coronavirus

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Sounds wonderful.
https://usafacts.org/articles/heres...cination-data-on-states-hardest-hit-by-delta/
Fifteen of the state?s 67 counties had a case count representing more than 4% of their population since June. Thirteen of those counties are in the Panhandle or Northeastern parts of the state.

The northern part of the state also is the least vaccinated region. Fifty-one percent of the state?s population was fully vaccinated as of August 24, but most counties with the highest case rates also rank among the least vaccinated. For example, in Columbia County, there were nearly 4,000 new cases since June, representing more than 5% of the county's population and the highest share in the state. Thirty-one percent of the population was fully vaccinated

Same story, over and over and over.

morekaos said:
 
Florida under reports new deaths, so of course you'd see low new deaths per day.

Let's look at yesterday's data:

California: 5884 new cases, 99 new deaths
Texas: 6043 new cases, 159 new deaths
Florida: 2292 new cases, 1 new death
Illinois: 2601 new cases, 41 new deaths
Georgia: 1522 new cases, 89 new deaths
Penn: 4312 new cases, 98 new deaths
Ohio: 4190 new cases, 121 new deaths
NC: 2493 new cases, 42 new deaths

Not suspicious at all. This pattern happens pretty much every day.
 
CalBears96 said:
Florida under reports new deaths, so of course you'd see low new deaths per day.

Let's look at yesterday's data:

California: 5884 new cases, 99 new deaths
Texas: 6043 new cases, 159 new deaths
Florida: 2292 new cases, 1 new death
Illinois: 2601 new cases, 41 new deaths
Georgia: 1522 new cases, 89 new deaths
Penn: 4312 new cases, 98 new deaths
Ohio: 4190 new cases, 121 new deaths
NC: 2493 new cases, 42 new deaths

Not suspicious at all. This pattern happens pretty much every day.

Nice theory how bout some hard facts? Otherwise that is just an ?opinion??right?
 
Yah, your cursory observational attempt is damning. Has the CDC put an asterisk next to Florida?s numbers as a result of your hard-hitting data? No?? should?ve taken that probability and statistics class at Cal when you were there. Try harder. ;D ;D >:D
 
morekaos said:
irvinehomeowner said:
So when morekaos doesn't like the actual numbers, he cites differences and complexities... but when he makes his misinformation posts, he does not acknowledge that.

That's called "hyprocrisy"... which is also BS.

morekaos gonna morekaos

No, I'm very consistent that ALL the numbers are tainted and slanted...ALL of them cannot be trusted.  The truth lies somewhere in between. I t goes with my belief that in the end very little can be done...virus gonna virus.

So they why post your 'numbers"?

Again... hypocrisy at it's finest.

hypo gonna hypo
 
To show the total inconsistencies and polar opposites that all the sides generate?like I said it depends on who you ask?and what they want you to see.  For every number posted there is an opposite elsewhere. The only consistency is Kaos.
 
morekaos said:
To show the total inconsistencies and polar opposites that all the sides generate?like I said it depends on who you ask?and what they want you to see.  For every number posted there is an opposite elsewhere. The only consistency is Kaos.

Weak.

Your excuse for hypocrisy and misinformation is to be fair? Start posting opposite numbers too and then you can say that.

I used to be able to defend some of you posts... but you went too far off the edge. Good luck... BTW... is the earth flat?
 
irvinehomeowner said:
morekaos said:
To show the total inconsistencies and polar opposites that all the sides generate?like I said it depends on who you ask?and what they want you to see.  For every number posted there is an opposite elsewhere. The only consistency is Kaos.

Weak.

Your excuse for hypocrisy and misinformation is to be fair? Start posting opposite numbers too and then you can say that.

I used to be able to defend some of you posts... but you went too far off the edge. Good luck... BTW... is the earth flat?

At one time that was considered settled science?the opposite view eventually won out.
 
You've made it clear that you only use opinions from op-eds of conservative source of misinformation like Daily Mail and Washington Examiner as facts, so you don't have any credibility.

I have taken enough probability and statistics classes to know that bullshit numbers are bullshit numbers.
 
When unable to make cohesive argument always deflect and attempt to attack the source?weak skills. Attack the points instead of trying to discredit a source. You?ll find I quote CNBC, cnn, msnbc, local papers and yahoo quite a bit too.  Nice try.
 
That's actually what you're doing though. I discredited Daily Mail and Washington Examiner, but we know that you like to believe in bullshit.
 
CalBears96 said:
That's actually what you're doing though. I discredited Daily Mail and Washington Examiner, but we know that you like to believe in bullshit.

You discredited them? Well thank you for being the all knowing arbiter of truth. Did you also get a Pulitzer and a Nobel up there at Cal? We bow to your superior inflect. What shall the people eat tonight? ?Cake? ;D ;D >:D
 
Back
Top