Tammydog,
as promised, some more detailed comments in response to your posts:
#61127380 on p. 688 and #61147029 on p. 690.
In part you've said:
"Everyone admitted to hospital is tested, usually more than once and with different methods, so a positive result could be considered more accurate than a one-off test somewhere else.RAT's are not included as they are more likely to show false negatives where it says you are negative but actually have the virus.
In the 2 weeks ending 24th April across NSW there were about 476,000 PCR tests and 81,500 positive results or 17.1%. This link can be checked to verify my (approximate) numbers, it's tedious.
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20220424_00.aspx."
It's good to see the link included in your post. I've not checked your calculations of the number of PCR tests conducted and the % positive but let's assume those figures are correct.
You then go on to say:
"In April, NSW had 342 covid-related deaths x 17.1% = 58 people who tested positive."
This is where your calculations have erred. All the 342 deaths classified as covid-related deaths have tested positive for Covid and entirely, or almost entirely, on the basis of what you yourself have described as the more accurate PCR test. Their positive (PCR) test is, after all, how they were classified as Covid deaths.
Accordingly the figures do not support the claims you've made in your next paragraph and indeed the rest of your post.
"Surely, those other 284 deaths should be eliminated from the covid stats and simply put in the general death numbers of which I believe there are about 4000 per month from all causes
These 284 died of their underlying conditions because they tested negative, they didn't have the virus."
Again, the "284" did not test negative. The results of their covid test(s) was positive (thus classing them as a Covid-related death) and a high proportion, especially of those severely infected, would have infection confirmed by characteristic SARS-Cov-2 symptoms.
There is therefore no basis to support the rest of your post where you've expanded on your "58 positives" figure:
"If we take the 58 positives, ........."
