Minnesota's first infected Coronasvirus person. (Albany: casinos, to live, legal)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by riffle

So, which models do you think are more accurate, and what are the different assumptions of those models that you think are better than the assumptions underlying the Minnesota model?

I haven’t seen any models that seem to have worked. Some problems are too complex to model and, in this case, we don’t have any reliable data as input. I think the answer lies in not being overly reliant on the models but to factor in some common sense. We seem to be moving on that direction. We now know, for example, that many people get infected but don’t displays symptoms, and that the risk is primarily to the elderly and those with certain preconditions, so we can focus on protecting that segment of the population.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I haven’t seen any models that seem to have worked. Some problems are too complex to model and, in this case, we don’t have any reliable data as input. I think the answer lies in not being overly reliant on the models but to factor in some common sense. We seem to be moving on that direction. We now know, for example, that many people get infected but don’t displays symptoms, and that the risk is primarily to the elderly and those with certain preconditions, so we can focus on protecting that segment of the population.

Yep. And 25-50% of the people who get the virus are asymmetric. Highlight: 25 to 50%! The fact that the range is so wide speaks volumes as to how little value the models have been worthwhile to date. https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...are-have-virus

Here is one guy's opinion on why the models are so far off. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-wh...th-the-models/ That doesn't mean run out in public and live your life as before. Rather, we overreacted because of the flawed models.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

From your link:


So their issues with PL are (1) they are right leaning, (2) they use “poor sources that have failed numerous fact checks, and (3) they are climate change skeptics.

Also from your link but sources from PowerLine.com:


So let’s take these one at a time.

1. Conservative bias. On its website, PL acknowledges it offers “commentary... from a conservative perspective.” But to your source, mediabiasfactcheck.com, that in of itself seems to disqualify them. Hmmm. Is that bias against a conservative viewpoint?

2. Poor sources. It’s interesting that none of these so-called poor sources are cited. I would call that poor sourcing. And why are they poor sources? Why they failed fact checks! Who says so? The fact checker! Examples? Of course not!

3. They are climate change skeptics. So if a person or organization questions climate change, all their opinions are dismissed. That doesn’t seem like sound logic to me— after all, people can be right about one thing and wrong about another— it seems like bias.

So who is Media Bias/ Fact Check? Well, it seems that they themselves have a questionable reputation.



https://www.quora.com/How-trustworth...ias-Fact-Check

You see, Cruz, bias is inherent in all journalism. The ones you have to watch out for are the ones who don’t own up to it.

P.S. If you respond, please put a little more effort into it this time, something that requires more thought than a simple Google search.

Don't be bothered with them. They don't like to deal with reality.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter what the source is if it is a fact, right? If a horrible source says the sky is blue, and the sky is in fact blue, does it matter what source it is that stated the fact? Of course not. Some people just want to drive you crazy - gaslighting, projection and "whataboutism" is their M.O.


Anyway, here is some news for you:

Currently, even poorly rated nursing homes with large and deadly clusters of coronavirus cases have been allowed to admit COVID-19 patients from hospitals. One such facility, North Ridge Health and Rehab in New Hope, has accepted 42 patients from hospitals and other long-term care facilities since mid-April even as the coronavirus has raged through its 320-bed nursing home, killing 48 of its patients and infecting scores more.

https://www.startribune.com/minn-nur..._mid=787856841


Walz has allowed this to go on undisturbed under his leadership, so much blood is directly on his hands. Meanwhile his guy Ellison is busy enacting fascist techniques on small business owners whose children are right now starving to death. Shame on all the so-called leaders in this state who have run roughshod over the situation.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Kavalier

Don't be bothered with them. They don't like to deal with reality.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter what the source is if it is a fact, right? If a horrible source says the sky is blue, and the sky is in fact blue, does it matter what source it is that stated the fact? Of course not. Some people just want to drive you crazy - gaslighting, projection and "whataboutism" is their M.O.


Anyway, here is some news for you:


https://www.startribune.com/minn-nur..._mid=787856841


Walz has allowed this to go on undisturbed under his leadership, so much blood is directly on his hands. Meanwhile his guy Ellison is busy enacting fascist techniques on small business owners whose children are right now starving to death. Shame on all the so-called leaders in this state who have run roughshod over the situation.

lol

[old fed]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

Yep. And 25-50% of the people who get the virus are asymmetric. Highlight: 25 to 50%! The fact that the range is so wide speaks volumes as to how little value the models have been worthwhile to date. https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...are-have-virus

Here is one guy's opinion on why the models are so far off. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-wh...th-the-models/ That doesn't mean run out in public and live your life as before. Rather, we overreacted because of the flawed models.

heaven forbid if one is asymmetric. that sounds bad.

[Glenfield]

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops have given their parishes permission to hold masses beginning next Tuesday despite Gov. Walz’s illegal orders to remain closed. I salute their courage.
May 20, 2020 – Minnesota Catholic bishops' letter regarding resumption of public Masses - Diocese of Saint Cloud

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops have given their parishes permission to hold masses beginning next Tuesday despite Gov. Walz’s illegal orders to remain closed. I salute their courage.
May 20, 2020 – Minnesota Catholic bishops' letter regarding resumption of public Masses - Diocese of Saint Cloud

As I typed, we both know that the models are way off. And this has matured, we have learned who is at much higher risk than others. We have also learned that the mortality rate was way too high than initially reported. I'm also all in favor of people making educated decisions for themselves. For me, no fricken way am I going go into a shoulder to shoulder in a building with people singing https://elemental.medium.com/why-sin...s-57607ed71b9b (Hint: louder volumes==more spit).

I'm a big fan of natural selection. But the very last thing I'd describe people going to public mass is "courage". Same with sporting events or concerts or crowed bars (loud shoulder-to-shoulder people yelling who are spitting farther). The I'd call it stupidity not courage. I say, let nature take its course. Churches are businesses. And a key reason why they are opening to fill the coffers (no pun intended).

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

As I typed, we both know that the models are way off. And this has matured, we have learned who is at much higher risk than others. We have also learned that the mortality rate was way too high than initially reported. I'm also all in favor of people making educated decisions for themselves. For me, no fricken way am I going go into a shoulder to shoulder in a building with people singing https://elemental.medium.com/why-sin...s-57607ed71b9b (Hint: louder volumes==more spit).

I'm a big fan of natural selection. But the very last thing I'd describe people going to public mass is "courage". Same with sporting events or concerts or crowed bars (loud shoulder-to-shoulder people yelling who are spitting farther). The I'd call it stupidity not courage. I say, let nature take its course. Churches are businesses. And a key reason why they are opening to fill the coffers (no pun intended).

I see. First of all, I salute the courage of the bishops. Second, people will not be sitting shoulder to shoulder. Third, the churches are opening because we want to be together. Your attributing it to monetary motives says more about you than the church, as does your hope that this will result in people dying which is disgusting and repulsive. I’ll wait for you post condemning the reopening of bars and restaurants.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I see. First of all, I salute the courage of the bishops. Second, people will not be sitting shoulder to shoulder. Third, the churches are opening because we want to be together. Your attributing it to monetary motives says more about you than the church, as does your hope that this will result in people dying which is disgusting and repulsive. I’ll wait for you post condemning the reopening of bars and restaurants.

When you praise a bar owner of a busy night club as "courageous" for opening up early, you will also see my post accordingly. People who go in are stupid even after the official opening. And yes, natural selection is partially at work. That doesn't mean I wish them ill. Rather, too many not-so-smart people are walking this planet. And if they get sick, they earned the right to make their own decision and pay the price accordingly.

We agree, people who are going to church want to be together. That goes without saying. And as sure as I am sitting here, churches have budgets and that will sway their decisions to have "courage" to be stupid.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

When you praise a bar owner of a busy night club as "courageous" for opening up early, you will also see my post accordingly. People who go in are stupid even after the official opening. And yes, natural selection is partially at work. That doesn't mean I wish them ill. Rather, too many not-so-smart people are walking this planet. And if they get sick, they earned the right to make their own decision and pay the price accordingly.

We agree, people who are going to church want to be together. That goes without saying. And as sure as I am sitting here, churches have budgets and that will sway their decisions to have "courage" to be stupid.

I would make Glenfield’s argument in the case of Elon Musk and Tesla. I find the argument less convincing in the case of the Catholic Church for the following reasons:

1) There is a viable temporary substitute of offering Mass services virtually.
2) The Catholic “church-goer” demographic includes many who would be considered at-risk (older, etc.) I’m not sure that prematurely forcing the church doors open is a move in the best interest of a lot of these folks, even with the proposed precautions.

Just my 2 cents.