Anyone that thinks looking for scorpions in your backyard is what causes scorpions in your backyard either lying or extremely uneducated.
Maybe I'm misreading the graph, but it's saying that the number of cases per 250,000 people tested is flat. So, if all 350 million people were tested in the US, we would see an alarmingly gigantic spike in covid cases. The number of people with covid never changed, they have covid whether they got tested or not. But, in that example, I believe that the death rate would fall like a rock. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't believe that your straw man argument is even an equivalent analogy.
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
Anyone that thinks looking for scorpions in your backyard is what causes scorpions in your backyard either lying or extremely uneducated.
Maybe I'm misreading the graph, but it's saying that the number of cases per 250,000 people tested is flat.
It’s cases per test, not cases per people tested.
“Are you crazy?! You think I’m going to go for seven years and try to get there? You enjoy the 2030 draft picks that we have holding? I want to try to see the game today.” — Ish 3/13/25
Anyone that thinks looking for scorpions in your backyard is what causes scorpions in your backyard either lying or extremely uneducated.
Maybe I'm misreading the graph, but it's saying that the number of cases per 250,000 people tested is flat.
It’s cases per test, not cases per people tested.
This. it is even labeled that way.
This doesn't really change the main point.
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Anyone that thinks looking for scorpions in your backyard is what causes scorpions in your backyard either lying or extremely uneducated.
Maybe I'm misreading the graph, but it's saying that the number of cases per 250,000 people tested is flat.
It’s cases per test, not cases per people tested.
This. it is even labeled that way.
This doesn't really change the main point.
It changes it completely.
“Are you crazy?! You think I’m going to go for seven years and try to get there? You enjoy the 2030 draft picks that we have holding? I want to try to see the game today.” — Ish 3/13/25
Maybe I'm misreading the graph, but it's saying that the number of cases per 250,000 people tested is flat.
It’s cases per test, not cases per people tested.
This. it is even labeled that way.
This doesn't really change the main point.
It changes it completely.
How so?
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Neither straw man argument is my main point, but you keep doing that. Why is that?
Whether you test all or none, you will have the same amount of people with covid. Neither stop or assist the transmission, they just tell you if you have it or not.
I'm saying that testing more isn't showing that it's getting out of control. Cases per 250,000 tests are flat in this graph, so the "spike" isn't exactly honest.
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Neither straw man argument is my main point, but you keep doing that. Why is that?
Whether you test all or none, you will have the same amount of people with covid. Neither stop or assist the transmission, they just tell you if you have it or not.
I'm saying that testing more isn't showing that it's getting out of control. Cases per 250,000 tests are flat in this graph, so the "spike" isn't exactly honest.
you don't make arguments. you post something and say, "interesting." or "curious what people think of this." or something else that tries to show you are just sharing info. But the poster/author of the info you are sharing is making an argument. And when people refute it, you say "well *I* didn't make that argument. Why are you trying to say I did?".
I get it. You think this isn't as big of a deal as many other people do. We can all believe whatever we want. But the facts are this is the deadliest outbreak of a highly infections disease we have seen in over 100 years and nearly 1 year in we are not close to seeing the end of it.
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Neither straw man argument is my main point, but you keep doing that. Why is that?
Whether you test all or none, you will have the same amount of people with covid. Neither stop or assist the transmission, they just tell you if you have it or not.
I'm saying that testing more isn't showing that it's getting out of control. Cases per 250,000 tests are flat in this graph, so the "spike" isn't exactly honest.
you don't make arguments. you post something and say, "interesting." or "curious what people think of this." or something else that tries to show you are just sharing info. But the poster/author of the info you are sharing is making an argument. And when people refute it, you say "well *I* didn't make that argument. Why are you trying to say I did?".
I get it. You think this isn't as big of a deal as many other people do. We can all believe whatever we want. But the facts are this is the deadliest outbreak of a highly infections disease we have seen in over 100 years and nearly 1 year in we are not close to seeing the end of it.
You want to argue with me over something I post that I say is interesting, but you want to use straw man arguments? Don't be surprised when I call you out for it. If you want to debate the substance of what's being said, I'll be happy to agree or disagree with you and do my best to articulate my POV.
I'm certainly not saying it's not real, but I'm also a bit skeptical of some (not all) of the hysteria. I think the truth probably is somewhere in the middle.
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Neither straw man argument is my main point, but you keep doing that. Why is that?
Whether you test all or none, you will have the same amount of people with covid. Neither stop or assist the transmission, they just tell you if you have it or not.
I'm saying that testing more isn't showing that it's getting out of control. Cases per 250,000 tests are flat in this graph, so the "spike" isn't exactly honest.
you don't make arguments. you post something and say, "interesting." or "curious what people think of this." or something else that tries to show you are just sharing info. But the poster/author of the info you are sharing is making an argument. And when people refute it, you say "well *I* didn't make that argument. Why are you trying to say I did?".
I get it. You think this isn't as big of a deal as many other people do. We can all believe whatever we want. But the facts are this is the deadliest outbreak of a highly infections disease we have seen in over 100 years and nearly 1 year in we are not close to seeing the end of it.
You want to argue with me over something I post that I say is interesting, but you want to use straw man arguments? Don't be surprised when I call you out for it. If you want to debate the substance of what's being said, I'll be happy to agree or disagree with you and do my best to articulate my POV.
I'm certainly not saying it's not real, but I'm also a bit skeptical of some (not all) of the hysteria. I think the truth probably is somewhere in the middle.
Hysteria? The 100s of thousands of dead and their families don't share your opinion. Since you're not using facts to back up your beliefs, this belongs in the politics forum.
If your main point is that if you test less you will have less cases, that is not true.
If your main point is that if you don't look for cases you will find less, well of course--turning a blind eye does that, but it won't have any less people die from it.
Neither straw man argument is my main point, but you keep doing that. Why is that?
Whether you test all or none, you will have the same amount of people with covid. Neither stop or assist the transmission, they just tell you if you have it or not.
I'm saying that testing more isn't showing that it's getting out of control. Cases per 250,000 tests are flat in this graph, so the "spike" isn't exactly honest.
you don't make arguments. you post something and say, "interesting." or "curious what people think of this." or something else that tries to show you are just sharing info. But the poster/author of the info you are sharing is making an argument. And when people refute it, you say "well *I* didn't make that argument. Why are you trying to say I did?".
I get it. You think this isn't as big of a deal as many other people do. We can all believe whatever we want. But the facts are this is the deadliest outbreak of a highly infections disease we have seen in over 100 years and nearly 1 year in we are not close to seeing the end of it.
You want to argue with me over something I post that I say is interesting, but you want to use straw man arguments? Don't be surprised when I call you out for it. If you want to debate the substance of what's being said, I'll be happy to agree or disagree with you and do my best to articulate my POV.
I'm certainly not saying it's not real, but I'm also a bit skeptical of some (not all) of the hysteria. I think the truth probably is somewhere in the middle.
Hysteria? The 100s of thousands of dead and their families don't share your opinion. Since you're not using facts to back up your beliefs, this belongs in the politics forum.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/worl ... hnson.html
"The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus. American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
are you doubting that in an uncontrolled spread environment we wouldn't be looking at 2 million deaths? I mean, we are 9 months into this with over 250k dead, and that is with significant controls put in place in major US population centers. As is, we will likely double the number of deaths by March. And that is if we keep all of the current safe guards in place. half a million dead in 12 months.
I work with people that are spending their entire day (and nights) working to track vaccine trials, effectivity, and distribution. Their estimates (along with what the scientific community is saying) expect wide-spread availability to happen at the end of Q2 2021, with it taking the rest of 2021 to get it distributed to the remainder of the country.
As it first started and the death numbers increased by a factor of 15% each day, it wasn't unthinkable that it could happen.
Do you think the vaccine will be made mandatory?
"There are 3 rules I live by: never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy with the same first name as a city & never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Everything else is cream cheese."
Can't believe this thread was started January 27th. We were far more concerned early on than our own POTUS and government.
What is smallball? I play basketball. I'm not a regular big man. I can switch from the center to the guards. The game is evolving. I'd be dominAyton if the WNBA would let me in. - Ayton
