letsdothis

What are you talking about? Are you saying those people didn't die? What the hell kind of person are you? Those people died and that's as real as it gets. What the hell is the matter with you?

Thanks for fixing my error. Please allow me to fix yours. You had it right until you got to the bold text. Since your calculation is based on the death toll for one day, multiplying by 365 extrapolates that to a total number for one year, meaning there's no need to subtract the 346.255. You effectively subtracted that figure when you calculated the one-day total times 365. So, the accurate answer is 1,526,795. However, since the daily death toll for much, if not most, of that period has been well over 5000, 6000, even 7000 deaths, a more accurate calculation would be to average the total deaths for that 121-day period, which is 346,434 as of 5/23's totals, multiplied by 365.

No games at all. In mathematics, extrapolation is an estimation, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It's also not based on a static rate per day. In this case, it's based on the total number in a given time period extrapolated to a longer time period. That's why it's called an estimation. The number for the longer time period is the unknown. It's based on the known figures for the shorter time period. I did make a calculation error, which Happy fixed...kind of. But, at least he understood that it wasn't a game with numbers.

It's only a week's difference. And for him to do a complete 180 on the things he said in the first article just a week later, makes it sound as if the government told him to get on board and change his opinions. JMO, but plausible.

But, that's the number of Covid-19 deaths for a 2-month period, while the deaths by suicide represent a 12-month period. If you extrapolate the Covid-19 deaths to a 12-month period, you get 2,077,530, give or take.

Thank you, kind sir.

You'd have a hard time convincing Sweden of that. Neither Sweden nor their top epidemiologist think enough was done to protect the country. Sweden’s top coronavirus expert admits major mistakes as cases spiral

Most people stay on the same subject until the discussion is done. You rarely stick to the same subject long enough to make a coherent sentence. Just like your buddy "t". It's called misdirection, subterfuge, etc. He uses it to divert attention when he doesn't want to talk about something or answer a question. You should get a job in his administration. He would love you. You could be little "t".

I was talking about the current, ongoing, double-blind studies that you mentioned in your post. Those were the ones you hoped would be fair and unbiased.

But, if they don't produce the results that you want them to produce, they will end up being unfair, biased studies by some so-called experts. I think everyone here already knows that to be completely and utterly untrue.

You guys are comparing apples and oranges. Moos and Starlight are referring to large, randomized, controlled, clinical trials. In other words, scientific research and statistical evidence, while Ridgerunner is talking about anecdotal data. The difference is like night and day. Anecdotal data is unreliable at determining factual claims. That's a big reason why they initiate large, randomized, controlled, clinical trials. Anecdotal data is based on hearsay, not hard evidence. Examples of anecdotal data would be, I know a guy who...or, on my way home I saw...or, I heard that HCQ is good for... Or, when a doctor has 20 patients, all with identical symptoms and diagnosed with the same illness. So, the doctor treats them all with the same medication. Let's say 14 of his patients got better, so the doctor concludes that the medication works, when in fact he doesn't know anything more, for sure, than before he prescribed the medication. It might have been the medicine that made them better or it could have been any one of, or a combination of, a 1000 different variables. That's why there are these large, randomized, controlled, clinical trials, to provide the actual, factual data to prove what works and what does not. Plus, everyone knows the FDA is never going to approve the use of a drug in this country based on anecdotal data or what some other country claims works, whether it's based on anecdotal or statistical evidence. Ridgerunner, I know you desperately need CQ or HCQ to be effective at treating COVID-19 and I think everyone here knows why that is. You don't want your lord and master to lose face, yet AGAIN. However, the truth is you will never be able to prove your case using anecdotal data.

Never had the pleasure, unfortunately. Stella Artois was first brewed in Leuven, Belgium in 1926 as a Christmas brew. Stella is Latin for "star" and Artois was the name of the Master Brewer who owned the brewery in 1708, Sebastion Artois.

Stella Cardo.mp4

Found this online. Spruced it up. Enjoy. (Video Content No Longer Available)

What do you get when you increase the resolution (larger dimensions, more pixels), improve the white balance (more natural looking colors) and sharpen the image? A bigger, brighter, better looking video. Enjoy. (Video Content No Longer Available)

A new look for an old video. But, it's Gina! Enjoy. (Video Content No Longer Available)

At the very least, he'd be so tongue-tied he wouldn't be able to utter a word.

18,000+ and counting.

OK, tosser, tosser.

Very.

Tosser! And not a word about my Gaelic, either. ☹️

I wasn't being contentious, Dis, just informative. Most, if not all, of these massage units that provide heat, also provide a way to adjust that heat; high/low, on/off, etc.

That would be rude in any situation, but as a guest in someone's home, that's just rude as fuck. And three times, no less. (The 3rd time because she was on the phone just as if she was in her own home.)

That happens with wide-angle lenses. It's called radial distortion. Most photographers just call it distortion. The wider the lens, the more pronounced will be the curve. Also, cheap lenses won't correct for it. Very expensive lenses ($5000, $20,000, etc.) can correct for some of it. It's how the lens is constructed. It's also possible to correct it with software, such as Gimp or Photoshop.

Thanks for the clarification.