Tim Walz: you can not have more than 10 people in your house (Carver: crime, schools)

[13levine]

Originally Posted by knke0204

It's 81%, you're a bit off.

Just switch channels and eventually you'll come news or program that agrees with what your are thinking or doing.
Of the course the computer will never let you down with it's million one opinions will definitely agree with anyone. Many of the opinions on here are formed by sitting on the computer.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Kavalier

... 99% of deaths to Covid-19 are people age 70 or over - people that don't have to go to gyms or out to eat if they care about their safety - and Walz still insists on hurting this economy for some reason.

Originally Posted by Kavalier

99% of deaths due to covid are people aged 70 or over.

What the h-ll is Walz trying to prove?

Originally Posted by Kavalier

... Again, this can't be stressed enough: 99% of all deaths to Covid are people age 70 and over. These people are retired, not working, generally not effected by shutdowns in a lot of ways like those of us middle-aged adults.

Originally Posted by knke0204

It's 81%, you're a bit off.

Originally Posted by Kavalier

Who knows what the numbers are.

You know, OP, you lose credibility when you keep repeating the same statistic as if you know it for a fact, when really you just made it up. And when you are caught doing this by someone who has real numbers (although should have given a source), you just virtually shrug and say "Who knows what the numbers are?" If no one knows what the numbers are, then why did you just keep repeating the 99%?

It would be nice to have a rational discussion without the hyperbole (on EITHER side), but that seems to be impossible in C-D Land. (And for the record, I'm not a fan of either Trump OR Biden, and I have very mixed feelings about lockdowns. But I don't come here and say "99% of lockdowns are working.")

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012

You know, OP, you lose credibility when you keep repeating the same statistic as if you know it for a fact, when really you just made it up. And when you are caught doing this by someone who has real numbers (although should have given a source), you just virtually shrug and say "Who knows what the numbers are?" If no one knows what the numbers are, then why did you just keep repeating the 99%?

It would be nice to have a rational discussion without the hyperbole (on EITHER side), but that seems to be impossible in C-D Land. (And for the record, I'm not a fan of either Trump OR Biden, and I have very mixed feelings about lockdowns. But I don't come here and say "99% of lockdowns are working.")

A charitable reading would be that the OP conflated the survival rate for the young, which is >99%, with the percentage of cases in the elderly. That mistake would be an easy enough to make as there are plenty of numbers swirling around out there and since they’re often used to further a specific agenda, there isn’t much consistency in how they are presented.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

A charitable reading would be that the OP conflated the survival rate for the young, which is >99%, with the percentage of cases in the elderly. That mistake would be an easy enough to make as there are plenty of numbers swirling around out there and since they’re often used to further a specific agenda, there isn’t much consistency in how they are presented.

That's a very charitable reading, as a survival rate for one group is pretty different from the percentage of cases in another group. (I know the numbers are all over the place, but he kept repeating the same made-up statistic, presenting it as if it were an undisputed fact. That's bizarre at best, deliberately lying at worst. I know he just wants the pandemic to be OVER -- well, we all do. I guess we can agree on THAT!)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012

That's a very charitable reading, as a survival rate for one group is pretty different from the percentage of cases in another group. (I know the numbers are all over the place, but he kept repeating the same made-up statistic, presenting it as if it were an undisputed fact. That's bizarre at best, deliberately lying at worst. I know he just wants the pandemic to be OVER -- well, we all do. I guess we can agree on THAT!)

Ok, Karen.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Ok, Karen.

OK, Glenfield. (Was your post supposed to be some silly comment on my name? )

Would be nice if posters responded to the substance of posts, if for no other reason than to make themselves clear. Why on earth CAN'T we have a rational discussion?

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012

OK, Glenfield. (Was your post supposed to be some silly comment on my name? )

Would be nice if posters responded to the substance of posts, if for no other reason than to make themselves clear. Why on earth CAN'T we have a rational discussion?

don't try reason

something like this...

"Look...Squirrel!"

that oughta' do it

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

don't try reason

something like this...

"Look...Squirrel!"

that oughta' do it

LOL. I don't know why I sometimes expect C-D posters to make sense and be rational, but I do.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012

OK, Glenfield. (Was your post supposed to be some silly comment on my name? )

Would be nice if posters responded to the substance of posts, if for no other reason than to make themselves clear. Why on earth CAN'T we have a rational discussion?

What is it you want, Karen?

I responded to the “substance” of your post by offering what struck me as a perfectly rational explanation for the mix up, and suggested we give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

You clearly don’t want to and upped the ante, saying his posts were, “... bizarre at best, deliberately lying at worst.” Now that doesn’t strike me as particularly rational and certainly not civil, but then maybe things are different in NH.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

What is it you want, Karen?

I responded to the “substance” of your post by suggesting what struck me as a perfectly rational explanation for the mix up, and suggested we give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

You clearly don’t want to and upped the ante, saying his posts were, “... bizarre at best, deliberately lying at worst.” Now that doesn’t strike me as particularly civil, but then maybe things are different in NH.

I’m not sure what you are looking for here.

I guess I was looking for that poster to say "Yeah, sorry, I just made up those numbers, OOPS," since he obviously did. Because, come on, he somehow confused "survival rate" of 1 group with "number of cases" of another group? (Would YOU mix those up? ) And then he kept repeating the same made-up statistic over and over? Unless he truly is dense, those things are just not likely, certainly are not likely to be mistakes made in good faith.

I DO give you credit for wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt.*

=====

*I suspect that my cynicism regarding that poster was because I had just read posts of his in another thread that a British woman -- born and raised and educated in the UK -- wasn't really British because, in essence, she's not white. Thus it's hard for me to take such a poster at his word about ANYTHING, and I think that came through here. So I DO apologize if I offended you in any way.