SectionC3

You miss the point. It’s about depth, mechanics, and areas of study. She may have a point. But that doesn’t mean that she gets a phone call to Dr. Fauci to present her findings. Let her do it in a peer-reviewed forum (maybe that’s happened, but as far as I know the findings were presented on Twitter) and then we’ll see where it goes.

It is a big, beautiful fence. In all seriousness, I’m happy to wear a mask, and to distance, and to be respectful of my “neighbors” because I see it as the least I can do to help those who are risking their lives in the medical field so that our lives may hopefully soon return to normal. Missing attendance at 10 Bills games and other HS games this year, though, is going to suck. That will be tough. A lot can change between now and “then,” but I have my doubts that we will see each other at New Era Field this year.

Because he doesn’t know whether this credentialed person put in the proper work to have an informed opinion on this issue.

Glad that we’re pals. Looking forward to having some chuckles together, you and me.

Good point. Then I take it you won’t be offended when I advise you that your prior uncouth comments have forced your placement on the “Nasty Woman” list.

Nothing like throwing a little hate into the mix before lunchtime, right?

Hoax. I’m not a troll. Also, a bit of unsolicited advice. Next time you get so frustrated that you deign to say something nasty to another person, try counting to ten. It might help to stop you from saying something that you can’t take back.

Fake news. Based on your last response, you’re not very zen. More fake news. I’m not stupid.

Wow. That’s not very nice. Do you have anger issues? I hope not.

It’s a good way to go through life. Ignore the opinions with which you disagree.

This is nice except for the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. So the whole idea of “who WOULDN”T want Trump over Hillary” fails to account for the fact that HIllary earned about 2 million more votes (and 2% more of the popular vote). In your words, “[a] little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it some time.”

Yeah I saw that nonsense. By that logic, I suppose that when Trump does something disrespectful or not befitting the office, he too disprespects the office. Say what you will about George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but those two were and are classy guys who treated the office with the dignity it deserves. For as much as Trump bags on the Clintons, he’s just as bad as Bill in terms of the respect he shows to the position. Ladies and gentlemen, this post wins the Internet today. Great job. Thank you for your insight and reason. This was extremely impressive and a job very, very well done.

There’s no condescension here. I’m just looking out for everyone’s feelings. Maybe you didn’t realize how hurtful your comments could be. It’s important to warn you about something like that so that maybe you can change your behavior.

What “discredited horse[manure]” has been brought up in the last ten pages?

It’s still no reason to be so mean. How would you like it if someone was mean to you?

That raises an interesting question. If that is Tom Bauerle, then I wonder whether he types with his invisibility cloak. Can one even type with an invisibility cloak? Is the keyboard under the cloak? These are important questions that must be answered.

That is not very nice. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you should be nasty to them.

I understood your question to refer to the meaning of “weight” in this context. That definition, frankly, is obvious.

We may have a new candidate for the Snowflake List.

I'll reiterate. Name calling is a sign of defeat.

Nah, it's not about Russia. It's about a confused Trumper. Fast questioning makes him nervous. And unable to answer.

The only person I've seen refer to commie propaganda here is Deranged Rhino. In point of fact, he is a commie. Let's just get that out there.

Maybe it's confusing to Mr. Winslow. Or perhaps it's rushed. Kind of like when this esteemed official became confused: Fake news. I'm not lost anywhere.

I'll reiterate. Name calling is a sign of defeat.

That's sort of the point. From what I've seen, the weight of the data doesn't support a broad reopening. I haven't read every study, absorbed all of the relevant data, or frankly spent a great deal of time analyzing the issue. So I can't say for sure. But nothing I've seen convinces me that a broad reopening would be a good plan. If the weight of the data supporting reopening was obvious, then (obviously) we would be in a different position. With respect to the first comment, you asked what is "weight of the data?" That question was definitional, and the answer is obvious. It's at least 50% + 1, e.g., most of the data, or the heaviest part of the data.