yeshivas that are open

[yungermanchik]

@yungermanchik You’re lying. You misread the chart and made a stupid mistake, which is why you deleted your post (which everyone can still see where I quoted you). It’s fine to make a mistake, we’re all human. I called you out but you’re not man enough to apologize and admit you were wrong, so you deleted the post and now you’re trying to double down. I was working with exactly the demographics on that website, and that’s exactly what I said.

It’s ok to make mistakes, but the right thing to do now would be to admit you were wrong and move on instead of trying to create new avenues to attack.

The reason I deleted my post is because I

Reread what I wrote and what you posted

And I saw that is wasn't were you were talking about. But, I later realized that there was a reason that I assumed it was

We misread your post because we didn't imagine that you would create a super-demographic to try to spin the story your way. We thought you were working with the demographics on that website.

Now look at the chart that I posted (note that I only checked the boxes for 18-49 and 65+) and see if I misread your post or the chart:

[ExGingi]

How are they choosing which 20? Who is controlling entry and how? Doesn’t 770 (not 784/788) have it’s own address? Can’t they allow another 10 there? Minyan only the Rebbe’s room?

IDK how they are choosing the 20, I can only guess that it's a combination of merit and luck. Can't tell you which individual is in charge of the names, I'm assuming that Kratz/Vail/Shuchat are the one's controlling entry.

20 is because the Kingston women's section has a Kingston Avenue address, so 10 there and 10 in 770.

I have no clue about the Rebbe's room.

[S209]

The fact that many people misunderstood is very telling.

Yes, it’s telling. Can you spell d*i*s*s*o*n*a*n*c*e?

This isn’t the first time in this thread that you have falsely accused me. I have proven the first time you did it false, despite your cop-out. Naturally I didn’t get an acknowledgement or an apology from you but that was expected. I think it’s ok to want to defend myself when you’re falsely accusing me of something once more.

I'm done with this petty argument.

Ah, you’re done now?

You should probably stop running up to and tripping old widows. It’s unfair and mean, and can cause serious repercussions to them. So unbecoming.

[S209]

The reason I deleted my post is because I And I saw that is wasn't were you were talking about. But, I later realized that there was a reason that I assumed it wasNow look at the chart that I posted (note that I only checked the boxes for 18-49 and 65+) and see if I misread your post or the chart:

For the purpose of intellectual honesty, please acknowledge that the chart you originally posted included the 50-64 bracket as well. You can revise history all you want but that’s not even the chart you originally posted.

I didn’t create a super-demographic. That’s you putting a spin on it once more. I very clearly delineated 18-49 and 18-64, which are the actual lines that the CDC provided. I did not choose them or decide them, they were judged relevant by the website.

So your argument that somehow anything was misleading was that I didn’t specifically choose lines that *don’t* prove the point I was trying to bring out? Were you following the conversation?

[yungermanchik]

For the purpose of intellectual honesty, please acknowledge that the chart you originally posted included the 50-64 bracket as well. You can revise history all you want but that’s not even the chart you originally posted.

That is a complete and total lie. I only have this one chart downloaded and that is the one I posted back then. So, instead of accusing me of lying, why don't you admit that it is YOU who is being dishonest here.

[S209]

The reason I deleted my post is because I And I saw that is wasn't were you were talking about. But, I later realized that there was a reason that I assumed it wasNow look at the chart that I posted (note that I only checked the boxes for 18-49 and 65+) and see if I misread your post or the chart:

Let’s use just the chart you posted. Do you not see that 18-49 make up about half of the hospitalizations that 65+ do? How does that resonate with the argument that the risk to the young is negligible, and the only people affected are old people? How in any way does that not prove my point exactly? Many many young people are hospitalized. You can come up with theories to help explain it but it doesn’t take away from the point I was making,

[S209]

That is a complete and total lie. I only have this one chart downloaded and that is the one I posted back then. So, instead of accusing me of lying, why don't you admit that it is YOU who is being dishonest here.

It’s possible that I am thinking of the chart @yaakov35 posted, which does show that. I apologize if that’s true. I didn’t screenshot it so there is no way for me to know if it’s true.

Now, will you answer the point? And I accused you of lying about something else. Was I wrong?

[yungermanchik]

Lets go back to your original post

Per the CDC, there have been more COVID patients hospitalized between 18-64 than 65+. Almost half of those are 49 or younger.

“preexisting conditions” aren’t always known prior, and obesity is considered a significant comorbidity.

I admit, I speed-read and when I saw 18- , I assumed it was one demographic(ie 18-49) not 2 lumped together (18-49 + 50-64)
That is all that happened. My assumption is that you wrote it that way as a ploy to spin it your way because I think many others also speed-read that way. If that was not your intent, my apologies.

[S209]

Lets go back to your original post I admit, I speed-read and when I saw 18- , I assumed it was one demographic(ie 18-49) not 2 lumped together (18-49 + 50-64)
That is all that happened. My assumption is that you wrote it that way as a ploy to spin it your way because I think many others also speed-read that way. If that was not your intent, my apologies.

I’ll take what I can get

I really don’t understand how it can have been interpreted like that, when I clearly delineated further along in the sentence, but I guess I’ll have to take your word on it

[ExGingi]

My first grader started an hour and a half of in person class yesterday (hosted in a house). I happened to pass by today and heard his Rebbi instructing the kids (upon conclusion) to close the Chumoshim, and whoever wants to may also kiss the Chumash, it's optional. 

[S209]

My first grader started an hour and a half of in person class yesterday (hosted in a house). I happened to pass by today and heard his Rebbi instructing the kids (upon conclusion) to close the Chumoshim, and whoever wants to may also kiss the Chumash, it's optional. 

This is starting soon in Lakewood as well, though I think more outdoors. Are there any specific safety measures they are taking, or just that it’s done in a house instead of school?

[avromie7]

Yes, it’s telling. Can you spell d*i*s*s*o*n*a*n*c*e?

This isn’t the first time in this thread that you have falsely accused me. I have proven the first time you did it false, despite your cop-out. Naturally I didn’t get an acknowledgement or an apology from you but that was expected. I think it’s ok to want to defend myself when you’re falsely accusing me of something once more.
Ah, you’re done now?

You should probably stop running up to and tripping old widows. It’s unfair and mean, and can cause serious repercussions to them. So unbecoming.

I'm not going to continue having a pissing match, but I will defend myself.

You have helped me understand the gemara "kol haposel bemumo posel". I have never falsely accused you, but you have the nerve to say I falsely accused you twice! Oh, remember cognitive dissonance.

[S209]

I'm not going to continue having a pissing match, but I will defend myself.

You have helped me understand the gemara "kol haposel bemumo posel". I have never falsely accused you, but you have the nerve to say I falsely accused you twice! Oh, remember cognitive dissonance.

So what would you call this? Truthfully accusing me?

You were definitely denying it a few weeks ago.

[avromie7]

So what would you call this? Truthfully accusing me?

Umm yes.

[S209]

Or this?

Instead of attacking everyone for misreading your misleading post, you should probably stop while you're not so far behind and admit your post was misleading.

Remember, the other 2 people who went down that path both admitted they made a mistake

I admit, I speed-read and when I saw 18- , I assumed it was one demographic(ie 18-49) not 2 lumped together (18-49 + 50-64)
That is all that happened. My assumption is that you wrote it that way as a ploy to spin it your way because I think many others also speed-read that way. If that was not your intent, my apologies.

18-64 is 54% of hospitalizions. 18-49 is 44% of the 18-64, therefore 18-49 is 24% of total hospitalizations. I didn't read numbers on the bottom so I was off....
By grouping it all together you came out with a misconstrued statement, which is very misleading

[yelped]

Guys, cut it out. Go loot some stores. Will be more productive than this.

[S209]

Umm yes.

Yeah, so I’ve already proved your accusation was false. Talk about Kol haposel bemumo posul. Again, if you believe I’ve ever said that (spoiler: I haven’t) please provide proof.

[S209]

Guys, cut it out. Go loot some stores. Will be more productive than this.

We’re in Lakewood and we don’t loot on Shabbos

[yaakov35]

You almost had me there.... talk about a play on words. Just shows how biased people can be, wild. 18-49 was on average 30% of the 40% of total hospitalizations 18-64 group. So that's roughly 12% of total hospitalizations this isn't even talking about deaths or people put on ventilators. Way to spin a story

@S209 I didn't delete....

[S209]

@S209 I didn't delete....

Whoops. Ok, let me go find it and edit that post.