Well SR shows his 'L's as regards statistics yet again....

“When comparing across countries, the only countries in which we observe the introduction of SIP policies negatively changes the trajectory of excess deaths are Australia, Malta, and New Zealand.” SR thinks this matters.

When doing statistical analysis, its usual to find outliers. Indeed researches hope to find them to provide avenues to new research.

For example, suppose you wanted to test a theory that aspirin cured cancer. You give aspirin to 100 cancer patients and find, ultimately, that 2 survive. Do you then declare that aspirin indeed cures cancer and all cancer suffers should cease chemotherapy and use aspirin? Or even that aspirin was the cause for the two surviving? Or do you assume that the survivors had something special about them that made them outliers?

As regards the lockdowns there were clearly outliers. That they existed doesn't prove that lockdowns work. That they exist doesn't even prove that the lockdowns worked for them. Logic would suggest that you look to other things that caused the outliers to be outliers.

Now I wonder what those other things could be? Well I have previously said that Australia being an island helped. Since SR has taken to trolling through my old posts in the hope for enlightenment I'm sure he can find those posts. Oh and lookie here - New Zealand is also an island. And then there's Malta - lets have Paul tell us about its geography since he considers himself an expert in that realm. (Hint: he's not but its nice to humour the kiddies).

Being an island helped make quarantine effective. This research demonstrates it.

BTW are you ever going to explain as to why Sweden shouldn't be compared to Germany but Australia should be compared to the US. I assume the reason is that such comparisons prove his error, and are therefore invalid.

Dear mhaze,

I was wondering what you would limp back in here with. I had hoped it might have been better than this:

"Being an island helped make quarantine effective. This research demonstrates it."

Not even close. What they actually said was: "When comparing across countries, the only countries in which we observe the introduction of SIP policies negatively changes the trajectory of excess deaths are Australia, Malta, and New Zealand.”

SIP means stay in place - a lockdown.

So what your little sentence should have read was:

"Being an island helped make lockdowns effective. This research demonstrates it."

Are you going to concede that lockdowns worked in this country given the evidence you provided or not? Pretty bloody simple question.

mhaze, Bengal was not an island, I thought you might like to know that, considering your geography is so bad.

Poor, poor ol' Paul,

You said that no Australian wheat went to India.

You said I was wrong and lying to say that some Aussie wheat went to India.

You finally admitted that I was neither wrong nor lying and that I'd been right all along.

You now assert that none of that wheat got to Bengal. You have no evidence for that. You've offered not a skerrick, not an iota, not a brass razoo's worth, of evidence for your claim, which is of course what you always do.

And to offset this lack of anything approaching an adult way of arguing, you offer poo-poo insults. Come back to me when you grow up.

As I assumed, SR, the nature of the statistics elude you.

If lockdowns work, they work everywhere. If they only appear to work in some places and those places have other common characteristics, then it makes sense that those other common characteristics be considered as being factors. I can see that this is too complex for you but nonetheless...

Its SOP for SR to falsify quotes in the hope that his false narrative will get through. You'd think he'd learn that it never works with me, but he tries anyway. Here's the rest of the quote that SR tried to hide....

"When comparing across countries, the only countries in which we observe the introduction of SIP policies negatively changes the
trajectory of excess deaths are Australia, Malta, and New Zealand. All three countries are islands. In every other country, we observe either no visual change in excess deaths or increases in excess deaths. The results are similar for U.S. states. We observe small reductions in excess deaths for Hawaii, which is also an island, following the implementation of a SIP policy."

Ethics are weak in this one.

BTW are you ever going to explain as to why Sweden shouldn't be compared to Germany but Australia should be compared to the US. I assume the reason is that such comparisons prove his error, and are therefore invalid. At the very least can you advise if your determination to avoid this is due to a lack of understanding about comparative statistics or a desire to avoid admitting further error.