March Madness and Covid-19

Status
Not open for further replies.
steverocks35 said:
If you think we will ever test 100% of the population then you don't live in reality. There are literally zero diseases that reach that level of testing.
Click to expand...

Did I ever suggest that? This is the issue I have with trying to have a discussion with you. No sensible person would infer what you just did from my statement. It is untruthful and ridiculous
 
1) More testing = more positive tests
2) Reopening = more positive tests

We can all agree on these two points, right?
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
Did I ever suggest that? This is the issue I have with trying to have a discussion with you. No sensible person would infer what you just did from my statement. It is untruthful and ridiculous
Click to expand...


Do you understand you have to be portrayed as being out of touch, non sensible, clouding the issue, ignorant of the fact, etc. They do the very same thing to anyone they disagree with and never contemplate that maybe they, themselves, are incorrect. You represent nothing to these people except as the detour to the truth. It's like suggesting more inside shots could be beneficial thus you are suggesting no more outside shots are to be taken. Enjoy seeking the truth to what was denoted.
 
Last edited:
sheepdogs1 said:
Do you understand you have to be portrayed as being out of touch, non sensible, clouding the issue, ignorant of the fact, etc. They do the very same thing to anyone they disagree with and never contemplate that maybe they, themselves, are incorrect. You represent nothing to these people except as detour to the truth. Enjoy seeking the truth to what was denoted.
Click to expand...

Here comes the heckler from the peanut gallery, chiming in to the posters he agrees with to slam the ones he disagrees with.
 
Last edited:
Eielson said:
1) More testing = more positive tests
2) Reopening = more positive tests

We can all agree on these two points, right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! The problem is when your positivity rate goes up like we are seeing now. And if it goes too high and cases are climbing then you may have to try to take some measures to slow it down.
 
steverocks35 said:
Absolutely! The problem is when your positivity rate goes up like we are seeing now. And if it goes too high and cases are climbing then you may have to try to take some measures to slow it down.
Click to expand...

Is Oklahoma running out of ventilators/ICU beds?
 
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1275164919084847110?s=20[/TWEET]

Meanwhile, in Texas...
 
steverocks35 said:
This is what you said. "EVERYONE" is 100% of the population. What did you mean by "everyone" if you didn't mean 100% of the population?
Click to expand...

this is utterly ridiculous Steve. I never suggested or even hinted that I thought we should or could test everyone. I simply said how do you know how many cases there are if we haven't tested everyone. Thats it. I am really flabbergasted right now
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
this is utterly ridiculous Steve. I never suggested or even hinted that I thought we should or could test everyone. I simply said how do you know how many cases there are if we haven't tested everyone. Thats it. I am really flabbergasted right now
Click to expand...

Well what do you mean by “everyone?” That would seem like an important definition, don’t you think?
 
Go reread this conversation honestly. I don't see how you do not get this.

I'm done
 
steverocks35 said:
I’m asking for a simple definition of a word you used. Why does that bother you so much?
Click to expand...

Because it is self explanatory and has nothing to do with my argument. It makes no logical sense.

Can you please define what you mean by simple? Or "so much"?


I never made a comment on how many people should be tested. None. It wasn't even remotely the point of my post.
 
Here...I layed it out nice and pretty for you. I hope you can see my point now even if you don't agree with it. Can we let this hang up on the definition of everyone die as it had no impact on this discussion?

steverocks35 said:
The spike now is not a rolling hill, I've explained to you why it is not.
Click to expand...

SoonerBounce13 said:
You can't say this with positivity though as we don't know the true numbers 3 months ago vs the true numbers today
Click to expand...

steverocks35 said:
I can say that with positivity because we know the true numbers a month ago, a week ago and now. We are having a spike right now.
Click to expand...

SoonerBounce13 said:
How do you know the true numbers if not everyone was tested?
Click to expand...

steverocks35 said:
If you think we will ever test 100% of the population then you don't live in reality. There are literally zero diseases that reach that level of testing.
Click to expand...
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
Because it is self explanatory and has nothing to do with my argument. It makes no logical sense.

Can you please define what you mean by simple? Or "so much"?


I never made a comment on how many people should be tested. None. It wasn't even remotely the point of my post.
Click to expand...

It is not the least bit self-explanatory. To me “everyone” means every single person. Is that not what you meant?

I can’t answer you if I don’t know what you mean by “everyone.”

Let me ask you in a different way. At what number will you say that we have tested “everyone?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Team Trends Heading into Last Weeks of Season
Replies
5
Views
418
WichitaSooner
W
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
BoulderSooner
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Replies
0
Views
172
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
WichitaSooner
W
W
Uzan's struggles
Replies
19
Views
988
CMSOONER
CMSOONER
Back
Top