800% increase in WHAT?
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread againAnd since it seems you won't read it there, I'll post it here.
Remember when you were banging on about the 800% increase in under 18 year old Victorian females on last year?
There have been no recorded suicides in that age group in the last month, but in corresponding month last year there were, the rate is now 'only' 200% increased. However, October, November and December also recorded deaths to suicide in that demographic last year, since Victoria will more or less be out of lock down in these months this year it is not inconceivable that Victoria may well record a nett decrease in suicides in that one demographic by the end of the year. What will you say then? Recall, that in the Covid thread I went to some length to explain this to you.
Statistics like suicide numbers have a horrible way of not changing much year on year (because the non horrible thing would be for them to drastically reduce - sadly, this is not a general trend), to take a single data point on what is clearly a moving target statistic and hang your hat on it as a fact is frankly dangerous.
You're thankfully not the first to learn this, it is noted that the 'story' you were working from has dropped of the media radar - maybe they learned something about statistics too.
Sorry, left a word out, but fixed, and it was likely apparent from the next paragraph anyway.
I'm also trained in the use of statistics if you haven't picked that up by now
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.
the fact is that there was an unusual spike at that particular time that they were trying to say was nothing whatsoever to do with the VIC lockdown when clearly it was.
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.
There were people who died because of the immense psychological impact of lockdowns and their deaths are collateral damage according to those in charge.
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.
All to save the lives of people in nursing homes, many of who wanted to die rather than go on living that way or who have died since then anyway.
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.