Say What? Democrats Now Claim That Violent R**ts and Brutal Violence Amid B*M Protests Actually Slowed Spread of C****-**
Jul 6, 2020 18:16:19 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
Say What? Democrats Now Claim That Violent R**ts and Brutal Violence Amid B*M Protests Actually Slowed Spread of C****-**
While there are many who are worried about the potential spread of C****-**, others seem to worry when it is convenient for them. The same people who wanted us all to stay home a few weeks ago are now marching in the streets every day. At the moment, there is no evidence that the protests are advancing the spread of the novel c****av***s.
However, there are studies that are trying to make an even more outlandish claim. A new study says that the protests are actually slowing down the spread of the v***s! That seems pretty hard to believe but what do we know? Hundreds of thousands of people are crowding the streets every day but the c****av***s spread is slowing down, that’s what they want folks to think.
According to the study, the reasoning is fairly simple. Yes, there are lots of people in the streets right now and that could cause an increased spread. On the other hand, the number of people who are in the streets right now is causing an unexpected domino effect. More and more folks are choosing to stay home, as a means of steering clear of the trouble that they are causing at the moment.
But a new study by a nationwide research team that includes a University of Colorado Denver professor has found something surprising: The protests may have slowed the overall spread of the c****av***s in cities with large demonstrations, including Denver.
“We think that what’s going on is it’s the people who are not going to protest are staying away,” said Andrew Friedson, the CU-Denver professor who is one of the paper’s co-authors. “The overall effect for the entire city is more social distancing because people are avoiding the protests.”
Friedson said his paper doesn’t try to figure out whether the protests spread the v***s among the people at the protest. Instead, he said the research took the bigger-picture view: What did the protests mean for overall t***smission of the v***s within the entire community?
The study looked at 315 American cities with populations of more than 100,000 and found that 281 of those cities saw protests. The remaining 34 cities that did not see protests — which, at the time, included Aurora — were used as a control group against which to measure the impact of the protests.
It makes some level of sense but we are going to need see more studies that come to this conclusion before we are willing to go along with this narrative. The law abiding citizens who decided to stay inside and avoid the protests may have been doing their part all along, though. The study is probably BS but that is still an interesting theory.
The nationwide research team that conducted the study includes a professor from the University of Colorado Denver. Andrew Friedson is the professor in question and he attributes the decrease to all of the people who are staying away. Friedson did not try to figure out the effects of the protests themselves. Instead, he took more of a big picture approach to the entire area.
315 American cities were studied and 34 cities without protests were used as the control group, to evaluate the spread. “Public speech and public health did not trade off against each other in this case,” said the authors of the paper. While there are aspects of this study that are interesting and semi believable, their credibility is destroyed as soon as they start cautioning against other outdoor activities.
People are being told that the protests are fine but they need to be avoiding weddings because they are supposedly more dangerous. This “study” seems designed to help liberals assuage their fears and we are not sure if there is any information here that is truly worthwhile. Friedson claims that the wedding aspect is related to “avoidance behavior”.
Since people are not likely to stay indoors when they see an outdoor wedding taking place, Friedson seems to genuinely believe that people are not going to spread the v***s at protests. In his mind, weddings are the true danger. If this study is to be believed, all weddings and outdoor parties need to be canceled for the foreseeable future but protests are A-OK.
Someone needs to make it make sense to us. There are certain elements of the study that seem reasonable but when it is taken as a whole? It is hard to go along with. In essence, they want you to believe that anyone who stands in solidarity with the Black L***s M****r movement is safe from being infected with the v***s.
It is probably not that simple but don’t tell them that. They want to believe that their virtue signaling is somehow less dangerous than heading out to the bar for a drink. If one of these activities is meant to be avoid, they all should be. Otherwise, it becomes harder and harder to know what we should really believe. The mainstream media is going to take advantage and continue spreading their lies in the meantime.
While there are many who are worried about the potential spread of C****-**, others seem to worry when it is convenient for them. The same people who wanted us all to stay home a few weeks ago are now marching in the streets every day. At the moment, there is no evidence that the protests are advancing the spread of the novel c****av***s.
However, there are studies that are trying to make an even more outlandish claim. A new study says that the protests are actually slowing down the spread of the v***s! That seems pretty hard to believe but what do we know? Hundreds of thousands of people are crowding the streets every day but the c****av***s spread is slowing down, that’s what they want folks to think.
According to the study, the reasoning is fairly simple. Yes, there are lots of people in the streets right now and that could cause an increased spread. On the other hand, the number of people who are in the streets right now is causing an unexpected domino effect. More and more folks are choosing to stay home, as a means of steering clear of the trouble that they are causing at the moment.
But a new study by a nationwide research team that includes a University of Colorado Denver professor has found something surprising: The protests may have slowed the overall spread of the c****av***s in cities with large demonstrations, including Denver.
“We think that what’s going on is it’s the people who are not going to protest are staying away,” said Andrew Friedson, the CU-Denver professor who is one of the paper’s co-authors. “The overall effect for the entire city is more social distancing because people are avoiding the protests.”
Friedson said his paper doesn’t try to figure out whether the protests spread the v***s among the people at the protest. Instead, he said the research took the bigger-picture view: What did the protests mean for overall t***smission of the v***s within the entire community?
The study looked at 315 American cities with populations of more than 100,000 and found that 281 of those cities saw protests. The remaining 34 cities that did not see protests — which, at the time, included Aurora — were used as a control group against which to measure the impact of the protests.
It makes some level of sense but we are going to need see more studies that come to this conclusion before we are willing to go along with this narrative. The law abiding citizens who decided to stay inside and avoid the protests may have been doing their part all along, though. The study is probably BS but that is still an interesting theory.
The nationwide research team that conducted the study includes a professor from the University of Colorado Denver. Andrew Friedson is the professor in question and he attributes the decrease to all of the people who are staying away. Friedson did not try to figure out the effects of the protests themselves. Instead, he took more of a big picture approach to the entire area.
315 American cities were studied and 34 cities without protests were used as the control group, to evaluate the spread. “Public speech and public health did not trade off against each other in this case,” said the authors of the paper. While there are aspects of this study that are interesting and semi believable, their credibility is destroyed as soon as they start cautioning against other outdoor activities.
People are being told that the protests are fine but they need to be avoiding weddings because they are supposedly more dangerous. This “study” seems designed to help liberals assuage their fears and we are not sure if there is any information here that is truly worthwhile. Friedson claims that the wedding aspect is related to “avoidance behavior”.
Since people are not likely to stay indoors when they see an outdoor wedding taking place, Friedson seems to genuinely believe that people are not going to spread the v***s at protests. In his mind, weddings are the true danger. If this study is to be believed, all weddings and outdoor parties need to be canceled for the foreseeable future but protests are A-OK.
Someone needs to make it make sense to us. There are certain elements of the study that seem reasonable but when it is taken as a whole? It is hard to go along with. In essence, they want you to believe that anyone who stands in solidarity with the Black L***s M****r movement is safe from being infected with the v***s.
It is probably not that simple but don’t tell them that. They want to believe that their virtue signaling is somehow less dangerous than heading out to the bar for a drink. If one of these activities is meant to be avoid, they all should be. Otherwise, it becomes harder and harder to know what we should really believe. The mainstream media is going to take advantage and continue spreading their lies in the meantime.
Jul 6, 2020 18:45:22 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.