Anonymous wrote:It is so silly, I will just be driving over to Howard County for things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiting a few weeks to see what happens in the rest of Maryland is not "never opening."

Uh, they didn’t say they were doing that. They named specific and unattainable metrics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you are going to be confined for the rest of your life. There was an official announcement on the matter.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, when they put up mathematically unattainable metrics, like a 14-day decline on deaths, when we’re averaging 12 per day, then yeah — that would imply no end date because the criteria for reopening are not feasible.

I’m not clear what point you’re making here. Are you saying that it will never be possible to have a two week stretch that averages fewer than 12 deaths per day from covid 19? So since, in your view, this is unattainable, there is no end date?

Nothing you have said is “mathematically unattainable”. It’s certainly mathematically possible to have a lower average death rate, and to have it for two weeks or more. Are you saying that the current death rate is low enough that you view it as acceptable? Or something else?

It’s unattainable as a straight decline.

As a rolling average, it’s attainable, but translates into an exceptionally small decline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you are going to be confined for the rest of your life. There was an official announcement on the matter.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, when they put up mathematically unattainable metrics, like a 14-day decline on deaths, when we’re averaging 12 per day, then yeah — that would imply no end date because the criteria for reopening are not feasible.

I’m not clear what point you’re making here. Are you saying that it will never be possible to have a two week stretch that averages fewer than 12 deaths per day from covid 19? So since, in your view, this is unattainable, there is no end date?

Nothing you have said is “mathematically unattainable”. It’s certainly mathematically possible to have a lower average death rate, and to have it for two weeks or more. Are you saying that the current death rate is low enough that you view it as acceptable? Or something else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you are going to be confined for the rest of your life. There was an official announcement on the matter.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, when they put up mathematically unattainable metrics, like a 14-day decline on deaths, when we’re averaging 12 per day, then yeah — that would imply no end date because the criteria for reopening are not feasible.

Anonymous wrote:Waiting a few weeks to see what happens in the rest of Maryland is not "never opening."

Anonymous wrote:You idiots elected a clown show to run the county when you voted for Elrich. A clown show is what you get. It is mindnumbing how progressives vote for liberal progressive loony shows to run the government, then complian about the results later on. Reap what you sow.

Anonymous wrote:Waiting a few weeks to see what happens in the rest of Maryland is not "never opening."

Anonymous wrote:

It’s mathematically unattainable as a straight decline.

As a rolling average metric, it’s attainable, but translates into a stupidly small decrease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you are going to be confined for the rest of your life. There was an official announcement on the matter.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, when they put up mathematically unattainable metrics, like a 14-day decline on deaths, when we’re averaging 12 per day, then yeah — that would imply no end date because the criteria for reopening are not feasible.

I read you posting that before, and it didn't make sense to me then, and it still doesn't make sense to me. You seem to assume that the rolling average number of deaths must be a whole number. It doesn't need to be, and it wouldn't make sense to do it that way.

I don’t care about a whole number. Explain to me how you get a 14-day decline when you start with a number under 14.

Day 1: 13.5
Day 2: 13.4
Day 3: 13.3
Day 4: 13.2
Day 5: 13.1

I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Right, so at the end of that, you’re down essentially 2 deaths per day. Is that a reason to keep a county closed?

My point is that 12 is SUCH a low starting point that you’re looking at stupidly small changes.

No, you're shifting the goalposts. You said (or somebody said) that it was a mathematically unattainable metric. It's not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you are going to be confined for the rest of your life. There was an official announcement on the matter.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, when they put up mathematically unattainable metrics, like a 14-day decline on deaths, when we’re averaging 12 per day, then yeah — that would imply no end date because the criteria for reopening are not feasible.

I read you posting that before, and it didn't make sense to me then, and it still doesn't make sense to me. You seem to assume that the rolling average number of deaths must be a whole number. It doesn't need to be, and it wouldn't make sense to do it that way.

I don’t care about a whole number. Explain to me how you get a 14-day decline when you start with a number under 14.

Day 1: 13.5
Day 2: 13.4
Day 3: 13.3
Day 4: 13.2
Day 5: 13.1

I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Right, so at the end of that, you’re down essentially 2 deaths per day. Is that a reason to keep a county closed?

My point is that 12 is SUCH a low starting point that you’re looking at stupidly small changes.