Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You’re right about all of this.
It’s not my study.
Thanks for posting this. I am leaving now to go to the store and stock up some more on toilet paper.
I thought the article said 5.4 times more infectious than delta? 70 times refers to the replication rate in tissue, I think from another study. DeSantis (and many experts) though covid was over before delta came, so we need to watch the surges carefully, and listen to the medical experts.
You seem obsessed with Biden. This is a lot bigger than Biden.Momala says Biden didnt see these variants coming.
At least shes being honest.
Great. I'll call my buddy Satan and get the paperwork together. It's a really good deal.
Important to note none of that is any kind of certainty.
Thank you for posting this and going against selling the fear.
My new job is hybrid. I could do it going I to the office once a month and that is only for a specific meeting which can be done remotely just a but clunky. I'm with you. Going back full time is a waste.
Hospitals are full many places already. In HI at least, it’s mostly non-Covid pt.
Top 2 cause of death two years in a row. And it just became more contagious. What a bunch of scaredy cats!
Isn’t the newest strain shown so far not to be as deadly? At least compared to the previous ones, isn’t that better?
https://renz-law.com/wp-content/uploads/DOD-Doc.pdf Department of defense research shows hospitalizations doubled after the clot shots were administered. 60% of admissions were inoculated. These shots are medical experiments. Nuremberg 2.0
They mean it's biologically not as deadly for any particular individual. Like if you have a 1% chance of dying from delta, maybe you have something like a 0.75% chance of dying from omicron. (Numbers totally made up just to illustrate the point -- not for citation!)
Please explain how it’s abusing, seemed like the correct reaction to someone insulting a poster personally?
@Alex P Keaton please advise what’s an ok response to posts like this since sad emoji isn’t ok, want to make sure we get your ok as a leader of the liberal majority here.
I’m not interested in canceling or reporting anyone. I’m interested in having real discussion with people on issues and topics. When we’ve had meaningful discussion — even if we disagree radically — I’ve enjoyed those discussions and appreciated your perspective. That is true of my experience with many on this board.
I have literally zero opinion on the appropriate response to that post. Didn’t even see it until you quoted it.
Please respond specifically to the post above. How was that not completely appropriate? Happy to remove it if posts like that from your side are ok?
I already responded. Zero clue what is an appropriate response to a post that seemed uncool. Matching snark with snark doesn’t seem optimal. If it makes someone sad, then use the sad emoji.
This post and the following discussion of 30 or so posts from another board will be interesting to you and other here, I think. This exchange encapsulates the gist:
- Please explain how that was snark? I honestly felt it’s said to get personal. I’ll just ask if you are going to police it please police both sides.I already responded. Zero clue what is an appropriate response to a post that seemed uncool. Matching snark with snark doesn’t seem optimal. If it makes someone sad, then use the sad emoji.
To your second point, plenty of people used the laughing emoji as a poor form of discourse. Did it start out that way? Not really. It was a small handful of folks, and then it spread. It became commonplace, certainly not just “non-Libs.”
No idea what the 3rd paragraph means. It feels like a persecution complex, but I also don’t know what it’s like to be “dog piled.” What I’ve observed is different, but everyone has their own experience, and I can’t pretend to know what others are feeling or experiencing.
I’m not saying your emoji related to that post was snark. As mentioned 1-2 posts ago, I didn’t even see the post in question — it was an observation more generally based on other threads. So clearly I wasn’t offended, because a) it doesn’t offend me, b) I didn’t even know it existed.
No, after i thought about it some more I realized that my critics were right and I posted that here, a little after the quote you just replied to. And of course I changed the title.
As you know, journalists don’t write headlines — editors do. And they have marching orders to sell their product, so quite often headlines don’t match content. Like in this case.timschochet said:
