"Muh Sweden."

[ChumpDumper]

Your definition.

Nope.

[DMC]

I do. Isn't that obvious when I've been telling you how illogical your modeling beliefs are?

But go on. Its completely hilarious to watch you do this. You were wrong. So were many of the experts you were blabbering about.

They are wrong on so many things but that doesn't stop them from waxing philosophical about them.

[DMC]

Nope.

Pick a definition.

What is the death rate that exceeds absolute failure?

[ChumpDumper]

They are wrong on so many things but that doesn't stop them from waxing philosophical about them.

Eh, you've been wrong on so many things too. You just get furious about it.

[ChumpDumper]

Pick a definition.

What's yours? I'd like to consider it.

[DMC]

So you refuse to define "absolute failure" but it's claimed here that there has been absolute failure. RG says as few deaths as possible, doesn't explain how to verify that.

So no gauge for failure, no gauge for "fewest deaths possible".

I guess I should just accept your opinions as fact without any evidence whatsoever.

[DMC]

Eh, you've been wrong on so many things too. You just get furious about it.

Tu quoque fallacy

[ChumpDumper]

So you refuse to define "absolute failure" but it's claimed here that there has been absolute failure. RG says as few deaths as possible, doesn't explain how to verify that.

So no gauge for failure, no gauge for "fewest deaths possible".

I guess I should just accept your opinions as fact without any evidence whatsoever.

So you refuse to define absolute failure as well after insisting the term be used.

You are not an honest broker.

[ChumpDumper]

Tu quoque fallacy

Call it whatever you want, you've been wrong on so many things.

Are you trying to say you're never wrong?

[DMC]

DMC always looking for the W

Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.

What's yours? I'd like to consider it.

Whatever you were referring to here.

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever you were referring to here.

I said that's NOT complete failure.

Man, you're flailing.

[DMC]

I said that's NOT complete failure.

Man, you're flailing.

You'd need to know what a complete failure is to know that's not it.

Also..

Let's say it's a complete failure as a prophylactic and he gets it. What are his chances, doctor?

thildren still holding Trump blameless for his failure?

By deflecting attention away from Trump's failures.

Actually he could donate plasma for antibody research.

No need to get even more defensive about Trump's miserable failure.

Can't be folding if I already did it. you're such a failure at this.

You seem pretty adept at knowing what a failure is.

Go ahead and define it.

cue the obvious "DMC" response as a diversionary tactic.

[ChumpDumper]

You'd need to know what a complete failure is to know that's not it.

OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

[ChumpDumper]

I mean even muh Sweden has implemented restrictions.

[DMC]

OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

Together? Is the death count required or just not shutting down?

What death count threshold equates to failure? Is it a moving target?

[ChumpDumper]

Together? Is the death count required or just not shutting down?

What death count threshold equates to failure? Is it a moving target?

Still waiting for your definition.

Are you even going to try after demanding the term's inclusion?

If not, it wasn't important for you to include in the first place and we can continue without it.

[DMC]

Still waiting for your definition.

Are you even going to try after demanding the term's inclusion?

If not, it wasn't important for you to include in the first place and we can continue without it.

I don't need to define it. I haven't called anything a complete failure regarding the death toll or actions implemented. If you're going to give statements like that, you need to define the terms.

For example, is 1 death a failure? Is 100 deaths a failure? Is 1000 deaths a failure? is 10000 deaths a failure?

If the goal is as RG described, then quantify it so you know if you achieved the goal. Quality assessments based on political opinions doesn't do anything to address goals. The fact that you're struggling so much to define the term you use so often and to quantify the goal tells me you don't really have a goal and you don't really have a target, you just have a politically biased opinion that changes with the color of the party in power.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't need to define it.

I did. If you don't like it, that's fine. Truly complete failure would be the death count from complete inaction.

Do you remember what you were trying to argue before your tangent?

Are you just looking for a fence to sit on?

[DMC]

I did. If you don't like it, that's fine. Truly complete failure would be the death count from complete inaction.

Do you remember what you were trying to argue before your tangent?

Are you just looking for a fence to sit on?

I cornered you into defining it. I usually don't speak in such absolutes while refusing to define criteria.

You say "fence to sit on" but what you're really saying is you picked a side and you'll sacrifice truth and integrity to support it. I won't.

[ChumpDumper]

I cornered you into defining it. I usually don't speak in such absolutes while refusing to define criteria.

Yes, you demanded it. You want to sit on a fence rather than define it. OK. You've concluded no such definition is necessary.

Now do you remember what you were arguing or is this just part of your jihad against me and other posters?

Be an honest broker.

[tholdren]

Oh, did you contact them?

Send them your scientific paper for review?

I didn't have to. They got caught. Just like I said when I told you they were grossly misrepresenting data. But then you wanted to do your stupidity, talk about epidemiologists backgrounds, etc. Now you just look really really dumb. But not as stupid as baseline bum

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't have to. They got caught. Just like I said when I told you they were grossly misrepresenting data. But then you wanted to do your stupidity, talk about epidemiologists backgrounds, etc. Now you just look really really dumb. But not as stupid as baseline bum

So, no contact.

You're 0-4.

Looking really back for you.

You'd better try to change the subject again.

[tholdren]

OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

Lol beep beep beep... backing up to move the posts. This is excellent

[ChumpDumper]

Lol beep beep beep... backing up to move the posts. This is excellent

?

[tholdren]

?

I've never seen someone so unable to read graphs and yet so sure of a completely inaccurate stance except you. Lol you really don't have any mathematical understanding. Lol

This is again why its a mixture of funny and sad because you really thought this time, all this time, you were right