6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- 135,771
- 116,312
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I normally wouldn't mind but I just don't trust that there are any safety measures being implemented over there. Plus the shipping from the factories to the US warehouses then to consumers is just too many hands on these.I'm glad you said it, because while I wanted to order I resisted for the same reasons. I'm honestly having a hard time buying ANYTHING that is openly marked "made in China".
Just cut your own hair. Ain’t like anyone gonna see you if you mess up
exactly. Barber in my city setting appointments and only doing 1 to 1. Just him and the client and both wearing mask. I’m just going to keep looking homeless cause honestly... I’m not going anywhere and why get a cut just to sit in the house?Or at least wear a mask...........literally, you can have your haircuts if you just ****ing wear masks (both barber and customer).
But no, the same idiots protesting for haircuts probably wouldn't want to wear a mask either if mandatory
#COVIDIOTS
some more corona ****, this time from JPM. hopefully this analysis nips it in the bud, but i'm sure the alt-right crazies will soon be posting the JPM study on their timelines.
Also, from a style standpoint, this graph should be a square (equal aspect ratio) since the abscissa and ordinate are equivalent quantities. Instead, they went with a non-1:1 ratio. Of course, that's not even beginning to get into the big issues with this **** analysis, mostly that a) the uncertainty is way too ****ing high, b) there hasn't been enough time to assess the lockdown, and c) there are many dynamics at play that highly correlate with reopening and confound the analysis.
Yea I don't understand it either lolexplain this to me like I’m 4. I don’t really get JPM thesis in this argument
Welp looks like we back to normal.
explain this to me like I’m 4. I don’t really get JPM thesis in this argument
I'll try my best, although I don't have the JPM paper itself, so I have to make some assumptions.Yea I don't understand it either lol
Bruh...what is happening to this country
Here is some more bad science, again from the John Ioannidis clown. I hate to keep harping on this but it is dangerous and this guy just won't quit.
He has been trying to argue since March 17 (!!!!) that this pandemic is overblown and that the true infection fatality rate (IFR) is on par with a mild flu. This past month, his team has put out very poorly done seroprevalence studies, where they measure the percentage of people in a city that have antibodies to covid-19 to try to estimate the true prevalence of infections and the true IFR.
We know from solid, good data from NYC, Madrid, China, and a bunch of other places that the IFR is likely 0.7-0.9%, but can move around depending on the health and age of the population and the access to medical care.
Anyway, now this clown is trying to put out a new paper that is even more ****ing awful than his previous papers. He argues that the IFR is as low as 0.02% (!!!!). This thread does a good job breaking down why it is such ****ty work: