Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Corona Virus


Ja  Rhule
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

For the billionth time, wearing a mask reduces your chance of spreading a respiratory illness to other people.  It isn't intended to protect you.

Just say you don't want to wear a mask instead of trying to "uh well akshually if you look up the exact dictionary definition of 'prevent' then it's clear that *snort*... " your way out of it.

So other people can still get it even with a mask?  Man, I thought a mask was a COVID-19 silver bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

It's only a semantic if you want it to be. I know the difference, but if you choose not to, so be it.  Reduction of spread sounds so less effective than prevention, wouldn't you say?

Well, I stand corrected. You've one upped yourself. You have now made an even worse semantical argument than your previous one regarding "prevent". Maybe you don't understand the definition of "semantic". Your argument is quit literally semantic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

For the billionth time, wearing a mask reduces your chance of spreading a respiratory illness to other people.  It isn't intended to protect you.

Just say you don't want to wear a mask instead of trying to "uh well akshually if you look up the exact dictionary definition of 'prevent' then it's clear that *snort*... " your way out of it.

He said he wears his mask.  Are you mad that he's wearing a mask for the wrong reasons or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Gilead Sciences announced Monday the much-anticipated pricing for its coronavirus treatment remdesivir, saying it will cost hospitals $3,120 for a typical U.S. patient with commercial insurance.

The company announced its pricing plans in preparation for it to begin charging for the antiviral drug in July. The company has been donating doses to the U.S. government for distribution since it received emergency use authorization in May.

The drugmaker said it will sell remdesivir for $390 per vial to governments “of developed countries” around the world, and the price for U.S. private insurance companies will stand at $520 per vial. In the U.S., that means Gilead will charge a lower price for government programs like Medicare and a higher price for private insurers.

“Whether you’re covered by a private insurer, whether you’re covered by a government insurer, whether you’re uninsured with Covid-19, there will not be an issue for access with remdesivir,” Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day said in an interview with CNBC’s Meg Tirrell on “Squawk Box.”

Uninsured individuals will be covered under provisions of the CARES Act, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services said on a conference call with reporters Monday. For privately insured people, out-of-pocket costs will be determined by individual insurance plans, the official added.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Well, I stand corrected. You've one upped yourself. You have now made an even worse semantical argument than your previous one regarding "prevent". Maybe you don't understand the definition of "semantic". Your argument is quit literally semantic.

 

And here we go with the ole Huddle "you don't understand"  fall back argument. Yes, I know what semantics means, however, I would say to you that the average person takes prevention as a literal meaning to STOP.  So no, I don't think you chose that word by accident.  Mask do not stop the spread, it reduces the spread.  It's not really a tom-A-to; tom-a-to thing.  Even when I do go out with a mask, I still know there's a very real chance I may catch it and that mask isn't preventing crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That is a big HELL NO. As bad as XL was this season, at least he adds a dimension that the coaches can use for specific plays. Coleman is just as bad, yet adds zero diversity to our receiving corps. I’ll take the guy that at least cares enough to show up to meetings. Getting traded to a new team won’t change either of their work ethics.
    • I don't think there is any real reason to amend the rule. If you do, the teams will just find a way to abuse it. All the Browns have to do is just interview SOMEONE to "get through" the process. Hell, interview Jim Caldwell if that's what the actual goal is, just to get around it.  Also, they have all of the candidates required for the Rooney Rule in Aden Durde and Nate Scheelhaase. They are in full compliance already. Scheelhaase is already scheduled for a second interview, for that matter.
    • I don't know about the stans but he's at times been like 60 percent of the offense on a playoff calibre team. He put up 1202 rushing yards and 10 touchdowns, then had effing 102 receptions for 924 yards and seven receiving touchdowns. He touched the ball 413 times this season (an average of 24 times per game.) Then you have to add in that he's a hell of a blocker when called upon. Without him, the injury depleted 49ers in a hot NFCWest division don't make the playoffs at all.  If that isn't the Most Valuable Player on the team then who should be? The idea that it is an award solely for QBs is just narrow. Edit to add: Will he win it? No. 
×
×
  • Create New...