Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Charles]

Fauci predicts over 100,000 Covid-19 deaths in the United States

“We’re going to have millions of cases”

I assume we will soon be told he is only saying so for political reasons.

[carpedm9587]

Going back to my initial post, you won't find the word "worst" in it, yet your first reply to my initial post contains the word "worst". You're the one who jumped to that conclusion, your own doing. Be man enough to own it.

It's only your sick mind that gets the impression of bringing up numbers means political motivation. There's a pandemic in case you haven't noticed. You behave exactly like the Chinese government which denied everything when the first whistleblower Li Wenliang sounded the alarm. Denial, denial until the numbers blew up in their face and they had to admit to the world the hard facts.

He actually used the word "worse" - not "worst." The expression was "worse case scenario." If you look up "worse case scenario" on most search engines, it asks if you mean "worst case scenario." because that is the actual expression. Many people, however, mistakenly use "worse" instead of "worst." In this case, MM is using that slip to argue that he was not referring to a "worst case scenario" (e.g., the absolute worst case) but rather a "worse case scenario," (i.e., a case that is only worse than the previously discussed, but not the worst possible.).

Linguistically, he's correct. I sincerely doubt his use was intentional. As with most people, I suspect he used "worse case" in place of "worst case." But there is no proving it since only he knows what is in his mind, and MM seldom (if ever?) acknowledges error to someone who is outside his circle.

[Mountain Man]

Fauci predicts over 100,000 Covid-19 deaths in the United States

“We’re going to have millions of cases”

I assume we will soon be told he is only saying so for political reasons.

Important context:

"I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection when it’s such a moving target, that you could so easily be wrong."

[carpedm9587]

On the contrary, I speak very precisely and choose my words with care, and "a" and "the" are very important articles in a sentence ("a favorite ice cream" has a different meaning than "the favorite ice cream"). You just assume I'm trying to be as weaselly as you, and so you interpret my words accordingly.

Tell me you wouldn't be happy and walking around with a grin on your face if this situation directly contributed to Trump losing the election.

What I tell you is pointless, since you only believe what you want to believe about me, so I'll leave it to you. Further discussion is useless.

[Mountain Man]

He actually used the word "worse" - not "worst." The expression was "worse case scenario." If you look up "worse case scenario" on most search engines, it asks if you mean "worst case scenario." because that is the actual expression. Many people, however, mistakenly use "worse" instead of "worst." In this case, MM is using that slip to argue that he was not referring to a "worst case scenario" (e.g., the absolute worst case) but rather a "worse case scenario," (i.e., a case that is only worse than the previously discussed, but not the worst possible.).

Linguistically, he's correct. I sincerely doubt his use was intentional. As with most people, I suspect he used "worse case" in place of "worst case." But there is no proving it since only he knows what is in his mind, and MM seldom (if ever?) acknowledges error to someone who is outside his circle.

It was intentional, you prig. I told you that I choose my words carefully, and I said "worse case scenario" because that's exactly what I meant. If I had meant "worst case scenario" then that's what I would have said. We're not all as slippery as you, carpe. Some of us really do say what mean.

[carpedm9587]

It was intentional, you prig. I told you that I choose my words carefully, and I said "worse case scenario" because that's exactly what I meant. If I had meant "worst case scenario" then that's what I would have said. We're not all as slippery as you, carpe. Some of us really do say what mean.

Yeah.... suuuuurrreee....



What's wrong, MM? Are you finding it a bit irritating to have someone attempt to read your mind and insist they are right?

[Charles]

Important context:

"I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection when it’s such a moving target, that you could so easily be wrong."

And it is within that very context he makes the statement. I would assume you want to point to the context in order to say that it need not get that bad. However the context also, unfortunately, leaves open the possibility that it could be even worse than that.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah.... suuuuurrreee....



What's wrong, MM? Are you finding it a bit irritating to have someone attempt to read your mind and insist they are right?

You're not reading my mind, prig, you're falsely accusing me of meaning one thing when I clearly and explicitly said another.

And I notice you didn't answer this: "Tell me you wouldn't be happy and walking around with a grin on your face if this situation directly contributed to Trump losing the election."

Is it because your response would only validate what I and others have said?

[Mountain Man]

And it is within that very context he makes the statement. I would assume you want to point to the context in order to say that it need not get that bad. However the context also, unfortunately, leaves open the possibility that it could be even worse than that.

No, the context is "Here's a number from a model based on certain assumptions that could so easily be wrong." Things could be better, they could be worse. The point is, it's impossible to predict, which is exactly what Dr. Fauci said and why he so heavily qualified his answer.

[Charles]

No, the context is "Here's a number from a model based on certain assumptions that could so easily be wrong." Things could be better, they could be worse. The point is, it's impossible to predict, which is exactly what Dr. Fauci said and why he so heavily qualified his answer.

Where is the part you put within quotation marks?

[Charles]

[...] Things could be better, they could be worse. The point is, it's impossible to predict, which is exactly what Dr. Fauci said and why he so heavily qualified his answer.

And yet within that context made the statement.

[firstfloor]

But now is the time to put the measures in place to stamp out the disease and save lives.

Its several strains won’t be so much stamped out as assimilated into the family of viruses we live with.

[Mountain Man]

Where is the part you put within quotation marks?

Here the exact quote: "I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection when it’s such a moving target, that you could so easily be wrong."

He almost seemed reluctant to answer Tapper's question, and then he heavily qualified his answer. Of course that nuance doesn't make a good headline, which is why news outlets are just running with the scary flat figure (this is true of even generally reputable organizations like Breitbart).

As Dr. Birx explained, the models and predictions so far have been worse than what we're actually seeing.

[Charles]

So let's repeat, shall we:

No, the context is "Here's a number from a model based on certain assumptions that could so easily be wrong." Things could be better, they could be worse. The point is, it's impossible to predict, which is exactly what Dr. Fauci said and why he so heavily qualified his answer.

Where is the part you put within quotation marks?

Here the exact quote: "I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection when it’s such a moving target, that you could so easily be wrong." [...]

So you put quotation marks around something and when asked where that part is you quote a different part of the text. Interesting...

[little_monkey]

So what? Basing a mathematical model on the assumption that, first of all, someone is unknowingly infected, and secondly, they are able to freely interact in a society that is taking no precautions to protect itself is a worse case scenario by definition. No, it's not THE worst case scenario, but I never said it was. And the fact that society IS taking precautions means that the one of the key assumptions the model is based on no longer applies, which means the model is no longer accurate. This is the message that Dr. Birx was recently trying to get out, and naturally, liberals have turned on her because of it. They desperately want to keep people as frightened as possible because, in the words of carpe, "Fear is a strong motivator." And what do you think liberals are hoping voters will feel motivated to do, hm?

There are probably 100 million liberals on this planet, I don't know what they all think, apparently you do. This is a pandemic. Being scared is quite normal under those circumstances. Talking about exponential contamination in such times is par for the course. Questioning if the authorities are doing the right thing is also fair. In one post you are doubtful of Dr. Fauci but you have nothing but praise for Dr. Birx. Your auto-reflect is to defend Trump at all costs. If one examines not through rose-tainted glass what he has done so far, it's a poor performance as there are many parallels with what the Chinese authorities did - first denials then when the numbers are exploding, a complete turnaround. Hopefully he will get better or else there will be many needless deaths.