That would be a mistake.
Wrong. I’ll relate this to TX for obvious reasons. Right now, if you’re a 73 yr old male in TX, the CFR is 13.3%. Historical Texas COVID-19 Data | Texas DSHS Chekc out the ‘Case and Fatality Demographic Data’ link about halfway down.
I’ll say not even severe diabetes. Hell, no diabetes. If she were in TX, per the same link, CFR is 5.2%.
Masks don’t change your chances of survivability; never claimed they did. They only curtail the chance of transmitting it you wear one while sick. They provide very minimal protective measures to the person wearing it.
A lot of them are, don’t really care about the percentage. But being vaccinated greatly reduces the chances of them getting severe illness and dying.
If you’re going to now throw in the vaccinated qualification, then I’d tend to agree. Probably even higher. But that wasn’t a qualifier previously, was it?
Im glad you asked that last question though. Go look at what’s happening in the UK now. Positive cases of Delta continue to rise, but hospitalization and deaths are flat. Why? Somewhere around 90% of their population, 18 and older, are vaxxed. That should tell us how effective these vaccines can be in getting our arms around this and getting back to a place with a mostly normal functioning society.
Well the you should read up on sentence fragments.
“Continue laughing” if directed towards me, at least makes some sense. Really falls right in line with the whole chest-thumping and “what you gonna do about it” schtick.
On the contrary, if that was some attempt to describe yourself as continuing to laugh, then that was very poorly written. Sort of sounds like you read the script notes out loud…
1 Like
What does that even mean?
You’ve taken my response to you about reading the thread, you then snipped it, snipped moonshine’s full post, and then somehow tied them together? ■■■ is this?
Continue laughing.
It was in direct response to this.
Thanks for the grammar lesson?
Just you stepping in ■■■■ at the end of the thread, tracking it all over the rug, and insisting you didn’t step in ■■■■ . The smell’s all over you, but you refuse to acknowledge the ■■■■ on your shoe.
2 Likes
Do you have more of a chance of catching Covid, or more of a chance of finding yourself in a situation where you’d need a firearm?
You’ll take the precaution for the latter and carry though won’t you?
There’s how it unfolded.
Forgive me for having to ask (yet again), are you being passive-aggressive with the whole “Continue laughing.” phrase, similar to how you might say something like “Yeah, just keep it up…”? Or is that you’re truncated way of telling the world that you’re laughing?
I’ll take care of me. Thanks for the thought…
XOXO
1 Like
I’m laughing at you.
No, Im pretty sure that you took @moonshine’s post, snipped it, then took my post, snipped it, and portrayed it as though we had somehow interacted with each other or that I had somehow responded to his post. Neither occurred. Haven’t talked to @moonshine in here whatsoever, and I’ve provided no response relevant to his posts.
Just figured since you’re a mod and all you may want to know that.
OK then, thanks for the clarification. Your syntax is a bit off, but that’s par the course in here. lol.
Back at ya buddy, glad we can laugh at each other.
Good lord. I asked had you read the thread, you said you did, I said you must have missed this…
Up to speed now? Ok.
LOL. Should’ve stopped before. This response makes no sense whatsoever.
No, that’s not how it went. That’s actually precisely the opposite of how it went. It’s right above for anyone to see. Jebus… lol.
I think you should probably go back and read it again. If you come to the same conclusion, oh well.
I’ll try this differently…
“Good lord. I asked had you read the thread,…” Yes, you asked me that question in post #132 above.
“… you said you did,…” Yes, I did so in the very next post where I replied. I also added in the “What are you going to do about it?” schtick to have fun with your little schtick. Tit-for-tat stuff, ya know?
“… I said you must have missed this…” Right. I see where you said that. Right around #142. Only problem is, you made that statement and then posted my “Oh I did” post. Again. In addition, you starting the entire reply by posting the snipped quote from @moonshine. So really begs the question why moonshine’s post was even included, to say nothing about the snipping. Also begs the question if you understand the proper sequencing, because you sure as ■■■■ got it bassackwards here.
I think you should adequately explain why you snipped and conflated mine and moonshine’s post.
I think you should also explain why in your final explanation you left moonshine out of this altogether as though it had never happened.
But Im guessing I’ll get neither…
You didn’t say Texas and @GWH isn’t in Texas. The numbers I gave you are national.
That 13.3% is not COVID alone, it’s all 73 year olds. Not a nice try.
Diabetes 94.8%? What’s that bump the rate for the 3 to?
96.6%
I won’t round up.
I know I didn’t say TX, but I was looking at TX at that time and related the response to you. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend the data your own State has put out there, but look at it again. Those are COVID deaths, not all deaths as you have implied. Don’t believe me? Not withstanding the fact that it literally states directly below the link on their own page that the data are for COVID-related cases only, just do a simple exercise. See that number in bold at the bottom next to “Grand Total”… go cross-check that with the number of COVID deaths from another source and see if they’re close or not. When you see they are, then you’ll have the sudden realization that no, the 13.3% is representative of the CFR for 70-74 age group in TX right now. Glad I could help.
“Not a nice try”? Heh. I do love that you’ve implied I’ve tried to pull a fast one on here only because you can’t make sense of data.
Their dislike of immigrants, and POC.
Black people got screwed in the New Deal. Thanks to Dixixcrats.
