aepps20
Supporter
- 42,499
- 90,648
You know what is also remarkable and deplorable is your support of Republican Pedos. You are not cool.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
You know what is also remarkable and deplorable is your support of Republican Pedos. You are not cool.
- 32,869
- 81,591
Them kids jumped him later though so let's hope this analogy doesn't extend to the conclusionI don't know if you watched Seinfeld, but this reminds me of when Kramer started doing karate.
Mans was bragging about dominating his class, but little did we know he was beating the breaks of little kids.
All things considered the US is on the same level as Kuwait, Oman, and The Maldives, but Delk wants us to view this as a positive. On some...
I agree that the data was pretty straightforward. However, that link doesn't draw the conclusion that the U.S. has better testing/reporting compared to other countries. The word "better" is never used.
I think my question was pretty clear: what metrics are you using to conclude that we have "better testing/reporting"? If you think that more testing means that there is better testing then I'm not sure why you didn't say that.
- 1,096
- 1,062
My blood boiling right now.
- 11,997
- 3,286
- 151,105
- 202,498
more ≠ better
- 11,997
- 3,286
- 29,035
- 64,023
Breitbart at it again 
- 8,616
- 17,196
This gets explained and delk still doesn’t get it. Results are part of testing process, and there is too much time to get results for too many tests. Simply looking at number of tests taken doesn’t tell the whole story.Get off your knees,and open your ******* eyes.
- 11,997
- 3,286
The infamous goalpost shift.
My initial statement was that the US has done better than many other countries with testing and reporting.
I posted a link with data showing that the US is testing at a higher level than many other countries.
I am fully aware that doesn't tell the entire story--and I never said it did.
My initial statement was that the US has done better than many other countries with testing and reporting.
I posted a link with data showing that the US is testing at a higher level than many other countries.
I am fully aware that doesn't tell the entire story--and I never said it did.
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,499
- 90,648
Breitbart at it again
I only follow my LAKERS, CLIPPERS, CELTS, ROCKETS, SPURS, MAVS, PELS, BULLS, NUGGETS, DODGERS, ROCKIES, ASTROS, CLEMSON, UNC, DUKE, CARDS, CUBBIES, YANKS, SOX, AVS, BLUES, RED WINGS ARE PLAYING
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,499
- 90,648
When will you shift the goalposts against Republican Pedos?
- 26,812
- 38,427
Small world I guess, I know the hacker (Phobia) referenced in this article. Only spoke to him a handful of times years ago but it's a well known name and we have some mutual acquaintances. He's currently facing criminal charges regarding an alleged SIM-swap conspiracy.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/p...group-charged-online-identity-theft-and-other
- 18,385
- 34,054
Just to be clear, an effective testing strategy requires a few things:
1) Volume of testing (availability of more tests is better)
2) Accuracy of testing (not necessarily critical, and tests in general have been accurate)
3) Speed of testing (long lags in getting results back is almost as bad as not testing at all)
4) Targeting of testing (randomly testing 1000 people is not as effective as testing 1000 contacts of people who were infected)
Point #3 has been a major problem in the past month. Even though we are testing a bunch of people, which is great for understanding prevalence of the virus and where it is most out of control (and thus where people will be dying in 3 weeks), the lag in testing has made it pretty useless for targeting self-isolation of infected individuals. By contrast, take a place like Taiwan or New Zealand that has the virus under control. They just have to test a few people each day (mostly people entering the country) because the prevalence is nearly zero. That is enough testing to be 100% effective. The USA, where the prevalence is out of hand, really needs to run 10+ million tests per day (with 24-hour turnaround) to even begin to speak of an effective testing strategy (or get the cases down 100-fold from where they are today).
1) Volume of testing (availability of more tests is better)
2) Accuracy of testing (not necessarily critical, and tests in general have been accurate)
3) Speed of testing (long lags in getting results back is almost as bad as not testing at all)
4) Targeting of testing (randomly testing 1000 people is not as effective as testing 1000 contacts of people who were infected)
Point #3 has been a major problem in the past month. Even though we are testing a bunch of people, which is great for understanding prevalence of the virus and where it is most out of control (and thus where people will be dying in 3 weeks), the lag in testing has made it pretty useless for targeting self-isolation of infected individuals. By contrast, take a place like Taiwan or New Zealand that has the virus under control. They just have to test a few people each day (mostly people entering the country) because the prevalence is nearly zero. That is enough testing to be 100% effective. The USA, where the prevalence is out of hand, really needs to run 10+ million tests per day (with 24-hour turnaround) to even begin to speak of an effective testing strategy (or get the cases down 100-fold from where they are today).
- 8,616
- 17,196
insincere trolls will cherry pick #1 only and use it as some sort of asinine proof of how much “better” the us is doing at testing vs other countries. And he wonders why everyone here thinks he’s a scumbag troll.
- 29,035
- 64,023
Yes, after multiple posts. I guess you're just being intentionally difficult.
It depends. Is more always better? How are you comparing testing in different countries?
- 18,385
- 34,054
It's draining when people enter into an argument just to prove that they're right based on some nuance of wording rather than engage in an honest discussion. The former is rather sophomoric and not just annoying but unproductive.insincere trolls will cherry pick #1 only and use it as some sort of asinine proof of how much “better” the us is doing at testing vs other countries. And he wonders why everyone here thinks he’s a scumbag troll.
- 8,616
- 17,196
That’s his whole shtick, it is ******* exhausting.
- 11,997
- 3,286
It seems obvious, to me, that more testing is generally better than less testing. But we can agree to disagree on that. Is there some exception with a targeted approach of just testing people that have been in contact with an infected person? Sure, perhaps.
My initial statement, that the US has better testing/reporting than many other countries, seems clear.
Rusty's comment stating that isn't an accomplishment considering how developed the US is, is a fair critique. But to morph my initial statement into some other argument is silly. And it is pointless for me to argue against it.
- 8,616
- 17,196
What the **** is the point of a test if you don’t have results? The two go hand in hand. It’s not a completed test without results. Come on.
- 11,997
- 3,286
The data posted included tests with results. Did you click the link?
- 64,966
- 196,167
To get a deal, mans bout to let da FEDS know about dem Putin yoppas you got out back.
Time to go hid in the mines, b.
Why does it seem obvious to you? Is more always better? How are you comparing testing in different countries? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions?
The fact that you feel it's important to clarify that your initial statement makes sense to you while refusing to explain it so that it can make sense to others really highlights how you don't post here to have a discussion. You're acknowledging that what matters to you is what you say and not how it actually contributes to the discussion.
- 26,812
- 38,427
The lib police confiscated my Putin muskets but I will never let these libs touch my precious coal
Similar threads
