Sad About Chris Chistie

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

We put the chip card in, but then have to either put in a pin if running it as a debit card, or hit enter if running it as credit. Additionally, you have to answer yes or no when it asks if you want cash back. You don't have to sign, but you definitely have to touch the screen or key pad.

Yeah, I don't know what happens with people who use debit cards, but for credit we never have to hit enter or yes/no buttons.  I also haven't touched a keypad since at least March.  Most places were actually fairly touchless before this, now it's universal.  All that touching is totally unnecessary, I wonder why they don't disable that?

[Matryoshka]

1 minute ago, kand said:

For me to consider a keypad truly touchless, it has to be one that I can just hover my phone over to pay. If I have to put my card in it, then my card is then potentially contaminated and I have to treat it as such after I remove it from the machine.

Well, I don't touch the keypad - it's true the edges and one end of the card touch where other people's cards have been, but I only touch the end of my card and put it right back into my wallet, chip/contaminated end first.  As I'm only out once a week, the virus doesn't remain viable that long on plastic, and only touch the same non-contaminated end of the card, I'll consider that touchless enough.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Yeah, I don't know what happens with people who use debit cards, but for credit we never have to hit enter or yes/no buttons.  I also haven't touched a keypad since at least March.  Most places were actually fairly touchless before this, now it's universal.  All that touching is totally unnecessary, I wonder why they don't disable that?

Short answer-PCI-CISP. It's why you almost certainly got new cards with chips in them in the last few years. It requires certain standards for credit card security. One of those is a pin pad or signature required. Stores that do not take this extra step are liable for fraudulent charges at a higher level, as well as for data breaches. As a result, unless there are requirements in place that supercede that (as there are in California-not sure on other states, but it was CA that caused a rush to make requirements that had been added waiveable again), you still need the keypad unless you have the right device and reader for it that meets the requirements without requiring an extra PIN or signature.  

 

 

[Skippy]

3 hours ago, kristin0713 said:

I am probably going to get flamed for this, but I think it would be wonderful and very telling if they all pull through fine--especially Chris Christie with his current state of health.  If he can get through this with the right care, then the focus should be on making those treatments available to the general public.  I am NOT saying that we should then just go back to life as normal and take no precautions whatsoever because it's not a big deal. Being in NJ, I know people who died early on, and I know a lot of people who got very sick.  But I do think we are looking at an extremely different situation now than we were in March when the doctors had no idea what to do and put everyone on ventilators right away.  I have a very good friend who is now on week three with COVID. She went to the hospital twice for breathing treatments during week two.  She has improved everyday for the past week.  I have to wonder if she would have died back in March.  I wonder if the guy from our church would still be alive if he got it now as opposed to back in March.  I am very hopeful that these recent cases will have a good outcome and that it will help to lessen the fear and give us the right course of action moving forward.  Because honestly, as many people as I know that got very sick, I know more people that have had their lives turned upside down by the shutdown--businesses ruined, depression, drug addiction.  If the right treatments can really make this "like the flu" for most people, we are in a very different place than before. 

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

[Pawz4me]

22 minutes ago, kand said:

I read a very insightful explanation from a researcher, explaining why having the experimental treatment used in this way is going to hurt our ability to find out if it works so that it can be approved for everybody to have access to. They have to have people enroll in studies in order to be able to find out if it actually is successful, and showing that it is is the only way for it to be approved for the public. But when a high profile individual uses something experimental and has a good course of illness, then nobody wants to be in the study because they don’t want to risk being in the placebo group instead of the treatment group. That will be bad for all of us if that happens. On the other hand, I do understand why they used the Regeneron in this case, because the stakes are obviously different and national security is an issue. I don’t understand the dexamethasone though, because those two things would usually never be used in the same patient, and from what I’ve read, they have no idea what the effects will be of using them at the same time.

all of that aside Regeneron doesn’t appear to be something that would ever be available to everybody anyway, due to the cost and difficulty of manufacturing it. That will be frustrating if it’s actually helpful. Maybe we can get the numbers down enough that we can have enough to treat those who need it.

I don't understand. If Regeneron is being used as a (potential) treatment for people with an active, diagnosed Covid infection then anyone in the control arm of a study should be getting at least the standard of care treatment (dexamethasone? -- IDK what the current standard of care for Covid treatment is considered to be). Anyway, it shouldn't be a placebo if the trial is for those with actual infections, not as a preventative.

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

Uhm. That wasn’t the gist of her message. The gist was that it was “telling” and that everything is probably fine now.

I’ve been watching the IFRs and they haven’t budged much since spring. Trust me, I wish that weren’t true, because I’m making decisions based on the fact that we still don’t have good treatments, and the decisions involve not interacting with people much. Those decisions have costs I’d MUCH rather not incur if it seemed reasonable.

So, no one is going to get flamed, but I think there can be reasonable pushback to what amounts to wishful thinking.

[Danae]

12 minutes ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

Is it?  Has anyone here ever flamed anyone for such a thing?  

[Matryoshka]

13 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

Short answer-PCI-CISP. It's why you almost certainly got new cards with chips in them in the last few years. It requires certain standards for credit card security. One of those is a pin pad or signature required. Stores that do not take this extra step are liable for fraudulent charges at a higher level, as well as for data breaches. As a result, unless there are requirements in place that supercede that (as there are in California-not sure on other states, but it was CA that caused a rush to make requirements that had been added waiveable again), you still need the keypad unless you have the right device and reader for it that meets the requirements without requiring an extra PIN or signature.  

Yeah, I know the chip cards are supposed to need a PIN, but they never got around to implementing that here, even before Covid... seems now's not the time to finally add the feature! 

[Not_a_Number]

14 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't understand. If Regeneron is being used as a (potential) treatment for people with an active, diagnosed Covid infection then anyone in the control arm of a study should be getting at least the standard of care treatment (dexamethasone? -- IDK what the current standard of care for Covid treatment is considered to be). Anyway, it shouldn't be a placebo if the trial is for those with actual infections, not as a preventative.

No, you NEED to have placebos to test treatments properly. Most diseases are self-limiting and it is much easier to tell if your treatment is effective with an RCT.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[kbutton]

13 minutes ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

I think she was worried she'd sound like she's minimizing the pandemic or the virus if her point didn't come through well based on this quote below (though it shows your name on the quote instead of the OP because I took it from your quote): 

16 minutes ago, Skippy said:

(Originally from kristin0713) 

I am NOT saying that we should then just go back to life as normal and take no precautions whatsoever because it's not a big deal.

Many people have expressed that it's not a great idea to wish people ill. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

28 minutes ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

I think that your comment is more telling since absolutely no one has flamed her for it.  And we all hope that people don't get terribly sick.  But we can also be realistic about where we are in the process of learning about this virus and it's treatments.  We know so much more than we did in March or even one month ago.  But we are not quite there where we know "enough". 

[SereneHome]

On 10/5/2020 at 10:36 AM, OH_Homeschooler said:

None, I am not a health professional. I do however recognize the dangers of believing in anecdotal evidence rather than the results of careful, unbiased research protocols.

There is no such thing as unbiased research.

The anecdotal evidence at times provides excellent data.

 

[OH_Homeschooler]

3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

There is no such thing as unbiased research.

The anecdotal evidence at times provides excellent data.

 

 

Yes I am aware all research can be biased. Some types of evidence are more biased than others. One person with a particular point of view reporting what 4 nurses supposedly say to her is a bit different than a peer-reviewed published double-blind study that employed random assignment to groups, for example.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

There is no such thing as unbiased research.

The anecdotal evidence at times provides excellent data.

Anecdotal evidence is certainly evidence, but it's only a starting point. The problem with anecdotal evidence and self-limiting diseases is that it's HARD to tell when it's an effect of the medication, or simple randomness due to the self-limiting nature of the disease.

The nice thing about RCTs is that you can actually calculate probabilities. They are obviously not the only kind of admissible evidence, but they do make it easier to reason. 

[Pawz4me]

39 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

No, you NEED to have placebos to test treatments properly. Most diseases are self-limiting and it is much easier to tell if your treatment is effective with an RCT.

It's considered ethical to NOT treat someone who has an active infection of a novel, potentially deadly disease? This isn't like we're trying out a new treatment for sinus infections or toenail fungus. My clinical trial familiarity is (unfortunately) mostly with cancer drug trials, and those are always a new treatment (or perhaps a new combination of existing treatments) versus a standard of care drug. Because of course it would be totally unethical to give a cancer patient a placebo.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Pawz4me

[Pawz4me]

dp

Edited October 6, 2020 by Pawz4me

[Happy2BaMom]

24 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

There is no such thing as unbiased research.

The anecdotal evidence at times provides excellent data.

 

There *is* such a thing as unbiased research.

And the term for "anecdotal evidence" is "opinion".

 

ETA: the entire reason we know that there has been biased research at all is because further research conducted later on was unable to verify the results claimed in the biased research. That's evidence that the scientific method works, not evidence that all research is biased.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Happy2BaMom]

NM, over reacted

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Happy2BaMom]

1 hour ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

That's a very simplistic spin of what she said.

She started with stating she hoped the ill would get well and then went into the desire to lift restrictions, which can be a controversial topic due to the risk involved.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Skippy]

I guess I should have worried more about getting flamed myself. 😊 

Lesson learned.

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, kristin0713 said:

We have had excellent compliance NJ and have had great numbers for months.  We still have some restrictions that I believe should be lifted.  (Not all, but some.) 

I totally agree re: the performance of NJ. The entire NE, in fact, is a model of what can be accomplished. Not that other states are paying any attention.

I don't doubt that there are some restrictions that are overdone. I wonder, though, how much of those restrictions are influenced by the fact that many other states in this country are dumpster fires (several states currently have positivity rates above 20%, with numerous others above 10%; with rising hospitalizations, etc), and since NJ is unable to close her borders, the risk remains. (Note: I'm not arguing that the restrictions shouldn't necessarily be lifted, given how low your #s are, but I am going to bet that those in public health are looking at the big picture as well, especially with travel.)

[Happy2BaMom]

5 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I guess I should have worried more about getting flamed myself. 😊 

Lesson learned.

My bad. I posted once & then tried to edit, but instead I posted twice.

My first reaction was over the top.

I'm a cranky lady these days, because....well, it doesn't matter. Everyone is stressed and it's hard to be on one's best behavior online.

[Skippy]

5 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

My bad. I posted once & then tried to edit, but instead I posted twice.

My first reaction was over the top.

I'm a cranky lady these days, because....well, it doesn't matter. Everyone is stressed and it's hard to be on one's best behavior online.

No worries! I actually found the irony of getting (lightly) flamed myself kind of funny. I didn't actually get offended.

I'm sorry that things are extra stressful for you these days, and I hope whatever it is gets much better soon.

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I guess I should have worried more about getting flamed myself. 😊 

Lesson learned.

No one is getting flamed. Really, I've been flamed before, and this isn't it.

[Skippy]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

No one is getting flamed. Really, I've been flamed before, and this isn't it.

It was said jokingly. Maybe I should have put a laughing face instead of 😊. 

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Skippy said:

It's very telling that people here are worried about getting flamed for hoping that people don't get terribly sick. But this is the nature of things now.

I think this is untrue and unfair. 
 

ETA  Just saw it was a joke. I broke my rule about waiting at least 24 hrs after working a shift lol

Edited October 6, 2020 by TCB

[OH_Homeschooler]

33 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

My bad. I posted once & then tried to edit, but instead I posted twice.

My first reaction was over the top.

I'm a cranky lady these days, because....well, it doesn't matter. Everyone is stressed and it's hard to be on one's best behavior online.

Ain't that the truth! I admit to being very easily triggered lately. There's only so much arguing with brick walls one can do before becoming hopeless and cranky. 

 

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

There *is* such a thing as unbiased research.

And the term for "anecdotal evidence" is "opinion".

 

ETA: the entire reason we know that there has been biased research at all is because further research conducted later on was unable to verify the results claimed in the biased research. That's evidence that the scientific method works, not evidence that all research is biased.

Nope and nope.

And your ETA just proved point #1

[Jean in Newcastle]

48 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

That's a very simplistic spin of what she said.

She started with stating she hoped the ill would get well and then went into the desire to lift restrictions, which can be a controversial topic due to the risk involved.

 

Especially because the people who don't want to lift restrictions have the desire that people not get sick in the first place.  I realize that some will get ill no matter what but as has been stated in many threads, we are not at a place yet where we have a vaccine or even reliably proven methods of treatment (though we have more options than we had).  We have come a long way but as has been the case all along, rates can rise dramatically in very little time and we aren't even at a point where we are safe in those scenarios from hospital overrun. 

[TCB]

48 minutes ago, TCB said:

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by TCB
Dp

[easypeasy]

eh - decided to remain speechless 😂

Edited October 6, 2020 by easypeasy

[Not_a_Number]

32 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Nope and nope.

And your ETA just proved point #1

Anecdotal evidence is definitely evidence. But it's very hard to tell anecdotal evidence from random fluctuation, which is why actually measuring and randomizing is a good idea. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

25 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Anecdotal evidence is definitely evidence. But it's very hard to tell anecdotal evidence from random fluctuation, which is why actually measuring and randomizing is a good idea. 

Also anecdotal evidence varies in it's value depending on whether it is first hand, second hand or even farther removed from the source, whether the person giving it is reliable or not, whether the person giving the evidence is sticking "to just the facts, ma'am" or if they are mixing their own interpretation into the telling of the evidence, if they are giving all the information or are either forgetting or cherrypicking "the facts". 

I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of a trained observer (especially if that person is trained in the field that they are observing) over that of an untrained observer.  I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of someone who directly observed what is being told over someone who is relaying it second hand etc.  I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of someone who gives me all the facts rather than someone who has an agenda in what they are telling me. 

[Not_a_Number]

58 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Also anecdotal evidence varies in it's value depending on whether it is first hand, second hand or even farther removed from the source, whether the person giving it is reliable or not, whether the person giving the evidence is sticking "to just the facts, ma'am" or if they are mixing their own interpretation into the telling of the evidence, if they are giving all the information or are either forgetting or cherrypicking "the facts". 

I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of a trained observer (especially if that person is trained in the field that they are observing) over that of an untrained observer.  I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of someone who directly observed what is being told over someone who is relaying it second hand etc.  I am going to trust the anecdotal evidence of someone who gives me all the facts rather than someone who has an agenda in what they are telling me. 

Yep. Generally, to trust someone's anecdotal evidence I need to have experience with their levels of truthfulness. I try to learn my lessons about that and will not trust people who are habitually unreliable. 

(This isn't directly applicable to the discussion, but I really try to be mindful of this -- with journalists as well as with people actual people I know.) 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

No one is getting flamed. Really, I've been flamed before, and this isn't it.

Lol, here, here. 

[Catwoman]

A little off-topic, but does anyone know if Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for Covid? I just saw a clip of an interview he gave on Fox News, and he looked terrible — and he was coughing. The interviewer even mentioned his cough and said she hoped it wasn’t Covid, and Rudy said he hoped so, too.

I think the interview was from last night. If he doesn’t have Covid, he certainly seems to have something. 

[Paige]

16 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

A little off-topic, but does anyone know if Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for Covid? I just saw a clip of an interview he gave on Fox News, and he looked terrible — and he was coughing. The interviewer even mentioned his cough and said she hoped it wasn’t Covid, and Rudy said he hoped so, too.

I think the interview was from last night. If he doesn’t have Covid, he certainly seems to have something. 

This morning he said his test was negative but I wouldn't be surprised if he tests positive later. The cough was pretty bad if it is a new cough and not chronic asthma or COPD. What's the chances he randomly came down with something else after being in the room with all those others?

[Pen]

On 10/4/2020 at 8:54 PM, Pen said:

 

Probably not so much thinking they are invincible now. 

 

quoting  myself  instead of an edit this far later 

thinking about this more, I do not think “they” if “they” means Chris Christie, DTJ etc, thought they were “invincible “ in the first place.  

Rather I think in a leadership/movement forward versus total safety analysis that “they” decided in favor of movement forward   - And other factors.  

While I personally wish masks had been used more, I do not know that they actually would help much at all when involved in actively running the country, getting Abraham Accords going, negotiating with multiple people about multiple things... 

I also don’t think when under Cuomo Covid-19 sick patients were put into Nursing Homes in NY area (and other places too maybe) that masks would have solved problem. I think masks may be able to reduce viral load (efficacy depending on materials), but I don’t think they could have solved/stopped the pandemic ... or solved/stopped the NH deaths... at best only reduced/mitigated. 

 

I think the “masks don’t work” stance is wrong. And I also think the “masks will fix everything” stance is wrong. 

And I don’t think not wearing a mask is in same category as drunk driving. With very few exceptions I can’t see good reasons for drunk driving ever, but I can think of good reasons for not wearing masks. 

I don’t know all that much about Chris Christie, but I hope he does well, and I don’t think he should be blamed, ridiculed, for culpability for his illness.  There are complex factors. 

[Catwoman]

Just now, Paige said:

This morning he said his test was negative but I wouldn't be surprised if he tests positive later. The cough was pretty bad if it is a new cough and not chronic asthma or COPD. What's the chances he randomly came down with something else after being in the room with all those others?

That’s what I was thinking, too. I have never known him to cough frequently in the past, and he looked ill to me when I saw that clip. 

I hate to keep seeming like I don’t trust him, but I’m not convinced he will admit to testing positive unless he gets so sick that he has to go to the hospital. I hope I’m wrong about him, and even though I can’t stand him, I also hope he doesn’t have Covid. (He doesn’t seem even remotely like the same man he was when he was the mayor of NYC, and I have been very disappointed in him for many years now.)

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

I think the “masks don’t work” stance is wrong. And I also think the “masks will fix everything” stance is wrong. 

Well, obviously not. But is anyone advocating that stance? 

The people who got infected were

 

a) not wearing masks 

b) not social distancing 

c) spending large amounts of time inside 

d) relying on rapid tests with low reliability to keep them safe. 

 

It's not exactly surprising that backfired rather badly. And no, only doing a) wouldn't have solved the problem. It's the approach that's the problem. 

[Wheres Toto]

5 hours ago, kristin0713 said:

We have had excellent compliance NJ and have had great numbers for months.  We still have some restrictions that I believe should be lifted.  (Not all, but some.) 

Not anymore.   Compliance is still pretty good in stores and businesses but there are more people refusing to mask whenever they can get away with it, more large gatherings without masks, people blowing it off whenever they can. 

Our Rt has been rising for a few weeks and is now at 1.27.  This is not the time to loosen restrictions more.  We already have indoor dining, movie theaters, bars, classes, stores, gyms.  There aren't too many things left that aren't open to some capacity.  

[Catwoman]

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

quoting  myself  instead of an edit this far later 

thinking about this more, I do not think “they” if “they” means Chris Christie, DTJ etc, thought they were “invincible “ in the first place.  

Rather I think in a leadership/movement forward versus total safety analysis that “they” decided in favor of movement forward   - And other factors.  

While I personally wish masks had been used more, I do not know that they actually would help much at all when involved in actively running the country, getting Abraham Accords going, negotiating with multiple people about multiple things... 

I also don’t think when under Cuomo Covid-19 sick patients were put into Nursing Homes in NY area (and other places too maybe) that masks would have solved problem. I think masks may be able to reduce viral load (efficacy depending on materials), but I don’t think they could have solved/stopped the pandemic ... or solved/stopped the NH deaths... at best only reduced/mitigated. 

 

I think the “masks don’t work” stance is wrong. And I also think the “masks will fix everything” stance is wrong. 

And I don’t think not wearing a mask is in same category as drunk driving. With very few exceptions I can’t see good reasons for drunk driving ever, but I can think of good reasons for not wearing masks. 

I don’t know all that much about Chris Christie, but I hope he does well, and I don’t think he should be blamed, ridiculed, for culpability for his illness.  There are complex factors. 

Does anyone actually believe that “masks will fix everything,” though?

I don’t know anyone who believes that. Most of the people I know believe that masks HELP prevent the spread of the virus, along with other preventative measures like social distancing, hand washing and sanitizing, etc. 

As for Chris Christie, I believe he was negligent in not wearing a mask. He is a bright, educated man, and he knew he had serious risk factors, so he should have been wearing a mask and social distancing. He chose to do neither. I suspect peer pressure had a lot to do with his decision, but he should have prioritized his own health instead of being part of the crowd that was taking no precautions. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Catwoman
Fixed a sentence that didn’t make sense!

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, DorothyNJ said:

Not anymore.   Compliance is still pretty good in stores and businesses but there are more people refusing to mask whenever they can get away with it, more large gatherings without masks, people blowing it off whenever they can. 

Our Rt has been rising for a few weeks and is now at 1.27.  This is not the time to loosen restrictions more.  We already have indoor dining, movie theaters, bars, classes, stores, gyms.  There aren't too many things left that aren't open to some capacity.  

Sigh. Perhaps now your state will be leading the way to high infection rates, neighbor. 

Between that and the hotspots in certain NY neighborhoods, I'm not feeling super pleased. 

[Wheres Toto]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Sigh. Perhaps now your state will be leading the way to high infection rates, neighbor. 

Between that and the hotspots in certain NY neighborhoods, I'm not feeling super pleased. 

Yeah, I'm not happy at all.   I know I'm seeing more than an average number of anti-maskers but that Rt is not good, and it's still heading in the wrong direction. 

[mathnerd]

6 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I suspect peer pressure had a lot to do with his decision, but he should have prioritized his own health instead of being part of the crowd that was taking no precautions. 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

2 hours ago, kand said:

My understanding of the two treatments is that Regeneron is indicated early in the disease, to help the body mount a stronger immune response, especially in a patient who isn’t mounting a good one. Dexamethasone, on the other hand, is used in severe cases, later in the course of illness when the immune system has over responded and there is too much inflammation.  So it doesn’t make sense to give at the same time one thing that’s supposed to stimulate immune system and another thing that is supposed to decrease it, nor to give the same patient something that’s indicated for early in the disease at the same time as something that’s for late, severe stage.

There is a lot of obfuscation of details going on to the extent that nothing is clear to me. But, I can understand that people tend to tightly control the narrative when the stakes involved are very high. I just read that Trump says that he is symptom free already (day 5 after the official announcement).

[Happy2BaMom]

 

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

Nope and nope.

And your ETA just proved point #1

Whatever.

It's obvious you are convinced that a personal anecdote = science.

And, no, my last ETA did not prove your point....not quite sure how you got there, actually. My point was - and is  - that the scientific method, repeatedly applied (which is the point of the scientific method....to demonstrate, among other things, whether results of experiments/trials can be duplicated & the conclusion(s) drawn justified), weeds out biased & faulty research. Anecdotes? What weeds out their biased & faulty conclusions? Oh, that's right....nothing.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Skippy said:

I guess I should have worried more about getting flamed myself. 😊 

Lesson learned.

This is like looking at lit can of Sterno and declaring it a bonfire.

[Matryoshka]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Sigh. Perhaps now your state will be leading the way to high infection rates, neighbor. 

Between that and the hotspots in certain NY neighborhoods, I'm not feeling super pleased. 

Things are ticking up here too.  Our Rt rate is way up, as are our cases and positivity rate (especially if you count it per person rather than per test, as had been done until recently when the college kids came back and they started mass testing, so all those extra tests are artificially keeping positivity low.  It was at 1% or below most of the summer, now the per person rate is somewhere over 4%, and this is in just the past couple of weeks. 😒  Our governor I thought hadn't been doing a horrible job, but somehow just as things are ticking up again he's decided it's a good time to move ahead with more reopening.  The Boston mayor, at least, isn't having it and they're standing firm.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Things are ticking up here too.  Our Rt rate is way up, as are our cases and positivity rate (especially if you count it per person rather than per test, as had been done until recently when the college kids came back and they started mass testing, so all those extra tests are artificially keeping positivity low.  It was at 1% or below most of the summer, now the per person rate is somewhere over 4%, and this is in just the past couple of weeks. 😒  Our governor I thought hadn't been doing a horrible job, but somehow just as things are ticking up again he's decided it's a good time to move ahead with more reopening.  The Boston mayor, at least, isn't having it and they're standing firm.

We'll be back to Boston soon, so I guess we'll get to see it all in action, although I'm also glad Boston's mayor isn't the train wreck the NYC mayor is. I've learned to rely on our mayor doing the wrong thing on COVID in all manner of interesting and novel ways. I never know exactly how he'll screw up, but he sure will. 

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We'll be back to Boston soon, so I guess we'll get to see it all in action, although I'm also glad Boston's mayor isn't the train wreck the NYC mayor is. I've learned to rely on our mayor doing the wrong thing on COVID in all manner of interesting and novel ways. I never know exactly how he'll screw up, but he sure will. 

Yeah, it's like we have opposites here.  You have a gov who's on top of things and a mayor who's not, and it seems like here it's the other way around...

I think every larger city in MA is now in the red (Boston, Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, and Springfield)...  The North Shore has been in the red for ages, but Boston itself and most of the other cities had avoided it since the last surge...