SectionC3

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.

Why is it patently fake? If I said I watch the President daily, would you think that's fake, too?

Kind of like OAN viewers. Or is that "non-fake" news? I get so confused trying to figure out which news is regarded as fake and which is real these days. One day the WSJ is real. Then it's fake. One day Fox is real. Then that's fake, too. It's almost as if whether news is real or fake depends on whether such news is good or bad for Trump. Good work on addressing the statement. Now, the question. Is that fake, too?

Weight of the data is pretty obvious. I'll leave that alone. On reopening, my general POV is that there probably isn't a one size fits all solution, and that reopening probably will have to be gradual, both in terms of geography and industry. The Cuomo approach seems to be a smart one, and the grouping of linked areas (e.g., tri-state area around NYC) makes a lot of sense. Whether the weight of the data supports that position I can't say - I haven't studied the issue sufficiently to reach such a conclusion.

Let's dig a little deeper here. You said "much" of the data supports reopening. "Much," as you know, is a fungible thing. It could be 10%. It could be 35%. Or it could be more. I'd like the weight of the relevant information to support reopening. It's kind of like the HCL discussion. There is some information that supports its broad use in this context. But the weight of the data does not. Said differently, the approach isn't generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. So I would wait on that front, and would take the same approach on reopening unless and until the relevant scientific community accepts an approach.

No. I don't need it, and to my understanding it's pretty bad both for the environment and for people. But also bad for Coronavirus. So, take the good with the bad, I guess.

Not sure what you're talking about with respect to the "esteem of posters." Are you talking about my views of one poster? Two posters? Or a larger group of posters? I can't answer the question without additional information. That aside, I'm here largely for entertainment. And, at least this morning, to inform the world of my potential Covid Cure.

Probably too busy racing to Home Depot or Lowe's (with their gun t-shirts and without their masks, if they're anything like the people at the OP Lowe's) to get Roundup after I announced my miracle cure.

Which one?

Fake logic. There is more than one possible conclusion. And, you should thank me. I just found a potential miracle cure for COVID-19. We could be on the vanguard of an incredible approach here.

How much is "much"? 10%? 25%? 50%? Or more? Does the weight of the data (e.g., more than 50%) support your position?

Actually I think the people in Corona might have been on to my miracle cure before I discovered it. Yesterday I was doing a little weeding and I realized that, although not a lot of people know this, Roundup knocks out weeds in minutes. So, I thought, why not try it on COVID-19? I figure that since Roundup does a tremendous number on weeds, surely it would be interesting to check its efficacy with respect to COVID-19. Bottom line: whacking the virus with a little Roundup could be our path to victory over this invisible enemy. If there is a way to do something like that by injection inside, then we could be days away from getting out of this mess. Name calling is a sign of defeat.

Trump himself has a fundamental misunderstanding of “exoneration.” It’s no surprise this G guy doesn’t get it, either. They’re just the latest hoax. Nothing to worry about there.

Nah I had other stuff to do. But I’m back for a bit to see what nonsense you’re going to come up with today. Also, I hope be able to reveal my secret plan to eradicate the virus later tonight. I’ve been working on it all day. Stay tuned. This friggin guy and Kim Jong Un are like two peas in a pod. A couple of fat narcissists who haven’t heard the word no in way too long who are disliked by a majority of the population they rule.

More mean comments like that and you’re going to get yourself on a list.

Name calling is not nice. https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/04/george-conway-lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-destroy-america-video/

Just checking in. It's May, and apparently the virus is still here. In other news, I just saw this greatest hits list. Enjoy! https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495839-aprils-dumbest-and-most-dangerous-coronavirus-declarations

More fake logic. You confuse "audience" with "sole intended recipient" (which, in this case, was a dubious proposition).

Fake logic. If you meant to speak only to me, you would have private messaged me. Instead you published your comments to -- and therefore spoke to -- the "public." I appreciate you acknowledging your familiarity with the private message function; your knowledge of that tool further suggests that your refusal to use it in this context was intentional. Carry on.

You assume the veracity of your theories in the first instance. I'm not sure that it's possible to disprove something that isn't provable. Copying the libs to own the libs. Nice.

Hoax. If you meant only to reply to me, then you should have used a private message function available through this site. The "others" are those who read your post. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

This is why we have a washed up psycho list. I enjoy the give and take with guys like Chef Jim and SoCal Deek. But I can only handle so much nonsense sometimes. Holy cow.

Hoax. I haven't made the claim constantly. Hoax. You're trying to deceive others.

Agreed. Spending time in Tempe instead of in Madison? Stoo-pid. Struggling to articulate why she wanted the job? Inexcusable. Failing to take the "temperature" of the Rust Belt? Completely inexcusable. And failing to give the campaign of the Libertarian candidate a boost? Political malpractice.