"After most of last year claiming Covid-19 was nothing more than a mild cold"

Well I never said such a thing. But when I explained my thinking, I used big words and statistics so its not surprising that you misunderstood.

"you are in favour of disinfectant and bright lights up the clacker".

Well no one suggested that as a defence against infection. But they used big words and statistics so its not surprising that you misunderstood.

Dear mhaze,

How on earth am I supposedly the innumerate one when you are coming up with gems like this:

“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.”

Yet 9 are now dead.

Go figure.

Wow SR,

Is that what you've been reduced to? Having been regularly embarrassed over the past month or two, you're reduced to trolling back through my past posts to try to find a sentence you can take out of context in order to try to salvage some self-esteem.

The worst part is that you know you're taking it out of context, which is why you don't post a link.

Let's recall that this is the thread where you tried to use maths to prove me wrong and instead made a monumental fool of yourself. Here's the critical post....http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9530#321781

The post you extracted you quote from is here... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9530#321836

Remember this is the thread where you tried to calculate two numbers to make your point. As I proved, and as you admitted, you got one of those numbers wrong by 300% and the other by 56000%.

Reading the quote you misrepresented in context, I wasn't making a prediction about the future deaths. I was using the maths you relied on to show that, with that maths, how many deaths there should be at that time.

Of course, its also possible that, rather than maliciously misrepresenting the quote, the whole thing was too complex for you and that explains your errors. After all, it had lots of numbers and we know that's very confusing for you.

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Yes that was the one which took you half a dozen posts to realise you were being lampooned.

You really have had to hang your hat of flu figures rather than Covid ones haven't you.

But hardly out of context old boy. You predicted 2 deaths in under 50s in NSW and they are at 9 already. There was no context which allowed you to walk away from this deeply flawed statistic of risk.

You still haven't made it clear in the slightest why you have gotten this so terribly wrong.

How about a decent answer for the good folk of OLO?

This was another beauty from you.

“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.”

No they aren't.

https://fallsnetwork.neura.edu.au/resource/76/falls-statistics/3522/ladder_injuires_in_nsw_nov_2015.pdf

Your statistics never really hold up do they.

SR

"Yes that was the one which took you half a dozen posts to realise you were being lampooned."

Well actually it took a handful of posts for you to realise your monumental errors and then make up the excuse that it was all an elaborate sting. All very childish.

"You predicted 2 deaths "

No. You really do struggle to understand the difference between a statement of fact about the current numbers and a prediction of future numbers. You made the same error in this very thread where you thought the numbers I gave Paul about the current deaths were predictions for future deaths. That was the post where you predicted 1000 NSW deaths by 30 October. I can't wait to see how you run and hide from that one.

Re the ladders, your link doesn't have any data about the numbers of people under 50 who die each year from falls. This stuff really does confuse you, doesn't it? I could probably use the numbers in that report to arrive at a rough estimate, but you'd never understand the maths anyway, so why bother?

In that previous thread I pointed out that...

"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."

You are so predictable. Utterly unethical and totally predictable.