Kansas Crimson

My fault for even replying to the moron, won't happen again.

"The news just reports the news" -- Geezer 2020.

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:03 pm

What did the news lie about in relation to that particular story?

Did you feel that the scientific study was done improperly or do you discount it because it doesn't align with your unscientific world view?

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:03 pm

What did the news lie about in relation to that particular story?

Did you feel that the scientific study was done improperly or do you discount it because it doesn't align with your unscientific world view?

Dammit, stop feeding the idiot.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:03 pm

What did the news lie about in relation to that particular story?

Did you feel that the scientific study was done improperly or do you discount it because it doesn't align with your unscientific world view?

Dammit, stop feeding the idiot.

I can have whatever conversations I'd like. Ignore it if you find no value in it. I personally don't mind attempting to have a reasonable conversation with questions.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:53 am Related to Trump's Rose Garden rally yesterday - yes, it was batshit insane. But I think he's realized that the wheels are inexorably in motion to lose Florida, Arizona and Texas. And, with those, the prospect of an even spitting-distance electoral college result.

Yesterday was the first day I thought Trump might actually drop out of the race. I tuned into the presser because a large part of my job is dealing with sanctions, and it was supposed to be about Hong Kong sanctions. It was just wild. He had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. He was reading a list that someone gave him for the first time, and spouting off random things. I just sat there confused. He obviously is flailing, and nothing is sticking. I can now see him seeing the writing on the wall, and attempting to be relevant from the sidelines.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:53 am Related to Trump's Rose Garden rally yesterday - yes, it was batshit insane. But I think he's realized that the wheels are inexorably in motion to lose Florida, Arizona and Texas. And, with those, the prospect of an even spitting-distance electoral college result.

Yesterday was the first day I thought Trump might actually drop out of the race. I tuned into the presser because a large part of my job is dealing with sanctions, and it was supposed to be about Hong Kong sanctions. It was just wild. He had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. He was reading a list that someone gave him for the first time, and spouting off random things. I just sat there confused. He obviously is flailing, and nothing is sticking. I can now see him seeing the writing on the wall, and attempting to be relevant from the sidelines.

He would rather look like an unprepared buffoon than actually read something. His lack of effort to educate himself about the issues facing America are stunning. His mental laziness combined with a lack of any sort of common sense knowledge of the world around him is staggering. He is completely unfit to perform this job.

I mean, this was true in 2015, and hasn't changed in 2020. My point was yesterday was different. It was worse, and not by a small amount. He's rambled. He's been unprepared. Yesterday was the start of the war on windows.

Alright twocoach, I'll spell out the basics. Firstly, the source. Most universities in America are selling a narrative than women and minorities are victims in society and that they need additional help to catch up to white men. Because of this intention, they are of course not going to be sincere in talking about the problem the protesters created. They don't want to risk offending their base.

The second problem is, science. Science tells us that covid is airborne and spreads very easily from breath alone. Masks can help, but it won't stop the spread from people in big crowds. Also, many protesters were not wearing masks. We accept that big crowds is what spreads the virus the most, and that's what the protests are. Is this really so difficult to see why their "study" is b.s.?

Geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:43 pm https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/30/poli ... us-spread/

That's amazing, Geezer, and shows that sometimes our personal assumptions don't tally with the real world. Had conversations just this weekend with a couple of people who live in the DC suburbs and work in downtown DC and they've been getting home as quickly as possible and no longer go into the District to walk.

ETA: Wasn't responding to the post above, I wrote this before I saw it.

Sea and Geezer are from the same time period. Interesting how their communication and thinking is similar.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:39 pm

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 pm

What did the news lie about in relation to that particular story?

Did you feel that the scientific study was done improperly or do you discount it because it doesn't align with your unscientific world view?

Dammit, stop feeding the idiot.

I can have whatever conversations I'd like. Ignore it if you find no value in it. I personally don't mind attempting to have a reasonable conversation with questions.

Fair enough.

Carry on.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:53 am Related to Trump's Rose Garden rally yesterday - yes, it was batshit insane. But I think he's realized that the wheels are inexorably in motion to lose Florida, Arizona and Texas. And, with those, the prospect of an even spitting-distance electoral college result.

Yesterday was the first day I thought Trump might actually drop out of the race. I tuned into the presser because a large part of my job is dealing with sanctions, and it was supposed to be about Hong Kong sanctions. It was just wild. He had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. He was reading a list that someone gave him for the first time, and spouting off random things. I just sat there confused. He obviously is flailing, and nothing is sticking. I can now see him seeing the writing on the wall, and attempting to be relevant from the sidelines.

You have to wonder, some, if his team is working behind the scenes to negotiate a soft (non-6x9-cell) exit. The state issues are problematic in this regard.

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:11 pm Alright twocoach, I'll spell out the basics. Firstly, the source. Most universities in America are selling a narrative than women and minorities are victims in society and that they need additional help to catch up to white men. Because of this intention, they are of course not going to be sincere in talking about the problem the protesters created. They don't want to risk offending their base.

The second problem is, science. Science tells us that covid is airborne and spreads very easily from breath alone. Masks can help, but it won't stop the spread from people in big crowds. Also, many protesters were not wearing masks. We accept that big crowds is what spreads the virus the most, and that's what the protests are. Is this really so difficult to see why their "study" is b.s.?

Your first point is purely an assumption of bias by you and is irrelevant to the conversation.

Your second point ignores the extent of the study. The study was not to see whether or not people who attended the protest were more likely to get COVID than if they stayed home. Of course they were. The study shows that the net impact of the protests to the entire community was a net negative because more people stayed home to avoid the protest, and thus avoiding contracting COVID, than did people who went to the protest and contracted COVID.

If your city has a million people and 100,000 go to the protests while everyone else stays home, then the net result of the impact on COVID infections is less than if there were no protests and 250,000 went out to dinner etc...

Makes sense? You cant ignore the rest of the impacts of the protests and focus only on the attendees.

I've mentioned this before, but NBER papers are not peer-reviewed and shouldn't be treated as such. From the NBER website:

NBER Working Papers have not undergone the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular, they have not been submitted for approval by the Board of directors. They are intended to make results of NBER research available to other economists in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before publication.

So, by all means discuss it. But make sure you don't make the mistake of considering it science, it's closer to preliminary data right now.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:24 pm

NiceDC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:53 am Related to Trump's Rose Garden rally yesterday - yes, it was batshit insane. But I think he's realized that the wheels are inexorably in motion to lose Florida, Arizona and Texas. And, with those, the prospect of an even spitting-distance electoral college result.

Yesterday was the first day I thought Trump might actually drop out of the race. I tuned into the presser because a large part of my job is dealing with sanctions, and it was supposed to be about Hong Kong sanctions. It was just wild. He had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. He was reading a list that someone gave him for the first time, and spouting off random things. I just sat there confused. He obviously is flailing, and nothing is sticking. I can now see him seeing the writing on the wall, and attempting to be relevant from the sidelines.

You have to wonder, some, if his team is working behind the scenes to negotiate a soft (non-6x9-cell) exit. The state issues are problematic in this regard.

If true, I'd assume he'd be pretty quiet. This is toddler level tantrum territory. Him trying to rally the team down 60-51 lead with 2 minutes remaining, but mostly by chucking balls from 60 feet without even trying to get into a half court offense. However at this point, not sure if it even matters if Joe Biden needs to sink the freebies.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:47 pm Makes sense?

No.

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:03 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:47 pm Makes sense?

No.

You don't understand that 100,000 people at an outdoor protest is less risky than 250,000 at bars and restaurants?

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:18 pm Sea and Geezer are from the same time period. Interesting how their communication and thinking is similar.

The people I was speaking with were in their 30s and 40s.

Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:11 pm Alright twocoach, I'll spell out the basics. Firstly, the source. Most universities in America are selling a narrative than women and minorities are victims in society and that they need additional help to catch up to white men. Because of this intention, they are of course not going to be sincere in talking about the problem the protesters created. They don't want to risk offending their base.

The second problem is, science. Science tells us that covid is airborne and spreads very easily from breath alone. Masks can help, but it won't stop the spread from people in big crowds. Also, many protesters were not wearing masks. We accept that big crowds is what spreads the virus the most, and that's what the protests are. Is this really so difficult to see why their "study" is b.s.?

Sometimes you have Donald Trump disease.
I assume you read the article Geezer provided. If you did, then why in the fuck would you possibly say "Firstly, the source. Most universities in America...."?
A) The "source" was the Colorado Sun. What university is that?
B) The study was NOT a "University study". It was a "working paper" study for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Sure there were "university personnel" who did the study but it was not done by nor affiliated with a specific university.

Your second paragraph is laughable only in that it's YOUR opinion that you provided and NOTHING specific from the study. Be honest, did you even read the study? https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf
If you give a damn, the study doesn't dispute your opinion. Yet you still say it's b.s. Hmmmmm.