"Muh Sweden."

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

[tholdren]

No. I said the process for us took about 24 hours after we notified our tenants. (shrugs)

The sky is blue.

Am I wrong about that because I did not know about the legal parameters of evictions in Texas?

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

[ChumpDumper]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

He's afraid of this question.

[DMC]

How were those counted? That seemed to be important for you with COVID-19.

<((((((((((><

[tholdren]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.

[ChumpDumper]

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

this is your fear response.

[RandomGuy]

Texas had 3500 flu related deaths last year. California had almost 7K. Where are they now with COVID? I know you want to take NY numbers and disperse them to other states to average them for narrative reasons, but it's obvious that the flu deaths are quite significant and COVID hasn't gone 12x as many of them in most states. Funny how narratives and stats work. Also, there's such thing as seasons. I get that doesn't help your "sky is falling cuz orange man bad" narrative but them's the breaks kid.

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.

is that supposed to be a sentence?

[tholdren]

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

Hey. At risk population the same. The end.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey. At risk population the same. The end.

trying to shut down discussion out of fear

[DMC]

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?

[DMC]

trying to shut down discussion out of fear

fear of tedium. Don't act like you're a cornucopia of new information there red herring man.

[boutons_deux]

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...WE+DNK+FIN+NOR

[ChumpDumper]

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?

Which brings us back to this question you won't answer.

Do you think all the lockdowns were unnecessary?

Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?

I simply asked you for a better metric, if you had one. I see you don't have one.

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[ChumpDumper]

fear of tedium. Don't act like you're a cornucopia of new information there red herring man.

I don't. You're the one acting like you have expert knowledge. I ask you about that and you shut the up. It doesn't make much sense.

[ChumpDumper]

I simply asked you for a better metric, if you had one. I see you don't have one.

He just can't stand being called out on his claimed omnipotence.

[DMC]

Which brings us back to this question you won't answer.

Do you think all the lockdowns were unnecessary?

Yes or no.

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.

It's obvious in how you ask questions that you're a layman and so you don't get the nuances of science.

[tholdren]

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.

[ChumpDumper]

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.

Wow, you manufactured a false premise just to get out of answering a yes or no question.

Bravo.

[RandomGuy]

He just can't stand being called out on his claimed omnipotence.

I honestly would be happy if he had a more accurate method or calculation, that is the funny part. Best estimate of the actual mortality is still from those first 100% tested populations at about .0066, quite a bit higher than the flu. Newer estimates still put it at roughly that, some as low as .0035, again still much higher than the normal flu, which is, if memory serves, only about at .0002 or so.

[DMC]

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

He will laugh at give a mea culpa, then continue spewing false information. The amount of tripe from the websperts here is amazing.

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly would be happy if he had a more accurate method or calculation, that is the funny part. Best estimate of the actual mortality is still from those first 100% tested populations at about .0066, quite a bit higher than the flu. Newer estimates still put it at roughly that, some as low as .0035, again still much higher than the normal flu, which is, if memory serves, only about at .0002 or so.

His and thilden's internet glory is found in telling other people they're wrong. They absolutely lose their when they are proved wrong. They have trouble committing to a yes or no when asked out of fear of being proved wrong at some point.

[DMC]

His and thilden's internet glory is found in telling other people they're wrong. They absolutely lose their when they are proved wrong. They have trouble committing to a yes or no when asked out of fear of being proved wrong at some point.

spent the last 17 years telling people they are wrong on ST

dual PhD in "you're wrong"