My browser is currently set for 133%. In my case, new glasses would probably make a difference. I was already well overdue for replacement when Covid-19 shut things down.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. :loco:

[QUOTE=xilman;544829]Anyone wishing to poke fun at any of my disabilities is welcome to try.[/QUOTE]

Does being a wanker qualify as a disability?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;544834]Does being a wanker qualify as a disability?[/QUOTE]
I don't know.

Please let us know your own view, given that you apparently have relevant experience.

[QUOTE=kriesel;544700][URL="https://brianyandell.shinyapps.io/pandemic/"][SIZE=1]https://brianyandell.shinyapps.io/pandemic/[/SIZE][/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow that is tiny print after unwilly's modification, near the lower limit of what I can resolve on this laptop with reading glasses.
It was I thought a useful original post, that is the only source I've found offering comparison of data trends over time down to the county level, so I shared, and attempted a positive tone in that original post. The link quoted above I tested before posting it in #828. Then the thread went downhill quickly.

If someone else has data aggregation or trend display sites to share, hopefully they will be more positively received.

[QUOTE=kladner;544833]My browser is currently set for 133%. In my case, new glasses would probably make a difference. I was already well overdue for replacement when Covid-19 shut things down.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. :loco:[/QUOTE]


Coulda, woulda, shoulda, is right. Walmart bought my last new pair when I was working for them. The lenses that is. I had to pay for the frames. That was in 2015. By 2017, I needed new lenses, but I didn't get them. Now, I have to eat the cost, which would be around $250 USD each. I just had to have [I]Rayban[/I]. I don't know what I was thinking? :redface:

We have good coverage through Dan's employer insurance. All the same it's a couple to several C-notes. His last pair was considerably less than the $500+ my years-old pair cost. Let this be a lesson, I guess. When you have benefits, use them.:picard:
EDIT: I forgot that I came here to disseminate some Evil Communist Propaganda. If this is deemed inappropriate here I will happily shuffle it off to some Soapbox destination. It amuses me in a ghastly sort of way.

This is a cartoon from China Xinhua News, presenting their take of the differing behaviors of the US and China in the beginnings of the pandemic

[url]https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/1255734356728922113[/url]

"Documents," not "Doctors."
 

[url=https://apnews.com/9c4d5284ba4769d3b98aa05232201f88]AP Exclusive: Docs show top WH officials buried CDC report[/url][quote]GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — The decision to shelve detailed advice from the nation's top disease control experts for reopening communities during the coronavirus pandemic came from the highest levels of the White House, according to internal government emails obtained by The Associated Press.
<snip>
White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Friday that the documents had not been approved by CDC Director Robert Redfield. The new emails, however, show that Redfield cleared the guidance.
<snip>
The 17-page version later released by The AP and other news outlets was only part of the actual document submitted by the CDC, and targeted specific facilities like bars and restaurants. The AP obtained a copy Friday of the full document. That version is a more universal series of phased guidelines, "Steps for All Americans in Every Community," geared to advise communities as a whole on testing, contact tracing and other fundamental infection control measures.
<snip>
According to the documents, CDC continued inquiring for days about the guidance that officials had hoped to post by Friday, May 1, the day Trump had targeted for reopening some businesses, according to a source who was granted anonymity because they were not permitted to speak to the press.

On April 30 the CDC's documents were killed for good.
<snip>[/quote]

Don't confuse people with silly facts. :ouch1:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;544834]Does being a wanker qualify as a disability?[/QUOTE]

It seems at least one of my fellow mods thought I was being serious in my above reply to Paul's request-for-insults ... was it not obvious that I meant it in jest? Perhaps my personal you-better-add-a-bunch-of-emoticons-to-this-one-to-avoid-misunderstandings judgment differs from most folks'.

So here, to clear things up for the kindergartners - I meant to say:

Does being a wanker qualify as a disability? :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
;);););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););)
:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):
Har dee har, &c.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;544980]It seems at least one of my fellow mods thought I was being serious in my above reply to Paul's request-for-insults ... was it not obvious that I meant it in jest? Perhaps my personal you-better-add-a-bunch-of-emoticons-to-this-one-to-avoid-misunderstandings judgment differs from most folks'.

So here, to clear things up for the kindergartners - I meant to say:

Does being a wanker qualify as a disability? :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
;);););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););););)
:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):
Har dee har, &c.[/QUOTE]You still haven't responded to my request for your view in light of your relevant personal experience.

Over 15% (33) of 214 pregnant women tested when admitted for delivery in NYC tested positive for Covid19 virus in universal testing. Of those who initially tested positive, 88% (29) had no symptoms. And one that initially tested negative developed symptoms and a retest was positive. (New England Journal of Medicine) [URL]https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2009316?listPDF=true[/URL]