Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikhailtolstykh4104 No, it's not splitting hairs, it's giving you a best case scenario and showing how obviously you just made up numbers. As I already said, which you ignored because you're blinded by your indoctrination, this is a best case scenario for you and doesn't take into account the sharp reduction in infections and hospitalizations in this same time period. To make it a bit more clear for you if you look at the infection rates of the prior month due to the amount of time between infection and death, and use a 7 day moving average to account for slight shifts in trends day-to-day, you end up with a much clearer picture. It makes sense that the height of infections match the height of deaths, so for this example we'll use the peak in new infections at the start of May and compare it to the peak of deaths at the start of June. This matched the majority of death trends when reviewing new infections vs deaths. What you'll see in this timeframe is a 7 day moving average of new infections at the peak at the start of May of 414,188 cases. The deaths at the peak around 2 weeks later were 4209. This gives a death rate of almost exactly 1.0162%. If we then transpose the number of new infections over the current deaths using the same 2 week time period we get a number of infections of 46,617, and a number of deaths over the same lag time, we get 542, which is a death rate of 1.1627%, an increase of 14% when compared to the previous time period when there was a peak of infections.
So when you actually look at the data, not only are you wrong, you are really really wrong. Deaths in fact increased, and it's far more likely that the introduction of ivermectin was so insignificant it fell between the cracks of standard deviations in a normal distribution.
Or, put simply, the death rate increased in India after they switched to your magic drug.
Funnily enough they have been trialing ivermectin since December 2020 and haven't included it in the MATH+ protocol for a reason, because there is nothing to suggest that it helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edhuber3557
"Good point. Any pipeline can carry any product in any quantity in any direction at any, all, and the same time."
Again, they already have a keystone pipeline. Building a larger line, especially one that goes over indigenous lands and breaks multiple treaties, while increasing domestic oil prices, is a waste.
"On the other, hand these are present US gov't funds which will be well managed, as always, because of politician's extensive knowledge of technology and infrastructure."
They don't need to have extensive knowledge. They are given recommendations, most notably the recent US infrastructure report care, to advise their decisions.
"We know this taxpayer outlay will be spent for useful, albeit as-yet-unclear infrastructure"
Almost like there isn't a bill yet.
"If holes, pits, or pockets in roads are not filled, then pols will find ratholes, bottomless pits, or pol pockets"
Oh please. They're not the military.
Honestly, you're just throwing out conspiracy theories with nothing to show for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1