nwt
-
Content
713 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1 -
Feedback
N/A -
Country
United States
Everything posted by nwt
-
We argued something related to this, and concluded that two parachutes are required. I don't think we ever concluded that you couldn't intentionally cut away one of them. I could be mis-remembering though.
-
I don't think it's legally required, but it's definitely a good practice.
-
I think this steep downward trend is very promising. Deaths are coming down as well.
-
Getting my second on Tuesday morning
-
I was actually just looking at this today:
-
Illinois is supposed to be vaccinating inmates now under phase 1b
-
Nope, numbers never change. When they do, it's direct evidence of fraud. See: presidential vote counting, pandemic stats, etc.
-
Maybe forums are due for a comeback. It's such a great format.
-
Wing loading?
-
A plurality of anecdotes does not support your position that "most" data has been intentional doctored, or that the overall numbers are not reasonable accurate. No, you can't say that. I don't understand what you mean by this. What "numbers"? Again, a plurality of anecdotes does nothing to suggest "how badly" information is being falsified. Again, you can cross check the death count against excess deaths. No, they didn't. The previous administration never had any influence over JHU data. Right, I would never say that. Excess deaths certainly include indirect deaths like you mention. That doesn't mean it isn't valuable as a cross check, and indirect deaths are relevant as part of the overall burden of this pandemic. What? No. Nobody is treating the data as absolute truth... What is the basis for your claim that there is no way to independently verify? Why do you not consider JHU to be independent?
-
This doesn't support your position that "most" data has been "knowingly doctored". Like I said, you can cross check COVID deaths against excess deaths, and overall it checks out pretty well. So what? Testing didn't stop and neither has counting of cases. I posted data on tests per day in the very post you are replying to. This is true and completely uncontroversial--please explain what point you're trying to make. The death count is valid. Again, I refer back to the very post you are replying to, where I tell you the death toll can be cross checked against excess deaths.
-
The data I attached to my post. I don't know why you're claiming "most of which have been knowingly doctored". Do you have a reference for that? The overall death numbers are pretty credible because you can cross-check against excess deaths.
-
That doesn't seem to be supported by the data
-
But you agree that you haven't actually supported this opinion with any kind of evidence?
-
I'm not disputing that Florida is older than California--I'm disputing this:
-
So you agree that your example of Florida compared with California does not support the claim you've been trying to make regarding efficacy of lockdowns?
-
[citation needed]
-
So you finally agree that lockdowns are effective in reducing viral infection?
-
I think you missed this. California just blew past Florida but the race isn't over, it's not a tie, and it's obvious who is in the lead.
-
Also California came down from a much higher peak, much more steeply, when compared to Florida.
-
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
-
This is awesome! But now what will you do for your 1000th?
-
I don't
-
I don't see where he says fewer people would have died without mitigations. And this is almost a year old so it wouldn't be relevant if he did say it.
-
If you can provide a reasonable synthesis for how you think your reference supports your assertion here, I'll consider engaging.
