all 6 comments

[–]mahavishnunj 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

good article

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But what about the site? Shit or not shit?

[–]mahavishnunj 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But what about the site? Shit or not shit?

More important- what about this poster, shit or not shit? What everyone thinks may surprise you(you already know though)!

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lighten up, old timer

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They got 70% from summing the columns in the first chart (after the blue graph), which seems correct if the numbers are true. It's explained in the text immediately below.

    But I can't quite wrap my head around the per-100,000 columns, and whether that includes the 28-day window of a positive test. The other article they link to before that chart doesn't help any.

    Both articles are frustrating and don't clearly link to the full data. Makes the headlines worthless.