Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Dallas, Plano: lawsuit, ticket)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Bag on Paxton all you'd like but he's simply being practical. The state does not have the power to tightly regulate small group religious gatherings. There would be instant lawsuits etc.

It smells bad but it's the right call.

This is interesting to think about in light of the recent Montana religious school case at the US Supreme Court (which I disagreed with). Paxton's action treats religious school gatherings as inherently religious acts, whereas the court decision would seem to imply that religious school gatherings are essentially school gatherings by religious people. Also, Paxton's move is really just the opposite of what the US Supreme Court case mandated -- the SC ruled that the state must treat religious private school students and non-religious private school students the same, so a ruling that specifically grants an exemption to religious private schools that isn't granted to non-religious private schools would seem to open the state up to a lawsuit from non-religious private schools.

Originally Posted by CHRockwell

I focus on DFW numbers because the moderator told me to.

I agree that it will likely kill 3 times more people than the flu. I have no clue if it is more deadly (nor do you) since I consider deadly the rate at which its kills as does pretty much anyone else in an article that discusses "how deadly something is". I consider a plane crash much more deadly than a car crash and yet far more people will die in car crashes. In Dallas it will kill 80-100 times more maybe. Much ado about nothing. It's 1000-1700 people in Dallas by the time it is done. This is a blip. You still don't understand the Iowa reference. Iowa is the same distance from DFW as El Paso (or pretty close) yet you somehow think El Paso numbers are relevant in a discussion about DFW (since you used TX numbers many times) and Iowa number are not and yet they are the same distance. Your other argument is that EL Paso numbers are more relevant to DFW (again since you use TX numbers many times)than OKC numbers (which you never reference) are, since you focus on "Texas" numbers and not anything related to OK. My point is Iowa has the same relevance as El Paso which is little to none and any numbers that have El Paso or South TX numbers in them are irrelevant and should be removed, but you can't seem to grasp that. The point, which you now have missed about 10 times is that if you want to discuss covid numbers as they relate to Dallas you might as well use Iowa numbers since it is about the same distance as El Paso. Oh and let's not forget at the end of the day you actually were the one that said Iowa is further away than El Paso and you were what? WRONG....OKC numbers should be being discussed more than TX numbers as they relate to Dallas since many people move from and to that city when in regards to the Dallas area that TX numbers which explained once again (for the 10th time) have numbers in them that have littler to no relevance to DFW. Me crossing my fingers that you finally understand this now.

https://theconversation.com/whats-mo...ties-are-72505

Yeah that article shows that once again you are mistaken. Talks about rates not nominal numbers. When people talk about how deadly something is it is pretty much in terms of 1 in X. Of course you don't and will argue against that because here you argue with anyone and everyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-is-covid-19/


This literally is called how deadly is covid and discusses rates not nominal numbers.

1. You are using "deadly" to refer to how serious of a risk Covid presents. You can't then turn around and say "deadly" only means "death rate." All sorts of things have a very high death rate but don't represent serious societal risks. For example, polar bear attacks have a much higher death rate than car crashes, but car crashes are a much more serious societal risk due to their much higher prevalence.

2. Your reasoning regarding the Iowa thing is as bad of reasoning as I've ever seen on the internet. The officially-released numbers of the state of Texas will have a weighted geographic average that is much closer than the average for Iowa's numbers. This is indisputable. The fact that there's some tiny town just across the border of Iowa that is slightly closer than El Paso doesn't mean the Texas numbers are not, on average, much closer to DFW.

Like I said, you will bite any bullet, no matter how big, before you admit that you are wrong.

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by EDS_

As you may recall I'm an atheist so I don't have any skin in the religious game as it were. Keeping the state in any form so much as possible out of religious activities/practices has been a hallmark of civil liberty in this country for a very long time. Frankly, and as you know it was a founding ideal of our country.

For the record there are legions of US based religious people who are not republicans.

I know there are. But it seems to be a loud contingency of conspiracy-theory believing, science denying, selfish Evangelical Christians that have gotten us all up a **** creek with Covid. I’m not saying they are all bad people. But gosh, a large and loud percentage of them sure are.

The people on my Facebook feeds who are Muslim, Jewish, atheist and Hindu aren’t all up in arms about masks being an infringement on their freedoms and blaming their mosques for for their kids catching covid at summer camp.

[DPatel304]

NEW: Dallas County Reports Record Hospitalizations, 413 Additional Positive 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases, and 30 Deaths
https://twitter.com/JudgeClayJ/statu...217083393?s=20

Another day of declining cases, but deaths are very high for a single day in Dallas County. I'm guessing the deaths will continue to be high for the next week or so, given that we had a few straight days of 1,000+ cases.

Not great news, but glad to see that cases are starting to decrease.

[CHRockwell]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

This is interesting to think about in light of the recent Montana religious school case at the US Supreme Court (which I disagreed with). Paxton's action treats religious school gatherings as inherently religious acts, whereas the court decision would seem to imply that religious school gatherings are essentially school gatherings by religious people. Also, Paxton's move is really just the opposite of what the US Supreme Court case mandated -- the SC ruled that the state must treat religious private school students and non-religious private school students the same, so a ruling that specifically grants an exemption to religious private schools that isn't granted to non-religious private schools would seem to open the state up to a lawsuit from non-religious private schools.





1. You are using "deadly" to refer to how serious of a risk Covid presents. You can't then turn around and say "deadly" only means "death rate." All sorts of things have a very high death rate but don't represent serious societal risks. For example, polar bear attacks have a much higher death rate than car crashes, but car crashes are a much more serious societal risk due to their much higher prevalence.

2. Your reasoning regarding the Iowa thing is as bad of reasoning as I've ever seen on the internet. The officially-released numbers of the state of Texas will have a weighted geographic average that is much closer than the average for Iowa's numbers. This is indisputable. The fact that there's some tiny town just across the border of Iowa that is slightly closer than El Paso doesn't mean the Texas numbers are not, on average, much closer to DFW.

Like I said, you will bite any bullet, no matter how big, before you admit that you are wrong.

Point 1 is spot on. No issue with it with the understanding that some people use a rate when talking about how deadly something is, others might use nominal numbers. Neither are wrong in doing so. Point 2) The fact that you think numbers that incorporate El Paso are more relevant than Iowa (or Nebraska for that matter) is just flat out wrong. For DFW, numbers in and around DFW are obviously more relevant but after that distance is distance and closer is going to be more relevant. Nobody in the medical industry would agree that El Paso is more relevant to DFW than say OKC and that is due to distance yet you use TX numbers multiple times which incorporates far too many irrelevant numbers. So no I wasn't wrong because I agree that Iowas is not relevant. El Paso is about as relevant as Iowa which is pretty much not at all and of course you forget the actual statement you made regarding Iowas which is that the state of Iowa is not the same distance as El Paso and it is and always has been which was the actual statement you made. Of course you don't want to talk about that because as has been seen with numerous posters numerous times on this board you got called out for a mistake you made. To summate I certainly wouldn't use TX numbers when discussing DFW (due to too many cities much too far away like El Paso) and of course I wouldn't use Iowa's. Of course you will try to argue why Iowa isn't relevant again which I have no disagreement with, but you can't seem to grasp that El Paso And a bunch of other places south) is also not relevant and yet you will continue to use those numbers when dissecting DFW.

[Dr. Jake Oil]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

This is interesting to think about in light of the recent Montana religious school case at the US Supreme Court (which I disagreed with). Paxton's action treats religious school gatherings as inherently religious acts, whereas the court decision would seem to imply that religious school gatherings are essentially school gatherings by religious people. Also, Paxton's move is really just the opposite of what the US Supreme Court case mandated -- the SC ruled that the state must treat religious private school students and non-religious private school students the same, so a ruling that specifically grants an exemption to religious private schools that isn't granted to non-religious private schools would seem to open the state up to a lawsuit from non-religious private schools.

If you’re referring to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, thats a perplexingly bad reading of that case and not what it stands for at all.

[Dr. Jake Oil]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

I know there are. But it seems to be a loud contingency of conspiracy-theory believing, science denying, selfish Evangelical Christians that have gotten us all up a **** creek with Covid.

You ought to check out the zip code maps of dallas county and where the most cases are, and look at who lives in those areas. It’s not selfish evangelical Christians.

[GHETTAOLAO]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jake Oil

You ought to check out the zip code maps of dallas county and where the most cases are, and look at who lives in those areas. It’s not selfish evangelical Christians.

Here you go.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas...covid-19-cases

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jake Oil

You ought to check out the zip code maps of dallas county and where the most cases are, and look at who lives in those areas. It’s not selfish evangelical Christians.

Obviously the hardest hit zip codes are where essential workers live. They’re at the mercy of the general public’s mask compliance.

[Dr. Jake Oil]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

Obviously the hardest hit zip codes are where essential workers live. They’re at the mercy of the general public’s mask compliance.

Naturally.

Any science behind the claim that evangelical Christians are the ones who have infected the essential workers of Dallas County, or is that just your bias showing?

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jake Oil

Naturally.

Any science behind the claim that evangelical Christians are the ones who have infected the essential workers of Dallas County, or is that just your bias showing?

Not bias. Actual documented research showing Evangelical Christians are the most the most resistant to mask wearing:

The one area where white evangelicals fall far behind? Mask wearing. A white evangelical under the age of 35 is 13 percentage points less likely to wear a mask in public than the same age group in the general population (58.7% vs. 71.8%)
Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...ing-masks.html