Of course. Creating division and an enemy



I think this is what you're referring to



Let's check in and see how things are going in the home of the koala





It should be noted that it cannot be confirmed or denied if any of these perps were nazis or fascists

For people under the age of 49, it removes less than a day.

For people that are obsessed with pointing out overgeneralizations as irrational, progressives sure seem to make a lot of them.

Not surprised to see the police over step the mark in such a conservative country as Oz.

If it was say a more Liberal country like Holland, they would be like this:

You're one of the only places in the world that had an enforced curfew.

The methodological problem with this opinion piece is obvious and jumps straight off the page to anyone who is looking at his work in a detached way.

1: According to his own data:

Amongst 30-49 the male death rate is over 3 times the death rate of the next lower age band.

18-29 = 2PHD
30-49 = 7.3PHD
50-64 = 10.6PHD

30-49 is much closer to the age band above it than below it.

However when he moves onto look at risk of death, he obfuscated the risks of anyone aged 30-49 by mixing them in with people aged 20-29.

Moving forward all data is expressed in age ranges that are obviously meant to dilute risks to 30-49 year olds.

So instead of 18-29, 30-49 and 50-64 we have 20-49, 50-69 70+

Look at that hamster go.

The lack of intelligence of OAFK11 in believing that clickbait headline/statistic is incredible. Anyone with a functioning brain would realize that 0.2% of the population dying over 1.7 years with a lifespan of ~82 can't possibly reduce the life expectancy at birth by 2 years. But alas.

i mean casinos and other things essentially arnt open still, no poker, nothing. some things opened up like 1 month ago but yea, it was like lockdown for 15 months.

ontario is still a shithole, im awaiting changes soon but i doubt anything will happen. they dont want to give up their power.

the logic of having 10,000 people in a hockey game but not 150 people in a poker room makes no ****ing sense.

Ive seen some weak dumb **** itt but Wittgenhelny wins the prize.

Congrats.

I already thought rebutting a generalisation with a generalisation was dumb, but the total crapness of the hamster comment puts it over the top.

A grand total of 38 237 people under the age of 50 have 'died of covid.' The other 633 784 were above 50.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...vid-by-age-us/

Thinking that this equates to 'covid reduces men's life expectancy by two years' is painfully cringe.

It does almost nothing to 'men' under 50. That's just a fact.

Your inability to recognize irony and your own hypocrisy is really the cherry on top. Of course rebutting generalizations with generalizations is dumb. That's why it was really, really dumb to claim that everyone against masks and lockdowns is a neo-nazi fascist. The only fascists I can see are the ones arresting people for taking their masks off outside, and the cordon of parrots using bad inferences from statistics (you) justifying them.

its funny when i read like 1/300 people have died from covid in X country.

in a room of 300 people with ages ranging from 1-99, theres going to be a 97 year old that dies of covid. the amount of fear you can generate from that is kinda hilarious.

then another room, 300 people age 1-99, a 90 year old dies of covid.

guys 1/300 people are dying of covid!!11!1!

these old ****s would have died anyway from another disease.

actual risk is so ****ing low for most people its disgusting the fearmonging and absolute power control our governments desire.

Covid accounted for 10% of deaths for the age range 50-64
7.3% of deaths for age 30-49
2% of deaths 18-29. (1 in 50)

According to the data in hamster mans "rebuttal."

So an absolute number of 2 years in a vacuum seems perfectly reasonable.

Can you not see your obvious and glaring and really ****ing dumb mistake in looking at it this way?

Obviously not.

HINT: The life expectancy of a 50yr old will be impacted by risks they encounter when they are on their 60s.

So to use an absolute example, say there was something that killed 100% of 60 year olds but no 50 year olds, using the methodology you did in your post above, this would have no impact on life expectancy.

Derp clown gonna derp clown.

I don't know how to respond to this because it actually makes no sense.

It makes absolute and total sense.

You are flailing to understand basic concepts, why am I not surprised.

I assure you it makes no sense. If something killed 100% of 60 year olds, the life expectancy would be 60, for people that are currently 60. If that risk is both expected to and actually drops to zero over the next ten years, then someone who was initially 50 now never had a life expectancy of 60. It was always greater than 60.

The numbers as calculated assume that every age cohort including the ones born this year will experience the same risk of death from covid in perpetuity, and that is absurd. It's a bad assumption, and the reason for most (poor) inferences from statistics. Using these bad inferences to make or justify policy, as was (let's be honest) your intention, is even more absurd.

People under the age of 50 will see very little change to their life expectancy, because the risks to these people are extremely low now and will wane over time as they age and will never be as high as the risks posed to people that were over the age of 50 in 2020 when the 'pandemic' first started.

Really how hard can it be to understand that if every year carried the risk profile of 2020, then at some point the 50yr old has to live through that risk as a 60/70/80 yr old.

Any death below the age of 78.87 puts negative weight on life expectancy relative to 2019 btw.

If you want to state the headline stat I linked to is flawed inherently as a stat that is very different to saying it was inaccurate, which it was not.

You can read my post above. This is a bad assumption. You can say something like 'it's all we have to go on' just like an actuary only has the current life expectancy to go on when they are doing financial calculations for someone who is 14 years old. Even though that life expectancy is almost certainly going to be higher for a (currently) 14 year old than a (currently) 74 year old. But if that's the case, then 'all we have to go on' could and should be further reduced to be each individual's current risk of death from covid---in other words, general and sweeping policies are guaranteed to be net negatives and individual people should be free to make their own risk management decisions.

Your stat is both flawed inherently and inaccurate.

This is all entirely moot because the risk profile never remains static between years, so whatever problems you have with the 2020 number applied just as much to the 2019 number for the exact same reasons.

It is accurate, there were enough deaths beneath a given threshold of years to move the needle, this is what all authorative sources show.

So leave the country or do something abt it. You sound like an obesebitch crying on here

It isn't moot. Making inferences about the life expectancy (with covid) people have who will be 80 years old 80 years from now is beyond silly. Covid is waning in morbidity. Those that were 75 in 2020 have a far lower life expectancy than those who were 74 and exposed to it a year later. This is likely to remain the trend, but we can't know. It is possible the vaccines provide the necessary selection pressure to create a variant that is as infectious as measles and kills 5% of people under the age of 30. We have no idea. Saying 'Covid reduces life expectancy by two years' is ludicrous. The only thing you can really say with any accuracy is that Covid killed about the same number of people over the age of 50 in 2 years as heart disease or cancer does in any given year. This is not trivial, of course.


My whole point is that it's dumb to make many generalized inferences about risk profiles.

Let me ask you this: whose risk of dying from Covid is higher?
A) A 75 year old with great genes, in excellent physical condition, who has never smoked, with a low BMI, or,
B) A 32 year old, 350 lb chain smoker with diabetes and early heart disease?

The only honest answer is: you don't know. So making one lifestyle policy that applies to both these individuals is just as stupid as making one health policy for all age cohorts, or inferring a loss of life expectancy for all age cohorts, or justifying decisions or fear based on those same statistics.

It's also why making financial planning decisions for someone with a life expectancy of 78.54 who is intent on committing suicide at age 40 is not even wrong.

It is meaningless. I can use different but what you call 'accurate' math with subjectively better assumptions to arrive at completely different conclusions, and I have done so ITT. The only conclusion that can be drawn from any of this is that it is my body, and my choice, and I am an adult that can make my own decision, thanks.

It is totally moot because the same effect is happening every year with the LE stat.

Risk profile changes radically over the lifetime of any individual. Someone born in 1920 who lives to be 70 dies in 1990.

So whatever the LE was in 2019 is subject to the same effects. The LE for any year assumes risks etc remain constant to that year. That mortality patterns at the time of its birth remain constant in the future.


You have not got close to doing this. You cant take a stat used for temporal, social and international comparisons and just make up a way for it be calculated so it fits your belly feels better.

Because of the negative weighting of so many people dying of a certain age in excess of those deaths in 2019, life expectancy as as it is formally measured fell drastically in 2020. That is just a fact.