… 2,000 people have died from this in the US in the last 48 hours. Are you claiming that’s a normal death rate?https://mobile.twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1244035891284381696 …
-
-
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @NancyARandazzo and
Or is that too *mainstream* for you? This is from ONE DISEASE. These things escalate exponentially!
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @Cannadablissed and
2,000 people did not die in 2 days. That’s the total. A person in the US dies every 12 seconds. If we have tested a million people, and it tells us that 10% test positive, an that’s true for everyone, then every 2 minutes (120 seconds) someone is dying with coronavirus.pic.twitter.com/Qk8k2MjCM1
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NancyARandazzo @Cannadablissed and
Yeah, I did misread. My bad. It’s a thousand people dying from it in 48 hours. Which is a lot. It means that in two days the death count doubled. The doubling time is going to keep getting shorter if we don’t head this off. Which we aren’t as things stand.
5 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @NancyARandazzo and
Your assumption about how spread works is still wrong btw! So it is lower than 1 death every two minutes- because 3.3 million people *don’t* already have it and we need to keep it that way- slow the spread to reduce strain on medical infrastructure.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @Cannadablissed and
We don’t know unless we test everyone. But with the national sample size nearing 1 million, what I am saying is valid.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NancyARandazzo @TheWeaseKing and
IT'S NOT A RANDOMIZED SAMPLE YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT THIS IS LITERALLY THE VERY FIRST THING YOU LEARN ABOUT STATISTICS
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NancyARandazzo and
WHO THE FUCK TOLD YOU A LARGE SAMPLE WAS THE SAME THING AS A RANDOM SAMPLE IT'S THE FUCKING STUPIDEST OBVIOUS THING IF I ONLY GIVE A TEST TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY'RE SICK, THE SAMPLE WILL BE SKEWED TO THE POSITIVE, EVEN IF I TEST *TEN* MILLION PEOPLE
5 replies 3 retweets 37 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joe__gantt @arthur_affect and
It is in the social sciences, where everything they do is irreplicable. This is getting repetitive and circular.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, the social sciences work differently than fields of study where you can do controlled experiments because you can't just put two identical societies in separate boxes and try tweaking different variables
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NancyARandazzo and
That doesn't mean you can just fucking make shit up to justify doing whatever you find to be convenient and comfortable Jesus Christ
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NancyARandazzo and
And it's getting "repetitive and circular" because you're ignoring really obvious shit people are saying to you No, I'm not going to bother looking up a graph to show you How about you tell me whether Italy's hospitals go into a state of emergency like this every flu season
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.