More proof that we must always respect everything that comes out of the mouths of this country's healthcare workers:
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...29568336711686
More proof that we must always respect everything that comes out of the mouths of this country's healthcare workers:
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...29568336711686
Do think breathing each others air might increase the likelihood of an airborne virus spreading?Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're just getting trollish at this point. Meaning back to normal spliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
I said the thresholds will be arbitrary, if not then just prove me.wrong. I asked you to define the threshhold and you walked away with your tail between your legs yet YOU gonna come back at ME on the topic?
Define your objective threshholds, give me the specific number and prove how they are objective. What exact daily case number is that threshhold at? Hell, give a range, that's cool. Until then you're nothing more than buzz queening at this point.
You dont even comprehend the graph if you are sitting there and saying we should have remained shelter in place until the numbers start trending down, lmao, that's not gonna happen until after the vaccine is out. You dont even get that tho..[emoji23]
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Oh yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Moving on.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Tail between my legs? Oh, man. You always know how to make me laugh. There's only so much time I'm willing to put in to a circular conversation with someone like you. You consistently make bogus claims, then pretend you never said them (when you're not mindlessly sticking to 'em like flies on ****).Quote:
I asked you to define the threshhold and you walked away with your tail between your legs yet YOU gonna come back at ME on the topic?
Kinda like half a week ago when you claimed this:
....yet today you matter of factly tell fingerbang this:Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Talk about a total clown approach to a conversation and the exact reason why it's not worthwhile for anyone to take you seriously. Again, you are the bizarro world version of Special. Different approaches but basically the same outcome: a constant stream of unswayable nonsense that just goes round and round until the person you are talking with comes to their senses and realizes what a complete waste of time it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
And by similar you mean California has both the least cases per 1 million and the least deaths per 1 million. Of the 3, California’s mitigation efforts seem to have worked the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Reread my first 2 posts you quoted. It's going over your head. If the thresholds are arbitrary that means what you are basing opening on is arbitrary. If you can show its objective rather than subjective than do so. Right now you're doing your usual defense mechanism of not having an answer so you purposely turn the argument circular. You're too predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
If you dont have an answer then let us know. Dont try to deflect.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Bad comprehension on your part again. I told you the numbers were the same before and after because you hinged your argument on the fact that the numbers leading up to the lockdown were lower than the numbers leading up to opening up. The numbers leading to opening up were during stay in shelter and they still werent lower before the lockdown, meaning your approach would mean we stay in shelter in place until the vaccine is distributed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
Comprende?
I told finger bang that lockdowns make a clear difference because if you look at the growth rate before lockdowns they are clearly very diff than growth rate DURING lockdowns.
You are really struggling with this stuff.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I've read your nonsense on this topic more than enough already, thanks. There's no need to take you or your arguments seriously, as you are incapable of distinguishing facts from your own hunches (as well as incapable of ever admitting that your treasured hunches could be wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Just because the answers to these things aren't universally agreed upon, doesn't mean that they are arbitrary. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what arbitrary means.
Still no answer. What a shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
No, I didn't actually. Talk about poor reading comprehension....or just as likely, you thinking you can make **** up and pass it off as fact. If I said such a thing, you could and should have quoted it (as I did, to clearly show examples of your disingenuous nonsense).Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Have fun in fantasy land.
Lmao, you never mentioned that we opened up too early because the numbers were higher before the lockdown??Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
You're really.gonna switch up your stance like that? Haha, ur so full of ****...
Either way looks like you got no answer regarding what threshhold we should have opened at. 100 cases a day? 1000? Who knows, spiffy sure dont...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am not switching up ****, oh wise one. Again: if you were so sure of these claims, you could and would quote my post(s) that supposedly back up what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Have fun in fantasy land. Tell catman I say "hello".
Sure, point me to your posts where you mentioned the reasoning behind why we opened too early.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
I'll let you do the wild goose chase part..
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yeah, I'll get right to doing your homework for you and hunting down this make believe post where I claimed that "we opened up too early because the numbers were higher before the lockdown". :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Oh you're giving out homework? Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
You said we opened back up too early because the numbers were higher leading up to the reopen than they were leading up to the initial lockdown.
This shows that you do not comprehend what is going on. You do not understand what the point of the lockdown was nor do you understand what statistics prompted us to lockdown to begin with.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk