4 ms·

> In Nashville they closed bars and restaurants for 6 months because .004% of the cases came from bars and restaurants. You're taking the number of cases that

by MiroF 6y ago

> In Nashville they closed bars and restaurants for 6 months because .004% of the cases came from bars and restaurants. You're taking the number of cases that they've managed to contact trace to bars (difficult, especially if lots of cases all at once). You're then dividing that by the total number of cases, including the ones after they closed bars and concluding that it was the incorrect choice.

zaroth 6y ago
There’s email chains that came out showing that they knew the bar numbers were low and buried them. Then lied about it when asked. Whether you think it was the correct choice or not is politics. It was not data driven nor supported by any actual exposure data that they collected, they knew that was the case, and tried to cover it up.
just-juan-post 6y ago
No am I am not but I understand your assumptive nature. I did speak incorrectly. Here is a repost of my previous comment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743605/Nashville-mayors-office-health-department-concealed-coronavirus-data-leaked-emails-reveal.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743605/Nashville-m... In Nashville, TN (USA) bars and restaurants are closed to stop the spread of the virus. In e-mails obtained by a local television station, and later confirmed authentic by legal council, the e-mails discussed how only 80 of the 20,000 positive cases could be traced to bars and restaurants. > Tennessee Lookout reporter Nate Rau asks, “The figure you gave of 'more than 80' does lead to a natural question: If there have been over 20,000 positive cases of COVID-19 in Davidson and only 80 or so are traced to restaurants and bars, doesn’t that mean restaurants and bars aren’t a very big problem?" A day after the story broke they allowed bars and restaurants to re-open: https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2020/09/17/nashville-bars-restaurants-covid-19-gains/3479447001/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2020/09/17/nashville-... Indoor recreation was shut down in this city for 80 cases in a city of 2 million aka .004% of the population. Point zero zero four percent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24535010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24535010
- MiroF 6y ago
  > a city of 2 million aka .004% of the population. Oh so it's the population now? I forgot that the whole city of Nashville was infected. Not going to respond further.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    You're done because we both know the math is correct, my argument is sound, and you don't like that. I see it often in these types of debates. It's easier to walk away from a losing position than to defend it. I'm not sure what you think I changed but the math is fairly straight forward. Nashville metro is 2 million people. There were 80 cases confirmed traced to bars and restaurants. They were keeping bars and restaurants closed because they were "hotspots". When you take 80 and divide by 2,000,000 you get .00004 or .004%. Therefore, the government was keeping bars and restaurants shut down because .004% of the infections came from bars and restaurants. They restricted indoor recreation for 2 million because of 80 cases.
    - martinpw 6y ago
      Actually your argument is not sound as the person you are replying to already pointed out in a previous response to you that you seem to have missed. You actually contradicted yourself. Note: "There were 80 cases confirmed traced to bars and restaurants." "[80] of the infections came from bars and restaurants." Those two statements are not the same as each other - the first, from the authorities, is true, the second, from you, is almost certainly not true unless every single infection from a bar or restaurant was actually traced.
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      Please, please don't use "you stopped responding, so I'm right". It is one of the most infuriating (and also pretty insulting) things you could have said. People stop responding because they have better things to do with their time, and/or because they know an interaction is bad for them or for the other person (e.g. is enraging them), and/or because they took a while to work out that they were arguing with someone who cannot change their mind, and/or even because they can't face being wrong. There are dozens of reasons for refusing to engage in a pointless and enraging discussion.

by MiroF 6y ago

zaroth 6y ago

There’s email chains that came out showing that they knew the bar numbers were low and buried them. Then lied about it when asked. Whether you think it was the correct choice or not is politics. It was not data driven nor supported by any actual exposure data that they collected, they knew that was the case, and tried to cover it up.

just-juan-post 6y ago

No am I am not but I understand your assumptive nature. I did speak incorrectly. Here is a repost of my previous comment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743605/Nashville-mayors-office-health-department-concealed-coronavirus-data-leaked-emails-reveal.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743605/Nashville-m... In Nashville, TN (USA) bars and restaurants are closed to stop the spread of the virus. In e-mails obtained by a local television station, and later confirmed authentic by legal council, the e-mails discussed how only 80 of the 20,000 positive cases could be traced to bars and restaurants. > Tennessee Lookout reporter Nate Rau asks, “The figure you gave of 'more than 80' does lead to a natural question: If there have been over 20,000 positive cases of COVID-19 in Davidson and only 80 or so are traced to restaurants and bars, doesn’t that mean restaurants and bars aren’t a very big problem?" A day after the story broke they allowed bars and restaurants to re-open: https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2020/09/17/nashville-bars-restaurants-covid-19-gains/3479447001/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2020/09/17/nashville-... Indoor recreation was shut down in this city for 80 cases in a city of 2 million aka .004% of the population. Point zero zero four percent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24535010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24535010

MiroF 6y ago
> a city of 2 million aka .004% of the population. Oh so it's the population now? I forgot that the whole city of Nashville was infected. Not going to respond further.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  You're done because we both know the math is correct, my argument is sound, and you don't like that. I see it often in these types of debates. It's easier to walk away from a losing position than to defend it. I'm not sure what you think I changed but the math is fairly straight forward. Nashville metro is 2 million people. There were 80 cases confirmed traced to bars and restaurants. They were keeping bars and restaurants closed because they were "hotspots". When you take 80 and divide by 2,000,000 you get .00004 or .004%. Therefore, the government was keeping bars and restaurants shut down because .004% of the infections came from bars and restaurants. They restricted indoor recreation for 2 million because of 80 cases.
  - martinpw 6y ago
    Actually your argument is not sound as the person you are replying to already pointed out in a previous response to you that you seem to have missed. You actually contradicted yourself. Note: "There were 80 cases confirmed traced to bars and restaurants." "[80] of the infections came from bars and restaurants." Those two statements are not the same as each other - the first, from the authorities, is true, the second, from you, is almost certainly not true unless every single infection from a bar or restaurant was actually traced.
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    Please, please don't use "you stopped responding, so I'm right". It is one of the most infuriating (and also pretty insulting) things you could have said. People stop responding because they have better things to do with their time, and/or because they know an interaction is bad for them or for the other person (e.g. is enraging them), and/or because they took a while to work out that they were arguing with someone who cannot change their mind, and/or even because they can't face being wrong. There are dozens of reasons for refusing to engage in a pointless and enraging discussion.