government are immune from liability because the vaccines are experimental."

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-56901353
"Dr Kate Clancy, a medical anthropologist, shared on Twitter her experience of an unusually heavy period following the Moderna vaccine, and received dozens of similar accounts in response. With former colleague Dr Katharine Lee, she launched a survey documenting people's experiences."

Increased incidence of first-trimester miscarriage during the COVID-19 pandemic
http://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.23655

Here's the CDC's statement in regards to aquiring Covid 19 after vaccination.
http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

"COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it. These are called “vaccine breakthrough cases.” This means that while people who have been vaccinated are much less likely to get sick, it will still happen in some cases. It’s also possible that some fully vaccinated people might have infections, but not have symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Experts continue to study how common these cases are."

Millions of people are proving the value of the vaccines everyday. Through vaccination they continue to live, rather than die from a terrible virus that has claimed the lives of millions.

"Sovereign Citizens" and other Trumpsters can please themselves. They can take a dose of 'Pine-O-Clean' and wait for the Easter Bunny as recommended by Dangerous Doctor Donald.

SR wrote: "That [the fact that, in Australia, the under-50's are effectively immune to the virus]was only achieved because of the very lockdown rules you deeply reject."

Well that's just rubbish. SR just puts out these unresearched and anti-factual claims in the hopes that they won't be challenged because he hopes reality conforms to his fantasies.

Here's some data to try to help poor of SR. (Just a word on the data to help SR. I'll be using Case Fatality Rates - CFR- here, not the more useful Infection Fatality Rates - IFR - because as we saw earlier SR gets baffled by the difference between the two and becomes terribly confused.)

So, in Australia, people under 50 make up 65.6% of the population. But they made up 0.55% of the deaths AND, (the biggy) 67.55% of all cases.

So, and I'll spell this out because it will elude the innumerate SR, the under 50s WEREN'T protected by the lockdown, they in fact had higher case loads than the demographics would suggest. But their inherent safety as against the virus protected them.

OTOH, those over 70 make up 11.7% of the population and their case load approximated that at 12.35% of all cases. But they suffered 93.63% of all deaths.

As much as SR's fantasies want it to be different this was and is an old persons disease. Always was. And we knew this from very early in the piece.

The lockdowns didn't save the young, the young were never in danger. The correct policy was always to sequester the old, particularly the old who had co-morbidities and let the young continue with their lives. But government's painted themselves into a corner and are relying on the false hope of vaccines to get them out of it.

Dear Mhaze,

Why is everyone here talking of COVID just in terms of death?

Death is the least concern here because once dead, all problems are solved!

But for those who survive, COVID is an awful disease. Besides the immediate pains, limitations and shortness of breath, debilitating permanent damage can be done to each and every organ, most often the lungs but commonly also the heart and the brain.

Hospitalisation is also a terrible trauma, but the worst is the helplessness and fear that authorities can come and drag you from your home at any time, for no crime of yours, to lock you in a hospital or a quarantine facility.

This is why I am shocked by what you wrote: "The correct policy was always to sequester the old" - if you have any mercy, why not come and put a bullet in my head instead? It is even cheaper! Treat your old folks at least as well as you would treat your old dog!

Dear mhaze,

It is bewildering the lengths you are prepared to go to to construct any sort of crap and baseless argument to defend your idiocy.

I called you out as I have done so many times before and right on cue and off you go, pathologically ignoring the bleeding obvious, in order to shore up a house made with a mix of delusion and straw.

Of the 67 million poms nearly 5 million have caught the virus and 128,000 have perished.

If Australia had followed suit and not imposed timely and strict lockdowns we would have 50,000 dead. Sure the under 50s would likely have been under 1500 of these given the UK figures but they are still lives lost never mind those with long term impacts significantly eroding quality of life.

While we really don't know what the ultimate figure would have been the 5 deaths of under 50s in Australia's meagre case numbers is not a solid predictor.

One thing is certain though, even working off the 5 deaths figure in 30,000 Australia cases it is many times worst than the ordinary flu. It translates to 17 per 100,000 while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

It is not just a bad flu as you once claimed, even in respect to the U50s. So is Dr mhaze's advice to under 50s is for them to forego a flu shot now?

Utterly ludicrous.

Finally your utter stuff up in knowing the difference between IFR and CFR with respect of the WHO figures was legendary. Doubling down now was never going to be a good look.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The vaccines do offer a form of immunity see my post above.

Your ingratitude was predicated on the following misunderstanding: "How do I benefit if you get the jab? Tell me, so I can see it your way. "How do we get herd immunity, if the vaccine doesn't make one immune?"

Now that you know differently I trust you will extend the requested gratitude.

Claims by Morrison that the NSW Berejiklian Government is the "Gold Standard" of Covid control have been blown out of the water, with Covid running riot in Sydney. Just as he waved Covid cases off the 'Ruby Princess' leading to 28 deaths, NSW Health Minister The Hazzard cocked up the movement of Covid infected people from Sydney Airport to hotel quanentean. Enlisting a private company whose driver, Mr Limo, had no PPE or vaccination a disaster was bound to happen. Despite these incompetent cock-ups by The Hazzard's department, a disaster could have been avoided with decisive action from Berejiklian, but unlike the quick action taken by the Palaszczuk government in Queensland with a recent outbreak there, a short sharp lockdown, Berejiklian sat on her hands and the virus has taken off in Sydney. Poor Gladys gold crown is looking rather rusty these days.

Dropped in the see the same old name calling folks at play.
German IFR data, age-based: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-11127-7/tables/1
We have either locking-down entire populations, or, gov't facilitated self-sequestration of vulnerable individuals, their vaccination and and subsequent community re-entry, while herd-immunity builds (through infection or vaccination) within the non-sequestered group. Surely the latter is a better way to run a pandemic.

It's not too late to change tack, as the vulnerable near fully vaccination. But no, let's keep grandkids fear of killing their grand-parents at the forefront of the public health message. To hell with the mental health of business-owners and their employees losing their shirts. Not much working from home for them, unlike public servants.

Hi Paul1405,

Indeed.

This was Victoria's response going from cases being found to lockdown in 3 days. No mucking around or hand wringing.

"On 24 May in northern Melbourne, 4 cases of COVID-19 in the community were reported. Another 5 community cases, for a total of 9, were reported on 25 May."

"By 27 May the Victorian outbreak had risen to 26 cases. There were over 150 exposure sites across Melbourne, and 11,000 contacts had been linked through contact tracing to the outbreak. As a result of the growing outbreak Victoria entered its fourth lockdown, statewide, as of 11:59 pm on 27 May, initially for seven days until 11:59pm on Thursday 3 June, but the lockdown was later extended another 7 days."

The Victorian outbreak resulted in around 80 cases.

In NSW an outbreak was recorded in Bondi on the 18th of June but it wasn't until the 28th that Gladys was forced to go to a lockdown in Sydney. NSW now has 347 active locally acquired Covid cases and it aint over by a long shot.

"On 18 June in NSW, masks were again made mandatory on public transport in Greater Sydney from 4pm that day. A COVID-19 cluster in Sydneys' Eastern Suburbs had grown to 4 cases."

"On 25 June in NSW, after 22 new cases of the delta variant brought infections linked to the Bondi cluster to 65 total, a lockdown was announced for four Sydney LGAs."
wikipedia

Gold Star indeed.

Hi Steele,

I think Gladys was held to ransom by business interests, who believe they have "suffered" enough during the pandemic with city wide lockdowns. The NSW government thought a minimalist approach with controls placed on a small area, in this case four LGA's, would be sufficient to rein in the virus, it was not. Where Brisbane with a short sharp four day lockdown seems to have worked again, NSW is sitting on a powder keg due to government inaction at the start.

What about Mr Limo.

Miss Sally Pisscock from the Channel 6 'Horror News Hour' was able to find the location of Mr Limo. Turned up unannounced at his front door. Miss Pisscock was able to thrust a microphone through the open door and demand; "Get our here you gutter slime, I've got viewers Donna and Dwayne from Mt Druitt who want to pelt you with rotten fruit on national TV, this is in the public interest, and my ratings!"...Miss Pisscock went on; "It sounds like there's little gutter slimes in the house, I can hear them screaming. Get em' on camera, nothing boosts rating like a screaming kid!"..."Over to you Tracy in the studio"..... Tracy in a calm voice, "Shocking and disturbing for our viewers."

Strap yourself in SR, this is gunna be brutal. (I keep warning you to avoid numbers and you keep coming back for more embarrassment. Why is that?)

1. Why is it that you keep wanting to refer to UK and US data when referring to Australia. Somehow you’ve convinced yourself that the data from the other side of the world is more relevant to Australia than Australian data. It reminds of the time back at the beginning of the scare when Morrison had to admit that our predictions were based on models about the UK using Chinese data.
Of course, I know why you want to ignore Australian data and use stuff from the other side of the world….The Aussie stuff doesn’t tell the story you want and with SR it’s always a case of reach the conclusion and then go looking for the data.

2. SR wrote:” while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.”
You got 3.5 by adding up the deaths for the under50s from the data you linked. But that’s utterly incorrect. It’s beyond moronic. Think of it like this. If you have 100000 under 4s you get 1.3 deaths. If you have 100000 5-17s you get 0.4 deaths. If you have 100000 18-49s you get 1.8 deaths. So yes, you get 3.5 deaths but not out of 100000 but out of 300000. Have I lost you yet? So to get back to deaths per 100000 you need to divide by 3. So to fix your maths the correct wording Is “the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 1.17 per 100,000.”

3. But that is deaths per 100000 of the entire population. You then, in your mathematically ignorant way want to compare that to the proportion of deaths of under50s to the total deaths. That’s not comparing apples to apples, it’s not even comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to kidney stones.

/cont

/cont

There were 5 deaths in Australia for under50s. There are approximately 16 million under50s in Australia (I’m rounding to make it easier for you). So to get to deaths rates per 100000 you need to divide by 160 (16 million/ 100000). So the death rate for under50s in Australia is 0.03 (5/160) per 100000.

Sooooo……
In your mathematically moronosity you thought you’d proven that “It translates to 17 per 100,000 [in Australia] while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.”
Yet you proved the exact opposite. The death rate in Australia for under50s is .03 per 100000 and the flu death rate in the US is 1.17 per 100000.
So as I told you a year ago, if only you had the intellectual rigour to understand, in Australia, it’s just a bad flu season.
/cont

There were 5 deaths in Australia for under50s. There are approximately 16 million under 50s in Australia (I’m rounding to make it easier for you to follow). So to get to deaths rates per 100000 you need to divide by 160 (16 million/ 100000). So the death rate for under50s in Australia is 0.03 (5/160) per 100000.

Sooooo……
In your mathematically moronosity you thought you’d proven that “It translates to 17 per 100,000 [in Australia] while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.”
Yet you proved the exact opposite. The death rate in Australia for under50s is .03 per 100000 and the flu death rate in the US is 1.17 per 100000.
So as I told you a year ago, if only you had the intellectual rigour to understand, in Australia, it’s just a bad flu season.

________________________________________________

Re the CFR/IFR…I wrote back on 22/10/20 “Back from your self-imposed sabbatical following the CFR/IFR debacle I see. Enough time has passed I guess that you can now deny error and hope no one bothers checking....the more things change.”. SOP for SR. Make an error, piss off then come back denying everything.
We’ll probably see the same as regards the above.

That NSW has handled more quarantine cases than all other states combined yet has managed to handle the breakouts with fewer lockdowns and fatalities means that NSW's handling of covid is the gold standard, and Victoria's is the worst.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

No what I did was entirely legitimate according to your own standards.

Some may say I have been flippant with the figures, but we both know that is not true. You are perfectly legitimate in saying that because we have lost only 5 lives of those under 50 to Covid in this country therefore there is zero risk to that cohort.

Others might unkindly point out that was only on 30,000 cases, but not me any longer.

You see there is no such thing as baseless extrapolations in your world, nor mine now. It is all perfectly acceptable.

If you can't beat them join them as the saying goes.

In our world now it doesn't matter that the 2018-19 saw around 35,000,000 flu cases with around 34,000 deaths while the total Covid cases in the US has reached a similar figure but with 600,000 fatalities.

But as you rightly pointed out “So as I told you a year ago, if only you had the intellectual rigour to understand, in Australia, it’s just a bad flu season.”

Some may note you use to say that regarding Covid in general, but now you are just talking about 'in Australia'. But we are both going to ignore those naysayers.

Some might be as unkind to say you have consistently and spectacularly gotten it wrong so many times re Covid but rest assured I will no longer be one of them.

Would you care to go over the rest of what I put to you and further enlighten me as to where I got it so wrong.

"Would you care to go over the rest of what I put to you and further enlighten me as to where I got it so wrong."

Clearly the maths of this is beyond your understanding. Where did you get it wrong?

You said :"It translates to 17 per 100,000 [in Australia] while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.”

When in fact the death rate in Australia was 0.03 per 100000. So you were wrong by 56000% ie the number you thought you'd correctly calculated was 566 times greater than the facts.

Equally you thought the flu death rate in the US was 3.5/100000 when it was 1.17/100000. Only out by 300% there and for you that's a new break-through in accuracy.

I note that you open the post with "lol". But I don't think this level of innumeracy is a laughing matter. I'd be thoroughly embarrassed not giggling about it.

"you have consistently and spectacularly gotten it wrong so many times re Covid "

You keep asserting that, but unfortunately for your assertions you have yet to find examples. I know that in your innumeracy you've sometimes misunderstood my logic and thought me wrong, but, well, you were wrong.

Dear mhaze,

Isn't this fun.

I said: "One thing is certain though, even working off the 5 deaths figure in 30,000 Australia cases it is many times worst than the ordinary flu. It translates to 17 per 100,000 while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000."

You have rightly pulled me up saying: "When in fact the death rate in Australia was 0.03 per 100000. So you were wrong by 56000% ie the number you thought you'd correctly calculated was 566 times greater than the facts."

So it stands to reason when I said "cases" I obviously didn't mean "cases" at all. How terribly silly of me. I must have meant something entirely different altogether. What a whacker I must be.

And how badly did I stuff up the math. To think I imagined that extrapolating 5 deaths over 30,000 cases (oops sorry, slip of the tongue) by 3.333 to get a figure of 17 for 100,000 (cases, dang, gotta stop). What a wally.

I deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered for making such a rudimentary mistake. Whew. Thanks for showing me the light. And I was out by 56000% you say. Crikey. that's a lot isn't it. Well you have certainly shown me you superior mathematics skills. I am very grateful so thank you.

Come off it SM,

The Liberals in NSW are showing their true colours, trying to put the profits of their business buddies before the health of the states citizens. What a stuff up. 100's are infected, 1,000's are in isolation and 1,000,000's trapped in lockdown. The totally incompetent Health Minister should have been sacked when he waved the passengers off the 'Ruby Princess' resulting in the deaths of 28 people. There was ScumO' today trying to justify his shambolic vaccination roll-out, whilst Gladys was in a flap not knowing what to do.

According to hard right commentator Alan Jones, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian should be sacked as she has lost the right to govern. Jones described Berejiklian's performance today as a disgrace, made up of gutless stuff.

SM, are you still safe and well in New Zealand? How lucky you are to be looked after by Jacinda Ardern and not in shambolic NSW with Gladys! Of course you can return to Australia via Queensland and Annastacia will take care of you.

SR wrote: "I deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered"

From what I've seen, you'd struggle to calculate a quarter.

"So it stands to reason when I said "cases" I obviously didn't mean "cases" at all."

Oh you did mean cases but that wasn't the problem. The problem was that you then compared that number to numbers that based on entirely different criteria. I'm flabbergasted that this still eludes you.

But I wouldn't get too emotional about this SR. You're not alone. There are millions in this country alone who are baffled by the math and the stats. The government and the authorities rely on it. They can make up or torture data about everyhting from covid to AGW in the knowledge that the vast majority haven't the wherewithal to recognise the deception. They tell people they are in danger from the WuFlu and the majority just buy it because they don't and can't know better. But if they told people that, statistically, someone under 50 is more likely to die from falling off a ladder than from the virus, things would change. So they don't tell them. In fact tell them the opposite of the truth and people accept it and obey as required.

I've always suspected Paul is a closet nazi. After all there's little difference between a nazi and a communist (eg when Hitler banned the communist parties, over 80% of its membership joined the nazi party within the following month).

So now we see Paul expressing his solidarity with that evil Alan Jones. Not exactly the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) but in the same vein.

Paul seems very upset that things aren't good in NSW. Somehow he wasn't quite so vitriolic when things feel apart in the People's Republic of Victoria. I can't imagine why. But just as a reminder....deaths in NSW 54, deaths in the PRV 820. But I suspect that, like SR, the numbers just baffle poor old Paul.

mhaze, I've never SUSPECTED you were a Nazi, I've neve doubted it. The point is how the hard right will devour their own. As for your claim "over 80% of its (communist) membership joined the nazi party", is utter BS, unless you are counting the 1,000's of communists and active trade unionists in Germany Hitler had liquidated.

I'm no fan of Alan Jones, much of Jones's spiel aligns with what you say. Why then say "that evil Alan Jones", you are a mixed up fella.

Pauliar,

NSW is still beating the plague state Victoria hands down on all metrics.

shonkyminister is it really, how many cases in Victoria at the moment...zero.

Big Nose has sent 100's of her dragoons into South West Sydney, a strong Labor area, the cops are there to ensure the residents stay well and truly banged up. This is different to the Liberal approach taken in their blue ribbon areas of Sydney's the Northern and Eastern suburbs when Covid outbreaks were rife, only marginal extra policing was deemed necessary there, where the virus was able to escape. Interesting!

Pauliar,

Bollocks! when NSW reaches the lockdown months or Covid deaths that Victoria has endured then you will have a point, presently Victoria has been locked down far more and had far more deaths than any other state.

Dear mhaze,

Are e having fun yet?

So then I WAS talking about cases. But I'm now confused, if I was talking about cases then why did you respond with: "When in fact the death rate in Australia was 0.03 per 100000. So you were wrong by 56000% ie the number you thought you'd correctly calculated was 566 times greater than the facts."

Please tell me what I need to disregard so I can understand what I am suppose to respond with.

As you are the acknowledge guru on all things mathematical this will be a piece of cake.

But I should give a heads up. According to that rag the Guardian:

"The New South Wales chief health officer, Dr Kerry Chant, revealed on Wednesday that of the 37 people currently in hospital with Covid in the state, 14 were under the age of 55. Eight have not yet turned 35.

Chant said that of the seven Covid patients currently in intensive care in NSW, one is aged in their 30s and one is in their 50s, while two are in their 60s and three are in their 70s."

We both know this is a mathematical impossibility given your extremely robust figures. I'm about to write a nasty letter to the editor and hold them over the coals.

Um, just a little unsure what to write. Any chance you might give me a tip or two?

Oh dear Paul, I'll have to stop doing 'mock' with you. You just don't understand when you're been sent up. I was sending up the fact that you'd never believe a word Jones says. But when he says something that suits your immediate needs, suddenly he becomes, to you, a fount of wisdom. Pretty funny really.

As to the communists converting to Nazism, well yes most of the German Communist Party's leadership was sent to concentration camps. But the rank and file simply changed their uniforms and carried on as before. Nazi membership increased by 50% in the month following the banning of the communist party and almost all of that were ex-communists.

I know you have little interest in factual history when it doesn't support your views but if you want the truth on this I'd refer you to Shirer's "Rise and Fall" and/or Norman Friedman "Fifty Year War". Or this quote from the 'Münchener Post' in 1933..."The leadership of this party installed the hatred of Social-Democrats into the hearts of millions of workers, and this very hatred now caused them to flee to the brown ranks of the swastica. Many Communists who on Saturday were still wearing the Soviet star as they were walking, manifested themselves as crack new Nazis on election day."

But it wasn't a one-way street. Most of the members of the communist party in East Germany after the war, were ex-Nazis.

SR,

Oh I thought you got this but clearly its too hard. Unfortunately I can't really dumb it down any further.

"We both know this is a mathematical impossibility"

Well you might think that but then you really don't understand the statistics, do you? As I showed you (although clearly I lost you somewhere along the road) the death rate in Australia for under50s is .03/100000. Since there are about 5 million under50s in NSW that means you'd expect around 2 such deaths in NSW. Equally, since you are talking about cases rather than deaths (do you understand the difference or do I need to explain that as well) we'd expect to see around 400 cases in NSW for under50s per month.

So unless you want to advertise your ignorance on these issues to a wider audience, I'd not put pen to paper.

Now I hesitate to mention this since clearly the maths is already too complex for you. But all of this really ought to be treated as an issue over time. So in your original 'analysis' (to give it an undeserved description) you were comparing the data for covid over 18 months with flu data over 12 months. So to do a proper comparison you'd need to convert covid data back to yearly figures. Good luck with that.

Dear mhaze,

I think I am getting it now. I WAS talking about cases and you WERE talking about the death rate.

And so my CASE figures were 56000% out compared to your DEATH RATE figures.

Whew. That is as clear as...

I'm not even sure what it is as clear as but I'm sure it's something at least.

See I knew we would get there eventually. Good to see we are on the same page at last.

As to those so called real world examples we needn't worry ourselves over them. They have little bearing on the quite beautiful statistics you have furnished us with.

Aren't we lucky to have you.

SR wrote: "I think I am getting it now. I WAS talking about cases and you WERE talking about the death rate."

Unfortunately no. You were talking about cases and death rates and erroneously comparing the two.

You originally wrote: "One thing is certain though, even working off the 5 deaths figure in 30,000 Australia CASES it is many times worst than the ordinary flu. It translates to 17 per 100,000 while the flu DEATHS of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000."

(my capitalisation to show the point).

I'm not arguing a different criteria here. I'm not offering a different comparison. I don't agree in the slightest with the idea of comparing Australian WuFlu rates with US flu rates.

I'm simply correcting your infant school level errors of calculation and primary school level errors of statistical logic in order to make your errors less....erroneous.
I was simply pointing out that if you're gunna do this you need to compare like with like which was a million miles from what you were doing.

SR, I know that you are flailing about here like a T1000 in molten metal (http://youtu.be/0mpgHKlixRY) to try to find a form of words that will give you even an iota of a resemblance to knowing what you're talking about. But why bother? We both know what happened here. And we both know that despite the fact that you royally screwed up, in 3 months or 3 years time, if it comes up again, you'll tell anyone who'll listen that you totally nailed the math and had to teach that dill mhaze about statistical logic. You've already done it several times so why change.

So why fret about getting it wrong now when you can convince yourself in the future that you were totally right?

shonkyminister,

Gladys edict is you can only go out for essential shopping in Sydney, like food, or a new lamp shade from her big business mates at Ikea! What a joke, where was the medical advice there?

Dear mhaze,

Ah you have cottoned on haven't you.

Seriously mate, this has been nothing less than a scream.

You have with great determination tried to ignore any examples from overseas to show how ludicrous your RISK figures were for under 50s.

Obviously running flu statistics up the flag pole, no matter how flippantly, was going to get you going. So despite these coming from another country you have written well over a thousand words addressing them.

But the central point was to do exactly what you had done. You took a figure derived from U50 deaths of those who had contracted the disease in Australia, then applied it as a risk figure for the whole population of U50s of the country.

I gave repeated examples of why that was idiotic but you dismissed the lot. However when I illustrated with an example of what you had done you went into high dudgeon.

Very amusing.

By the way your emphasis in my statement is also ludicrous.

"One thing is certain though, even working off the 5 deaths figure in 30,000 Australia CASES it is many times worst than the ordinary flu. It translates to 17 per 100,000 while the flu DEATHS of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000."

Of course the correct emphasis would have been “ the 5 DEATHS figure in 30,000 Australia CASES” and you know it.

You have no shame do you SR. Now you assert that your moronosity was all feigned. As I said, you'd finally convince yourself that you hadn't made infant school level errors. I'd really like to know if you really believe that or if its just something you put out to others to try to hide your embarrassment. A conundrum for the ages.

Dear mhaze,

Oh I readily admitted I was flippant in my use of the figures. I certainly didn't give them much due diligence at all and was lazy and incorrect in my treatment of them. I didn't even bother to determine if they were case or population figures as the source is paywalled. That wasn't the point.

I was using them to illustrate your abuse of the risk figures and they have served that purpose well.

I am possibly the most prolific employer of facts, figures and links (besides Armchair Critic maybe) on the forum at the moment. You obviously spend a lot of time going through them with a fine tooth comb. I do feel a bit chuffed at the attention.

The risk of a Covid outbreak to U50s in this country is not zero as you assert, it is significant, and for you to downplay by ignoring real world figures as you have it is really an affront.

SR wrote:Oh I readily admitted I was flippant in my use of the figures"

Not flippant. Utterly reckless. You made two major mistakes which all the waffle in the world won't obliterate:

1. You tried to calculate the flu death risk of the US for U50s and got it laughingly wrong.

2. You tried to compare two utterly incomparable figures. The first was the proportion of deaths to CASES in Australia. The second was the flu death rate for the entire U50 population. This resulted in an error that was several orders of magnitude wrong.

That you don't comprehend either of these errors is rather sad.

"The risk of a Covid outbreak to U50s in this country is not zero as you assert,"

Well I never asserted an such thing, but if fabrication of my views helps you to salve a bruised ego....

"I am possibly the most prolific employer of facts, figures and links "

If that's what you need to tell yourself to salve a bruised ego....

__________________________________________________________

Just a few other links to confuse the innumerate...

"Children face just a one in 500,000 risk of dying from Covid"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9769283/Children-face-one-500-000-risk-dying-Covid-amid-row-kids-vaccinated.html

From the same article..."But the scientists - from three top British universities - said this risk is no higher then the risk from flu."

"A Review of COVID-19 Deaths in Two California Counties Drops the Total by Nearly 25%"
http://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/stacey-lennox/2021/07/05/a-review-of-covid-19-deaths-in-two-california-counties-drops-the-total-by-nearly-25-n1459543

"Study Finds 89% of Patients Who Died From COVID-19 Had a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order"
http://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/11/30/study-finds-89-of-patients-who-died-from-covid-19-had-a-do-not-resuscitate-order-n1181002

Dear mhaze,

Aww come on mate, this is just getting better and better and I would hate to have it end now.

Take this little doozy from you. It is absolutely bonkers you would even write it but hey.

“Well you might think that but then you really don't understand the statistics, do you? As I showed you (although clearly I lost you somewhere along the road) the death rate in Australia for under50s is .03/100000. Since there are about 5 million under50s in NSW that means you'd expect around 2 such deaths in NSW.”

But only if we kept the annual Covid case numbers to 30,000 Australia wide, something that has only been possible through lockdowns. Double it and you double the death rate.

You really can't make it say what you want it to say, that Covid has no risk for the U50s. It patently does.

So we can either keep the lockdowns to try and vaccinate as many people as possible or we let it run. To be saying the risk to the U50s of a vaccine outweighs their risk from Covid is just inane.

And I did love this link from you.

Quote

"Study Finds 89% of Patients Who Died From COVID-19 Had a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order"
http://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/11/30/study-finds-89-of-patients-who-died-from-covid-19-had-a-do-not-resuscitate-order-n1181002

Unquote.

The study found that 91% of those who died in hospital without Covid had a DNR, so what are you trying to tell us?

But the best part was the Editor's Note which reads: “Join PJ Media VIP so we can keep telling the truth about President Trump's victories in combating COVID-19 and prevent Biden stealing the credit.”

My goodness, this in a country which held the record for the number of its citizens who had perished from the virus.

What unbiased pages you visit in your journeys.

Mhaze, as a rabid Trumpster you swallowed Trump's line concerning the pandemic very early on; "Its only a mild flu... it will be gone by Easter", the guy was reasonable for half a million American deaths! You were wrong then, and you are still wrong now. You need to pull you head out of your arse and take a look at the real world situation. Take a look at Indonesia if you still believe this is a "mild flu", they are burying thousands in mass graves.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-10/indonesia-stuck-overseas-helpless-covid-australians-delta/100270898

Paul,

I know that actual truth is the least of your concerns and your ability in regards to following the data makes SR look like a statistical wiz, but just for clarity:

1. I never said the virus would be like the flu everywhere. Just as regards Australia. And that's been proven correct,although the statistics in regards to that will have sailed blithely over your head.
2. Trump never said the virus would be over by Easter. It's just one of those things that gets twisted and repeated among the clueless who eventually come to think its true - you know, like the Trump Bible story you so hilariously fell for.

I know you will forget/ignore those things just as you've probably already forgotten the evidence about the Nazi/Communist cross-over. But that's OK. Every group needs a court jester and you do it so well.

SR wrote: "But only if we kept the annual Covid case numbers to 30,000 Australia wide, something that has only been possible through lockdowns. Double it and you double the death rate."

This is supposedly disproving something I wrote although just how it does that is a mystery.

Nonetheless this is some serious statistic thinking here from SR. Basically he's telling us that if the number of people who died from the virus was doubled, then the number of people who'd died from the virus would be double. Berk.

But this is standard for SR. The facts are immaterial to his opinion. What you want the facts to be is all that matters.

I think we all know the advice suggesting that when you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging. SR made some moronic statistical and mathematical errors here, but in his cluelessness thinks if he keeps digging, he'll eventually find the treasure.

Hint: he won't and he probably wouldn't recognise it if he did.

"The study found that 91% of those who died in hospital without Covid had a DNR, so what are you trying to tell us?"

That 89% of those who died with the virus in NJ were already close to death and obviously had significant other issues. As the hysteria passes and the need to use the virus for political purposes passes, more unbiased studies will (indeed are) come out showing how the statistics were/are manipulated to achieve ends that have nothing to do with public safety. This data, which of course you'll ignore even if you understand it, will/is show that the lockdowns were a monumental error for which we in Australia will be paying for generations.

Dear mhaze,

That got even a more of a belly laugh.

You are doing this all over again.

Somehow you have derived this: “Basically he's telling us that if the number of people who died from the virus was doubled, then the number of people who'd died from the virus would be double.”

From me saying this: "But only if we kept the annual Covid case numbers to 30,000 Australia wide, something that has only been possible through lockdowns. Double it and you double the death rate."

So no, I am saying if you double the CASE numbers you will likely double the death rate you are so enamoured with.

Why is this so difficult for you to yet again understand? Willful ignorance indeed.

As to the DNR study given the closeness in figures between those with and without Covid I am still unsure of the point you are making.

SR asks, rather incongruously, "Why is this so difficult for you to yet again understand?"

Its not difficult to understand at all. If the bucket is bigger, it'll likely hold more water. More case probably equals more deaths.

But just assuming that the virus is dangerous because if there were more deaths then it'd prove it was more dangerous isn't logical. There weren't more case and the death numbers are the death number.

Ladders would be more dangerous if more people fell off ladders. It's true and completely invalid.

I can't help but notice that you are trying very hard to ignore the errors you made earlier. Just do me a favour and make a note that your calculation of the US flu death rate (" the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000") was completely wrong. Not close, not nearly right. Completely wrong. A complete misunderstanding of the statistics. Just a note that I can refer back to in the future when you try to claim none of these errors of yours occurred.

"As to the DNR study given the closeness in figures between those with and without Covid I am still unsure of the point you are making."

Well I'll try to write slower....89% of people who form the covid statistics in NJ were already close to death. It's likely many died with rather than of the virus. These data will become very important over the next year or three as less biased analysis of the issue of covid deaths is addressed.

Dear mhaze,

You write:

“Its not difficult to understand at all. If the bucket is bigger, it'll likely hold more water. More case probably equals more deaths.”

Finally!

As to this:

“But just assuming that the virus is dangerous because if there were more deaths then it'd prove it was more dangerous isn't logical. There weren't more case and the death numbers are the death number.”

You still don't get it do you. In your world we could do away with seat-belt laws. I mean after all deaths per 100,000 people in car accidents has fallen from 30 in 1970 the year before their introduction, to just 5 per 100,000 now.

So is driving a car without a seat belt more dangerous or not?

As to the NJ statistics all they appear to suggest that Covid ranks with the other serious morbidity causes. Basically no difference between those with Covid or those presenting with other serious illnesses. The DNR issue is mirrored in each.

SR,

Yes, we really ought to ban ladders, because if twice as many people fell off ladders than they really do, then ladders would be twice as dangerous as they really are. And if they're twice as dangerous as they are then they're really dangerous. So ban ladders because in someone's fantasy world they might be dangerous. Or something.

Really SR this is insane. You don't like the low covid numbers so just imagine they are bigger, then want to pretend that these bigger numbers are reality.

Or is this just your inept way of trying to change the subject from your monumnetal errors above.

Oh BTW...Just do me a favour and make a note that your calculation of the US flu death rate (" the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000") was completely wrong. Not close, not nearly right. Completely wrong. A complete misunderstanding of the statistics. Just a note that I can refer back to in the future when you try to claim none of these errors of yours occurred.

Dear mhaze,

Mate, you are not even being coherent now.

You got fixated on the death rate so I went with it even though it is the risk issue I initially raised. Now you are once again falling back to your security blanket.

“You don't like the low covid numbers so just imagine they are bigger, then want to pretend that these bigger numbers are reality.”

So for the sake of once again repeating the point, the numbers are low because of the lockdowns you so despise. That is it. Full stop. All of us can imagine what the numbers would be if we let this thing go, but not you apparently.

As to the flu numbers again I have freely admitted I treated them incorrectly. The fact that you have clung on to them with such grim determination even though they are very much a side issue illustrates both the rarity of this happening and your desire to divert from the Covid numbers which are so damaging to your case.

So what is your figure for the mortality rate per 100,000 for flu deaths in the 18-19 US flu season for the U50s?

Australians should be thankful that former Labor PM Kevin Rudd took steps to talk to the head honcho at Pfyzer US and speed up the delivery of pfyzer vaccine to Australia. Again Morrison and co were found asleep at the wheel, and the best they could do was talk with a few local Pfyzer people who couldn't do much to help out.

What a great job the 'Gold Standard', Big Nose and The Hazzard, have done in NSW. Cases are growing experientially day by day. You can only go out for essentials like a new lamp shade from Ikea. The NSW government was captive of big business and have been caught out. The outbreak there is all down to Morrison (no vaccs) and Berejiklian (cock up on lockdown). End of story.