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.