How is it 'closer to zero'? For every cohort over 30 it's higher for vaccinated people.

Your table shows numbers for rates of infection.

My comment is about a person's ability to pass the infection to another person...

They're not the same thing.

On reflection, I don't think that table is very good, despite the fact that it makes the appearance of coming from the NHS - maybe they don't know how to structure data clearly either.

It's been troubling me how those numbers can be so skewed, and I have worked it out.

They are expressing infection counts per 100k total population, I thought those numbers were infection counts per 100k vaccinated and per 100k unvaccintaed - so I think did you, or maybe from other information surrounding that table you knew it was total population and hoped others (including me) wouldn't realise.

So, let's take an adjustment of those numbers on something closer to a level playing field. The UK two dose vaccination rate is somewhere about 2/3, but I can use your chosen statistic and demographic to eliminate any point of bias, or 'cherry picking' of data from myself.

You want to talk about the 1281.1 vs 690.1 numbers? The rate of vaccination in the UK for the 40-49 demographic is about 80%.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100k vaccinated people.
And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100k unvaccinated people.

You're right!! This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...

Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

You said 2/3 and then suddenly that became 80%.

Did you do that on purpose or are you being deliberately dishonest?

Again out of touch!, again I have said THERE ARE MANY that are there that enjoy the activities that are on offer, there would be a FEW that fit your description yes, but on the whole no! the trouble is you make blanket statements!

Again, when you're at the end of your life and in chronic pain and in high needs care I will remember this statement that all you need is nice trip to the beach to reinvigorate your zest for life.

You've made yourself crystal clear - there's no need to qualify it any more.

You have lost this argument clear and simple, that's for sure!

Sorry, left a word out, but fixed, and it was likely apparent from the next paragraph anyway.

...

I had not picked that up, because, my guess is, you're so bad at interpreting statistics that I guess I didn't think you could have professionally studied in the field.

...

Oh, so you were picking up what I was putting down!

No, see there you go, so bad at interpreting statistics that I cannot believe you've studied in the field, and after I told you not to hang your hat on one data point again...

In case you missed it, Victoria was in lockdown for almost the entire of last year, yet suicides were not unusually high to that point last year, quite the opposite, they were slightly low. The statistic in your chosen month was oddly high, with the subsequent month being low again (Victoria more or less still in lockdown) whilst subsequent months in 2020 increased to 'normal' levels again. That's exactly what I said would likely happen, suicide rates have an unfortunate habit of not changing much year on year, which is why it is especially odd to pick a single point to fail your dissertation on.

So to recap, your statistically educated point of view was that one month in one year of lockdown had an increased count over that same month, the year previous also in lockdown.

So you think that subsequent months this year had the count go down because? (Lockdown is still happening in Victoria)

And you think that subsequent months last year had the count go up because? (Remember, they were previously down under lockdown).

The answer is that all you were doing was cherry picking one data point, whilst failing to acknowledge (and now observe) that in statistics anomalies like these almost always even out.

...

Then why year on year, for all of last year, (and seemingly likely for this year too) has there not been a measurable increase in suicide rate? I remind you that you're choosing to base your statements on a single gender of a single demographic, in a single month, when the annual rate across your chosen cohort (indeed across all Victorians) has effectively not changed.

...

I would not make a habit of trying to speak for the dead. You go too far though, the Victorian lockdowns were all to save lives, and you might think differently if you were one of the people killed or had close family killed by a preventable virus transmission.

The efficacy of these lockdowns can be debated, but you only need to look at Europe (Italy I am looking at you), the UK and US to see that they likely did save lives, not as many as they should have, but hey, nothing is perfect.

How do you know there hasn't been a measurable increase in the suicide rate? I was hanging onto one data point because it's indicative of what's really going on - haven't been able to find any references to Victorian suicide rates during lock-down because they're simply not available. Why would that be do you think?

Or can you magically find them for us.

You don't have a business, Aaron, you're another one of these public servants on this board who doesn't know what all the fuss is about when there's a lockdown. You don't care, you have no skin in the game. Neither of us went what they went through in Melbourne so neither of us know how traumatic it was to lose a business and be locked in your home for a world-beating amount of time.

Again out of touch!, again I have said THERE ARE MANY that are there that enjoy the activities that are on offer, there would be a FEW that fit your description yes, but on the whole no! the trouble is you make blanket statements!

Again, when you're at the end of your life and in chronic pain and in high needs care I will remember this statement that all you need is nice trip to the beach to reinvigorate your zest for life.

You've made yourself crystal clear - there's no need to qualify it any more.

You have lost this argument clear and simple, that's for sure!

I bet you only go to a nice nursing home, Israilfan - not a high needs one and not a cheap one.

Am I right?

Again out of touch!, again I have said THERE ARE MANY that are there that enjoy the activities that are on offer, there would be a FEW that fit your description yes, but on the whole no! the trouble is you make blanket statements!

Again, when you're at the end of your life and in chronic pain and in high needs care I will remember this statement that all you need is nice trip to the beach to reinvigorate your zest for life.

You've made yourself crystal clear - there's no need to qualify it any more.

You have lost this argument clear and simple, that's for sure!

I bet you only go to a nice nursing home, Israilfan - not a high needs one and not a cheap one.

Am I right?

The ones I volunteer at (not now because we haven't been told we are allowed back), have a dementia ward, all the patients are given pain medication onsite if they need it, end of life care, so yes, I suppose it is fairly high needs, I volunteer at 2 by the way.

The ones I volunteer at (not now because we haven't been told we are allowed back), have a dementia ward, all the patients are given pain medication onsite if they need it, end of life care, so yes, I suppose it is fairly high needs, I volunteer at 2 by the way.

The reason those people don't wish for death is because they don't have the wherewithal to even know what's going on.

If you actually had a cognitive capacity left you wouldn't want to live like that - you might seemingly enjoy going to the beach or getting out or whatever but the fact is that people like that who have some degree of cognisance don't want to be alive any more. I speak from personal experience within my own family - when you can no longer self-care and you know full well what's going on... well it's really degrading and you wish for death. I've seen it happen.

I can't believe that Don Dunstan would say that many people in aged care would rather die than live like that (in a nursing home setting), I am an aged care volunteer, and yes while it may be true that there would be a few that would rather die than be in an aged care home, the vast majority that are there actually enjoy it, seeing their friends everyday, doing the many activities which are on offer, going on excursions/days out, there are many that enjoy doing that type of stuff, that comment is so out of touch it's not funny!

So when you're bed-ridden, incontinent and dependent on pain killers to get through every day I'll come round and take you for a jolly jaunt to the beach and you'll totally forget about all your woes and want to live.

Got it.

Could have fooled us. I'm glad we had Aaron to get it right.

So now you agree with Aaron? Seem to recall you once him he had no right to have the Adelaide University shield on his avatar because he was so wrong about everything.

Enemy of my enemy kinda thing I guess.

Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. Mannie

But you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.

Facile.

But you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny.

Can you read Don? It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus. And with the greatest of respect your statement is meaningless.

Of course transmission rates are higher for the vaccinated because there are far more people vaccinated. You are more likely to encounter a vaccinated person then an unvaccinated one.  An unvaccinated person will get and/or transmit the virus regardless if they come into contact with some who has covid. Vaccination status when it comes to transmission, matters for naught, so I do not know what point you are trying to make.

Again, the main purpose of the vaccines is to reduce the effects of Covid-19 so there are less hospitalizations thus easing the pressure on the Health system.

Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.

Never said that at all. It is inside you head as per usual. Cannot even be honest when you are having a debate? You can say over and over again that I think that Biden meeting with Kim is diplomacy. It does not make it true. I never said it.

I have never come across anyone who loves to argue with oneself.


Mannie

Never said that at all.

Yeah you did, Manny. And then you spent nearly a week protesting that this isn't what you said.

Never said that at all.

Yeah you did, Manny. And then you spent nearly a week protesting that this isn't what you said.

Point to where I said it Don. Go on. I bet you can't.

Mannie

How is it 'closer to zero'? For every cohort over 30 it's higher for vaccinated people.

Your table shows numbers for rates of infection.

My comment is about a person's ability to pass the infection to another person...

They're not the same thing.

On reflection, I don't think that table is very good, despite the fact that it makes the appearance of coming from the NHS - maybe they don't know how to structure data clearly either.

It's been troubling me how those numbers can be so skewed, and I have worked it out.

They are expressing infection counts per 100k total population, I thought those numbers were infection counts per 100k vaccinated and per 100k unvaccintaed - so I think did you, or maybe from other information surrounding that table you knew it was total population and hoped others (including me) wouldn't realise.

So, let's take an adjustment of those numbers on something closer to a level playing field. The UK two dose vaccination rate is somewhere about 2/3, but I can use your chosen statistic and demographic to eliminate any point of bias, or 'cherry picking' of data from myself.

You want to talk about the 1281.1 vs 690.1 numbers? The rate of vaccination in the UK for the 40-49 demographic is about 80%.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100k vaccinated people.
And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100k unvaccinated people.

You're right!! This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...

Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

You said 2/3 and then suddenly that became 80%.

Did you do that on purpose or are you being deliberately dishonest?

Come on Don, you're statistically trained, you can do better than that can't you? Wait, no, you can't can you?

The UK two dose vaccination rate is somewhere about 2/3

It is, look it up, the UK total vaccination rate is somewhere about 2 in 3 two shot vaccinated.

The rate of vaccination in the UK for the 40-49 demographic is about 80%.

That statement doesn't get to be much more clear than I have made it.

In fact I just don't really know how to rephrase it in more dumbed-down language, so instead I'll describe how it comes to be higher.

Recall how vaccination opened first to older people and those at risk, then opened to over 40s, then to everyone over 16 and then subsequently to those maybe under that age?

It's a handicapped race, those first two groups were given a (necessary) head start, and subsequently carry a lead in rate over the other cohort groups. Ideally, if the handicap was applied correctly, all groups will arrive at a desired place at about the same time. Of course this is vaccination we are talking about, so the real result depends more on where the distribution of dick heads lies...

Oh, and I didn't 'pick that particular group' - you did! Remember when you tried to explain how 1281.1 was more than double 690.2?

Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. Mannie

But you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.

Facile.

Did you read this?

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100k vaccinated people.
And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100k unvaccinated people.

You're right!! This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...

Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

I feel like this is pretty explicit, but if you need me to, I guess I can go over it again.

You know in Australia right now you have near 100% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of Australia, and a near 0% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of China don't you? That doesn't mean it will be safer for you to live in China. It just means that a person in China is more likely to be infected by another Chinese resident than by a resident of Australia.

Before there was a vaccine, there was 100% chance new infections came from the unvaccinated, as the number of vaccinated people rises, (assuming it's ahead of population growth) the number of unvaccinated people must correspondingly shrink.

I trust you understand this, we are probably talking first year primary school concepts here. My niece understands subtraction and the concept of needing to shift bigger numbers to down to smaller numbers so that you can work the difference out.

If we grant Mytrone's wet dream and the population gets to 100% vaccinated there will be a 100% chance that a vaccinated person passed the virus on (which we expect to happen), and we will know with absolute certainty, assuming we are sure we've killed (or at least covertly vaccinated) all the anti vaccination people that there is 0% chance that new infection came from an unvaccinated person.

Why do the numbers of infected people 'look bigger' (but noticeably not 'more than double') in the UK for vaccinated persons? Because the UK is fortunate enough to have vastly more of its population vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Consider a Sydney Swans vs Collingwood game, if you're a neutral person and you go to that game at the MCG, and you take a randomly assigned seat, you'll have a much higher chance of sitting next to a person wearing black than red. Go to that game in Sydney, and with another randomly assigned seat you'll most likely be sitting next to a person wearing red.

Same two teams, just a different proportion of each - the viral infection numbers work similarly.

In that UK cohort of 40-49 year olds, the vaccinated person rate is 4 to 1. If the vaccines were doing no job, then the number of vaccinated people with a Covid infection would be 4 times that of the unvaccinated number, that the vaccinated people having a Covid infection is less than double shows the vaccines are doing a very commendable job.

Getting back to the nursing home debate, that may be true for that member or/relative of yours Don, he/she may have hated living that way, but I am telling you, that there are a lot of people that have their full senses about them that actually don't mind living in an aged care setting, they realize that living at home is no longer for them, so they opt for somewhere where they will be taken good care of.

Getting back to the nursing home debate, that may be true for that member or/relative of yours Don, he/she may have hated living that way, but I am telling you, that there are a lot of people that have their full senses about them that actually don't mind living in an aged care setting, they realize that living at home is no longer for them, so they opt for somewhere where they will be taken good care of.

I concur, a very good friend of mine is the head honcho of a nursing home, and she works in another couple as an agency nurse (RN) too.

She loves all of her 'old dears' and they all love her, some of them are palliative, or are otherwise 'on borrowed time' (my words, not hers) but a goodly number of them have simply moved in because for whatever reason they cannot look after themselves, or have simply decided that basically living in a hotel with on sight nurses and cleaners and full kitchen you don't need to drive or clean yourself is a fantastic lifestyle.

I live down the road from a nursing home, and I am forever seeing their little 'adventure bus' coming and going with all the oldies on board, mostly they're mobile under their own steam, but occasionally I see one or a couple being wheeled. I have no idea where they go for their outings, but they don't ever look to be returning from a hard day's work in the metaphorical salt mine.

Getting back to the nursing home debate, that may be true for that member or/relative of yours Don, he/she may have hated living that way, but I am telling you, that there are a lot of people that have their full senses about them that actually don't mind living in an aged care setting, they realize that living at home is no longer for them, so they opt for somewhere where they will be taken good care of.

but a goodly number of them have simply moved in because for whatever reason they cannot look after themselves, or have simply decided that basically living in a hotel with on sight nurses and cleaners and full kitchen you don't need to drive or clean yourself is a fantastic lifestyle.

This is the case for my 99 year old grandfather who moved in earlier this year. There were some early issues with the food which was too difficult for him to eat, but once that was sorted he says it is like being on an endless holiday. He does exercise classes, dancing, bingo and then can go back to his private room when he has had enough and watch TV. He probably should have moved in a couple of years earlier.

Only problem is when he wants a doctor. He expects the place to bring him a doctor immediately like a hospital. He has worked out he can get what he wants by throwing a tantrum and claiming he will smash the window to get out of the facility and then call his lawyer. He was always a...difficult short tempered control freak who was never far from a violent fit of rage if not everything was has he wanted it.

If these outbursts continue they have said he may need to go to a centre that specialises in violent patients.

You know in Australia right now you have near 100% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of Australia, and a near 0% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of China don't you? That doesn't mean it will be safer for you to live in China. It just means that a person in China is more likely to be infected by another Chinese resident than by a resident of Australia.

This is not the case in Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia. Along with New Zealand, we stopped passenger traffic from mainland China before it was declared a pandemic, that is in late January 2020.
At the time, Canada, a very similar country, had only a few confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus, all directly linked to travel from mainland China, but their federal government, the Trudeau government thought a travel ban would be racist.
However, two areas of Canada, the Atlantic provinces and Northern Canada, did stop passenger traffic from the rest of North America and did manage to achieve elimination of local transmission. They may have acted early in relation to when Canada got it's first case.

Before there was a vaccine, there was 100% chance new infections came from the unvaccinated, as the number of vaccinated people rises, (assuming it's ahead of population growth) the number of unvaccinated people must correspondingly shrink.

Actually, it is about the portion who are immune (through vaccination or not) not the portion who are vaccinated.

If we grant Mytrone's wet dream and the population gets to 100% vaccinated there will be a 100% chance that a vaccinated person passed the virus on (which we expect to happen), and we will know with absolute certainty, assuming we are sure we've killed (or at least covertly vaccinated) all the anti vaccination people that there is 0% chance that new infection came from an unvaccinated person.

It's not 100% vaccination, it's near universal vaccination. By the way, data from the United Arab Emirates, the most vaccinated major sovereign nation, does suggest the transmission among the vaccinated is rare if the two doses are given at the right interval. Why do we expect the vaccinated to keep passing on the virus? High vaccination uptake has eliminated community transmission in many other cases.

How do you know there hasn't been a measurable increase in the suicide rate?

Don, stop! You're making yourself look silly...

How do I know there hasn't been a measurable increase in suicide rate? It's trivial, we count the number of suicides and compare to previous years.

How do you know there hasn't been a measurable increase in the suicide rate? I was hanging onto one data point because it's indicative of what's really going on - haven't been able to find any references to Victorian suicide rates during lock-down because they're simply not available. Why would that be do you think?

Or can you magically find them for us.

Turns out I can! Turns out you could too, but I am not going to give you the source, you'll have to use your learning and look.

Annual suicides in Victoria (aka 'The Lockdown State' - they really need to get that as a number plate slogan)

            Male    Female      Total
2016      476          177         653
2017      506          188         694
2018      530          187         717
2019      542          176         718
2020     520          178        698

So LESS suicides in Victoria in 2020 than preceding two years.

Now you can try and pick holes and say smeg like 'Ah, but female suicides increased in 2020 on 2019, and you'd be right, so explain the reduction against 2017 and 2018, those 9 to 10 women in those years predicted their predicament of lock down ahead of time and chose to exit early? Or, why male suicides reduced by 22 from 2019, I mean the whole 'jobless' thing and 'not being able to go to the pub' etc thing would normally be expected to impact the men more wouldn't it?

There's just no sensible causal link.

Now, I know what you're going to say...

But you're hiding/missing/etc the 2021 data!!!

No, 2021 isn't finished yet, so comparing an annual figure makes no sense.

So instead I present, 'Year To Date' figures to this time:

YTD suicides in Victoria (YTD being to 31/8/21 - September not being publicly published yet)

            Male    Female      Total
2017      325          131         456
2018      337          116         453
2019      361          119         480
2020      366          127         493
2021     335          104        439

So again, LESS suicides in Victoria YTD 2021 than preceding several years. Notably, A LOT LESS, more than 10% less, than so far last year, and with Victoria more or less coming out of lockdown as I type, anyone that thinks lockdown has lead to an increased rate of suicide is going to have a really hard argument on their hands and no data to support them. The rate is clearly reduced!

Tossing who knows what at statistics aside, you would surely have to admit that basic counting is quite smeg trivial, even if you call it addition instead of counting, less than 730 deaths means less than two per day over a year, I know you have demonstrated a difficulty multiplying by two, but surely counting by one or adding two to a number is not going to overwhelm you, or anyone else. These numbers are just not going to be in error by even tens let alone the hundreds you likely think they are.

You don't have a business, Aaron, you're another one of these public servants on this board who doesn't know what all the fuss is about when there's a lockdown. You don't care, you have no skin in the game. Neither of us went what they went through in Melbourne so neither of us know how traumatic it was to lose a business and be locked in your home for a world-beating amount of time.

Are you trying to break some international record for incorrectness?

I do have a business - I have a pretty ABN and everything, and I work for a private company (well technically a publicly listed one), I am not a public servant, please, you sort of think you know something about me, do you really think I would serve the public?

For the record, (you can forward this to Guinness or whomever is overseeing your record attempt), I have never drawn a single dollar of income from 'the government', no unemployment ever, no payments as a student - ever, I didn't get 'job keeper' during the pandemic, no government money even for the little periods of SA lockdown, even when I 'worked in the government' I was paid by the party - not the government. Maybe you're thinking of my wife? Nope, she's not even a citizen yet, though she did apply yesterday and qualifies end of next month, so no sweet, sweet, free government coin ever for her either, she works for a private company, I am not even sure she's allowed to work for the government as 'only a PR' - not that she would, she hates dealing with 'the public' even more than I do...

The Victorians, for the most part, an especially from the point of view of suicides, they're doing just fine. Judging by their general inability to reduce their infection spread, most of them weren't locked in their home for world-beating amounts of time either.

No, 2021 isn't finished yet, so comparing an annual figure makes no sense.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

My God, Aaron - you seriously had time to write all that? I don't even have time to read it on my lunch break (and probably not after work either) and I certainly will not bother responding to the complete word salad you've just served up there.

Obviously you don't have enough real work to do.

One thing that sticks out is that you were saying I couldn't use one data point from earlier this year to conclude that suicides in Victoria were up - but then you back-track by saying 'the year isn't over yet'. Which suggests that you're not arguing honestly like RTT_Rules used to when he took me on.

In all seriousness, you've written so much there and it's so patronising and damn superior that I just can't be bothered reading it. Learn to be more concise and more civil and I'll think about it.

No, 2021 isn't finished yet, so comparing an annual figure makes no sense.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

The answer is that it will be around the same as the other years.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

You know Don wont. Its not in his DNA. Aaron's comments are much appreciated.

Mannie

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

You know Don wont. Its not in his DNA. Aaron's comments are much appreciated.

Mannie

Has Don ever got back to you about Biden meeting with Kim being diplomatic, from my recollections you have ALWAYS said that you would prefer that Biden never met with him.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

This is where we need a "You are a f.wit" reaction button...

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

You happen to agree with him on this point but at other times you've gone nuts at him - so stop pretending that he's a font of all knowledge all the sudden.

You don't know the answer - so stop pretending that you do.

He has presented facts (repeat, facts) and figures accurately. He's not pretending about anything. You obviously cannot comprehend his well laid out presentation, so the best idea is for you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just keep quiet. Those of us who do understand it will continue to appreciate Aaron's comments on the subject.

This is where we need a "You are a f.wit" reaction button...

So just because I'm sceptical and cautious I deserve to be abused and called names? I'll have to remember that for the next time you say something I don't agree with.