Ron’s at it again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim has a serious reading comprehension issue.

read this…Desantis’ approval
ratings are a tick under 60%, he didn’t impose lockdowns on his citizens that even John’s Hopkins said didn’t change mortality rates, his state has no income tax, and 800 people a day are moving there from other states.

That’s called winning. And Desantis debating any prominent democrat would be as close a contest as Mr T getting in a wresting match with Don Knotts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he didn’t impose lockdowns on his citizens that even John’s Hopkins said didn’t change mortality rates,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No they didn’t.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No they didn’t.

yes they did. here it is. not ambiguous at all.

800 americans a day are moving to FL. there’s a reason for that. I know how much you can’t bear to say out loud, what the reason is, your central nervous system would implode.

https://padailypost.com/2022/02/07/j...in-the-future/



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes they did. here it is. not ambiguous at all.

800 americans a day are moving to FL. there’s a reason for that. I know how much you can’t bear to say out loud, what the reason is, your central nervous system would implode.

https://padailypost.com/2022/02/07/j...in-the-future/



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, is this where you’re getting your info from?
Marjorie Taylor Greene just said that Republicans will leave Georgia in a mass exodus if Stacey Abrams wins the governor’s race this year. “They’ll move to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, is this where you’re getting your info from?
Marjorie Taylor Greene just said that Republicans will leave Georgia in a mass exodus if Stacey Abrams wins the governor’s race this year. “They’ll move to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence denied that JH concluded that lockdowns were useless. i posted a link that summarized the study, and the John’s Hopkins researchers said exactly what i aimed they said.

if you and spence don’t like
what John’s Hopkins concluded, take it up with them. I’m just posting what they said.

I didn’t say people
would flee if abrams won. i said people
are moving to FL in big numbers, because that’s what’s happening. Again, if you don’t like that fact, that’s on you, but it’s a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes they did. here it is. not ambiguous at all.

https://padailypost.com/2022/02/07/j...in-the-future/



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why I stopped mostly posting here, besides the time sink factor, is that we rehash the same #^&#^&#^&#^& every other week (on both sides).

Jim, this article came out in February. There was a thread on it when you posted it then. It was a non-reviewed paper by a trio of economists. This was not a John Hopkins study, it was a #^&#^&#^&#^&tily done literature review that got crucified by actual public health and epidemiologists. Read some of the reviews of this work and how seriously flawed it was.

From one article reviewing the referenced piece
'For starters, experts commenting for the U.K. Science Media Centre warned about the paper's questionable definition of "lockdown." Samir Bhatt, DPhil, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, said in that statement that the study's "most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is."

"The authors define lockdown as 'the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention [NPI].' This would make a mask-wearing policy a lockdown," Bhatt stated.'

I am not saying lockdowns should have been done, or shouldn't have been done. In the first months of the pandemic there were A LOT of unknowns of this thing. Clearly there were innumerous negative consequences, but hindsight is 2020, and that is not the direction things went later in the pandemic.

back to

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Why I stopped mostly posting here, besides the time sink factor, is that we rehash the same #^&#^&#^&#^& every other week (on both sides).

Jim, this article came out in February. There was a thread on it when you posted it then. It was a non-reviewed paper by a trio of economists. This was not a John Hopkins study, it was a #^&#^&#^&#^&tily done literature review that got crucified by actual public health and epidemiologists. Read some of the reviews of this work and how seriously flawed it was.

From one article reviewing the referenced piece
'For starters, experts commenting for the U.K. Science Media Centre warned about the paper's questionable definition of "lockdown." Samir Bhatt, DPhil, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, said in that statement that the study's "most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is."

"The authors define lockdown as 'the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention [NPI].' This would make a mask-wearing policy a lockdown," Bhatt stated.'

I am not saying lockdowns should have been done, or shouldn't have been done. In the first months of the pandemic there were A LOT of unknowns of this thing. Clearly there were innumerous negative consequences, but hindsight is 2020, and that is not the direction things went later in the pandemic.

back to

It’s just a never ending circle jerk. I post when Jim gets outrageous and I feel the need to poke him. Or if the foil hat conspiracy theory RR needs to be poked fun at, so he can start pounding away with ####&&&$$$((( hahahahaha.