DI you write back and ask if being so fucking stupid took effort or was she able to do it easily because she's bought?
You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without a) saying where she got it from or b) appearing to realise that it's 25 times greater.
DI you write back and ask if being so fucking stupid took effort or was she able to do it easily because she's bought?
You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without a) saying where she got it from or b) appearing to realise that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY a) that's not going to happen and b) she doesn't seem to realise that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight. Is it bad faith? Does she know what she's saying and doesn't care OR is she just fucking stupid?
She's ended with the meaningless platitude about having a nice holiday break as if to beguile you into thinking she's a nice person and not someone whose just spend a few paragraphs either having not read your email carefully enough to understand it OR having read it carefully, ignoring your points entirely and using her response to talk absolute and likely-scripted utter fucking shit as an excuse to deprive you of your civil liberties.
That's not the hallmark of a nice person that's the hallmark of a shill.
That's great Jay. I might add that your "caustic" tone is perfectly appropriate given the dishonesty of these creeps.
We are crafting a response and will broadcast it to the larger Cornell community when complete. We plan to include a part of what you wrote.
Off the top of my head here are some other items that sprung to mind off of your remark:
"You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without:
A) Saying where she got it from or;
B) Appearing to realize that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY;
A) That's not going to happen and;
B) She doesn't seem to realize that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight;
C) She/the university are both making the case that these "vaccines" prevent hospitalizations BUT we must be concerned ABOUT mass hospitalizations. A contradiction within itself.
Now we could also add that that should mean if the situation were considered so precarious that students should not be held in isolation in a hotel but they should be monitored in at least a quasi-medical situation and/or they should be sent home so as to avoid the scenario whereby they could;
A) Overwhelm hospitals in a rural county with limited capacity;
B) Infect the local community.
And to that we could add that we have been hearing about this potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed for nearly two years when in fact the data is crystal clear that hospitals throughout NY State have been experiencing record low levels of bed usage including ICU facilities for every month of these last two years- including those months at the height of "the pandemic."
Allen, caustic was what I was going for. These people infuriate me with their bad faith arguments and dishonesty.
You present age-stratified data where the stratified nature is almost the entire point because you can then highlight the risk in the main demographic at Cornell; those aged 20-30yrs.
And what does she do? Immediately de-stratifies that data thus negating/hiding/obscuring that obvious point whilst still being able to claim she isn't lying.
Surely she, having reached her position, couldn't be so mathematically naive as to not understand the significance of what she did to arrive at the 0.5% figure; effectively saying all age groups are reasonably equally represented in your community - including young children and elderly people.
And if she's not naive then her ignorance of your data is deliberate and if it's deliberate it's dishonest; her reply was a bag of shit handed to you with a smile; a bad faith argument from the start.
I'm mad at myself too - picked up a couple of typos in my original post and that's never good when accusing others of stupidity!
DI you write back and ask if being so fucking stupid took effort or was she able to do it easily because she's bought?
You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without a) saying where she got it from or b) appearing to realise that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY a) that's not going to happen and b) she doesn't seem to realise that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight. Is it bad faith? Does she know what she's saying and doesn't care OR is she just fucking stupid?
She's ended with the meaningless platitude about having a nice holiday break as if to beguile you into thinking she's a nice person and not someone whose just spend a few paragraphs either having not read your email carefully enough to understand it OR having read it carefully, ignoring your points entirely and using her response to talk absolute and likely-scripted utter fucking shit as an excuse to deprive you of your civil liberties.
That's not the hallmark of a nice person that's the hallmark of a shill.
That's great Jay. I might add that your "caustic" tone is perfectly appropriate given the dishonesty of these creeps.
We are crafting a response and will broadcast it to the larger Cornell community when complete. We plan to include a part of what you wrote.
Off the top of my head here are some other items that sprung to mind off of your remark:
"You say 99.98% (for the average age of a Cornell student one assumes) and she talks about 99.5% without:
A) Saying where she got it from or;
B) Appearing to realize that it's 25 times greater.
The claim about a hospitalization rate of 2% leading to 720 hospitalisations might make sense IF all 36,000 people got infected at once but CLEARLY;
A) That's not going to happen and;
B) She doesn't seem to realize that that 'turn of events' is exactly what would need to happen to give her argument any weight;
C) She/the university are both making the case that these "vaccines" prevent hospitalizations BUT we must be concerned ABOUT mass hospitalizations. A contradiction within itself.
Now we could also add that that should mean if the situation were considered so precarious that students should not be held in isolation in a hotel but they should be monitored in at least a quasi-medical situation and/or they should be sent home so as to avoid the scenario whereby they could;
A) Overwhelm hospitals in a rural county with limited capacity;
B) Infect the local community.
And to that we could add that we have been hearing about this potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed for nearly two years when in fact the data is crystal clear that hospitals throughout NY State have been experiencing record low levels of bed usage including ICU facilities for every month of these last two years- including those months at the height of "the pandemic."
Allen, caustic was what I was going for. These people infuriate me with their bad faith arguments and dishonesty.
You present age-stratified data where the stratified nature is almost the entire point because you can then highlight the risk in the main demographic at Cornell; those aged 20-30yrs.
And what does she do? Immediately de-stratifies that data thus negating/hiding/obscuring that obvious point whilst still being able to claim she isn't lying.
Surely she, having reached her position, couldn't be so mathematically naive as to not understand the significance of what she did to arrive at the 0.5% figure; effectively saying all age groups are reasonably equally represented in your community - including young children and elderly people.
And if she's not naive then her ignorance of your data is deliberate and if it's deliberate it's dishonest; her reply was a bag of shit handed to you with a smile; a bad faith argument from the start.
I'm mad at myself too - picked up a couple of typos in my original post and that's never good when accusing others of stupidity!