It looks like he is speculating -
...and his opinion is about the timing, not speculation, not what causes the timing.
It looks like he is speculating -
No, not really. It is when the intent of your actions goes from merely doing what you think is right to making a "statement" or attempting to influence the actions or beliefs of others that you move into the realm of virtue signaling.
"If I don't post a picture of me doing it on social media to show everyone how educated/compassionate/woke I am, did I even really do it at all?"
...and his opinion is about the timing, not speculation, not what causes the timing.
This was covered in these threads earlier a little bit, but ignored, and that’s a shame because, while I have always thought the virus a potential threat, that threat started waning at about 40 days, but we were already on this terrible trajectory of shutdown that was hard to reverse.
Where has the spread dropped to "almost zero" in 70 days? Maybe if you believe the china numbers?
In Minnesota it is well past 70 days and we are right near the top for deaths per day and patients in the ICU today.
Indiana is not "almost zero" now and neither is New York or the USA as a whole.
What he has observed, he reports. He is not speculating as to why it peaks at 40 days or drops to almost nothing at 70. An academic who knows the limitations of the data and his own expertise.. That's actually refreshing.
It depends on your definition of "almost zero " for 328 million people. Is 1% near zero? .5%? .25%? Just what number are you looking for?
I agree, it's one of the things I will ding you on when reviewing a manuscript, if you are start speculating vs. what you have evidence for etc.
Do you see any supporting evidence?
First of all, the Article is from April 14th. Has he updated his opinion since then? What does the data show? Is he right, is he wrong at the end of May? Don't know.
He reported what he observed. That's all he said and all I said.
Surely you can see why one might wonder. You basically said, if the viral load is so much less, then the asymptotic mask wearers are virtue signaling. And certainly there are the virtue-signalers trying to make a statement. But also people like to behave to facilitate the general good as long as it’s not too costly. They’re being told wearing masks reduces the spread. So they wear them. And they believe it’s helping themselves and others. That’s not virtue signaling. Also, many asymptomatic people wear masks because it’s required to enter the place they want to be. So there are plenty of reasons to wear masks that have nothing to do with virtue signaling. And maybe you intended an implied disclaimer to exclude what I think would be the most common reason, because they believe it’s helping. Maybe you could modify the statement to say “ignorance or virtue signaling.” I think I’d agree with that more.No, not really. It is when the intent of your actions goes from merely doing what you think is right to making a "statement" or attempting to influence the actions or beliefs of others that you move into the realm of virtue signaling.
"If I don't post a picture of me doing it on social media to show everyone how educated/compassionate/woke I am, did I even really do it at all?"
OK. I read those statements as meaning the asymptomatic person doesn't need to wear a mask. Since the mask protects other people, when you say they don't need a mask then they must not be a risk to other people.
I'm not sure I buy that just yet. There has been an awful lot of stuff out there saying they could spread the chinese virus which means they are a risk to other people.
Surely you can see why one might wonder. You basically said, if the viral load is so much less, then the asymptotic mask wearers are virtue signaling. And certainly there are the virtue-signalers trying to make a statement. But also people like to behave to facilitate the general good as long as it’s not too costly. They’re being told wearing masks reduces the spread. So they wear them. And they believe it’s helping themselves and others. That’s not virtue signaling. Also, many asymptomatic people wear masks because it’s required to enter the place they want to be. So there are plenty of reasons to wear masks that have nothing to do with virtue signaling. And maybe you intended an implied disclaimer to exclude what I think would be the most common reason, because they believe it’s helping. Maybe you could modify the statement to say “ignorance or virtue signaling.” I think I’d agree with that more.
That’s what you said after the original statement. I was getting more at what you initially said. You did not qualify it. Admittedly my post was a stream of thought as usual. So the intent may have been lost.That's an awfully long-winded way to say...basically exactly what I said.
Virtue signaling is attempting to bring attention to the implied intent behind your actions. Anyone merely doing something and not trying to draw attention to themselves doing it are not virtue signaling. Ignorance doesn't really play a part. One can virtue signal about something that is true or about something that is untrue, and one's knowledge or ignorance of truth does not impact whether one's actions constitute virtue signaling.
That’s what you said after the original statement. I was getting more at what you initially said. You did not qualify it. Admittedly my post was a stream of thought as usual. So the intent may have been lost.
ABC looked at 21 states that eased restrictions May 4 or earlier & found no major increase in hospitalizations, deaths or % of people testing positive in any of them. SC, MT, GA, MS, SD, AR, CO, ID, IA, ND, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY, KS, FL, IN, MO, NE, OH
That is true. He didn't define what "almost zero" means. I don't think it matters what I think it means. He said it and I don't know exactly what it means.
I truly hope he is right that it goes away at 70 days and I am sure he has numbers that I don't have but I sure don't see any evidence that supports his statement. If you see any please share.