Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 3, 14:19
2: Dec 3, 11:17
3: Dec 3, 07:33
4: Dec 2, 17:22
5: Dec 2, 11:48
6: Dec 2, 08:21
7: Dec 1, 17:33
8: Dec 1, 11:23
9: Nov 30, 15:54
10: Nov 30, 09:41
11: Nov 29, 16:44
12: Nov 29, 08:01
13: Nov 28, 16:19
14: Nov 28, 09:42
15: Nov 27, 18:07
16: Nov 27, 12:04
17: Nov 27, 08:26
18: Nov 26, 18:06
19: Nov 26, 12:05
20: Nov 26, 08:29
Posts: 158
Cuomo -- (link)
Posted by
ty97
Mar 21 '20, 09:52
(No message)
https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1241384622459686913
(twitter.com)
Responses:
The “eventually will become infected” number is another potentially alarming but plainly misleading number? 80Pct infected at the same time today? Fuc
-
JackDawson
Mar 21, 10:06
5
But that's precisely the point of what we're doing right now. Keep the numbers lower so that when you do decide to do something important, like, oh
-
Reagen
Mar 21, 10:28
4
(Not sure how my post got interpreted as meh let’s not flatten the curve?) -- nm
-
JackDawson
Mar 21, 10:33
2
because I don't think "80 pct will eventually get it" is supposed to be alarming or misleading.
-
Reagen
Mar 21, 10:35
1
You’re probably right that it’s not meant to be alarming but unfortunately without context it’s liable to get used as an alarming metric by panic
-
JackDawson
Mar 21, 10:42
Right exactly - that’s what we are hoping to get to -- nm
-
JackDawson
Mar 21, 10:33
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.