better more detailed picture

Post #434,912 by boxley 6/29/20 6:57:50 PM 6/29/20 6:57:50 PM Reply	better more detailed picture https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lung-from-covid-19-patient/ "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #434,916 by drook 6/29/20 7:45:30 PM 6/29/20 7:45:30 PM Reply	Jeezus fuck, I didn't need to see that -- Drew
Post #434,919 by Ashton 6/29/20 8:16:14 PM 6/29/20 8:16:14 PM Reply	Yabut, today the Avge. age of COVID-membership is 36; ..before .. it was 65. Ergo [Boolean /on] Statistically You are umm, better off? ONE! 111 Ducks behind the 'Who's-behind-that'? ..curtain.
Post #434,921 by Andrew Grygus 6/29/20 8:57:59 PM 6/29/20 8:57:59 PM Reply	Yes, but . . . . . the younger set still thinks of it as a "Boomer Remover". It'll take a lot of them dead to remove that meme, if it even can be removed. Fortunately, I'm pre-Boomer, so I'm immune, right?
Post #434,923 by drook 6/29/20 10:17:58 PM 6/29/20 10:17:58 PM Reply	Hadn't heard that, you'd think that would be a huge deal -- Drew
Post #434,927 by Ashton 6/30/20 12:36:41 AM 6/30/20 12:36:41 AM Reply	I wasn't proficient at snagging all the 'conditions' Saw this en-passant, so no intro--may have been on pbs/'News: the #s shown were on-screen text. But in context, the spot was re. 'expected Gaussian-by-age' -vs- the various pre-Maturity! Openings and the results: seen post-event(s). Thus, scoping the age-groups present at [n] of the the Daytona-Beach-grade complete obliviousness, later looking ~2-weeks +/- later: and using similar Stats-munging as previous 'new cases '#s. (Given the status of getting-any-data from Drumpf Inc. (and the rest we know) I'd say that 2-digit 'precision' is unlikely (??) i.e. "65" without a range is bogus, thence. But the younger age-group span is broad enough, I guess. Nothing is SImple. when jackals are daily[still[ removing Lots of data fron US-gov sites.(Part of that mutt Be; because, if Obama's name is anywhere near some piles of Docs--erase it, sayeth the unmanly-child. [Can't believe this isn't Fiction].
Post #434,924 by drook 6/29/20 10:20:59 PM 6/29/20 10:20:59 PM Reply	BTW, an admission I didn't fact-check that before sharing it. It matched what I expect, so I passed it on. It apparently checks out, but I should have confirmed first. The article even said, "we have not verified these claims." -- Drew
Post #434,976 by boxley 7/1/20 1:21:04 PM 7/1/20 1:21:04 PM Reply	thats why I checked it didnt look like a lung the picture I linked to definitely was/is a lung "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #434,985 by drook 7/2/20 1:33:40 AM 7/2/20 1:33:40 AM Reply	I'd say that's definitely a "was" -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!