Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rambot" data-source="post: 77047735" data-attributes="member: 145797"><p>Well, the study you initially included was not an observational study but a modelling study. So that is a pretty huge and fundamental difference between the two.... "studies". Also, arguably, the observational study you did include didn't really use "observation" to come up with their prediction. Lastly, the first study you deride so much, has included all pertinent information as to how they have created their models. The second one, does not.</p><p></p><p>Also, you still haven't REALLY explained what is fundamentally "ludicrous" about the first study. Maybe it's the results that you think are ludicrous? Cause I'd agree they seem pretty crazy. </p><p>But that doesn't help me. </p><p>Generally, I have seen you provide some very interesting and thought provoking critiques on commonly accepted COVID information but this one....I'm not really seeing it as much as I'd like. There MUST be a problem with the methodology somewhere to have number THAT weird.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rambot, post: 77047735, member: 145797"] Well, the study you initially included was not an observational study but a modelling study. So that is a pretty huge and fundamental difference between the two.... "studies". Also, arguably, the observational study you did include didn't really use "observation" to come up with their prediction. Lastly, the first study you deride so much, has included all pertinent information as to how they have created their models. The second one, does not. Also, you still haven't REALLY explained what is fundamentally "ludicrous" about the first study. Maybe it's the results that you think are ludicrous? Cause I'd agree they seem pretty crazy. But that doesn't help me. Generally, I have seen you provide some very interesting and thought provoking critiques on commonly accepted COVID information but this one....I'm not really seeing it as much as I'd like. There MUST be a problem with the methodology somewhere to have number THAT weird. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
Top
Bottom