Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Okay, but y'all are fighting about the (96.5%) math, that it doesn't (as far as I can tell) directly quote Walensky saying 96.5% anywhere, and is no longer in the headline or the text of the article.

As usual, this was a dumb journalist who saw the 100,000 and 3,500 numbers and doesn't know enough math to quote it properly.

• 3,500 is 3.5% of 100,000.
• 100,000 is not 96.5% higher than 3,500. It's 28,571% higher than 3,500.
• A number that is 96.5% higher than 3,500 would be 6,878.

But then, why would you expect a J-school grad to know simple arithmetic?

Okay, but y'all are fighting about the (96.5%) math, that it doesn't (as far as I can tell) directly quote Walensky saying 96.5% anywhere, and is no longer in the headline or the text of the article.

As usual, this was a dumb journalist who saw the 100,000 and 3,500 numbers and doesn't know enough math to quote it properly.

• 3,500 is 3.5% of 100,000.
• 100,000 is not 96.5% higher than 3,500. It's 28,571% higher than 3,500.
• A number that is 96.5% higher than 3,500 would be 6,878.

But then, why would you expect a J-school grad to know simple arithmetic?

I don't care about that. I just care about it being horribly wrong on all levels.

are you sure thats not 2857.1%

Yeah, I half-assed the math calculation and managed to shoot myself in the foot dunking on someone who was bad at math with... bad math. 

My apologies lol.

2871% >>> 96.5%

2871 would have been much more sensational. The reporter did the justice a solid.

Yeah, I'm sure the Fox News journalist was desperately trying to make Sonia Sotomayor sound less wrong lol... 

Who TF cares what the percentage was?  The original statement was:



That's a gross exaggeration and the only options are, Sotomayor is stupid and is making up numbers without bothering to look up the facts OR Sotomayor is deliberately misrepresenting the number to push an agenda.

Neither of those are acceptable, for a Supreme Court Justice.

makes you wonder what other wrong ideas they have

I'd think you'd need to try REALLY hard to be THAT wrong.

Hence...

This is a huge case that she will help to decide, even though she's already decided.

The other option is that she heard bad info from someone somewhere, and she thought it was correct at the time. Maybe one of her clerks researching for her misinterpreted some other stat and relayed it incorrectly or Sotomayor just misunderstood what numbers were being provided.

I would expect more from a Supreme Court Justice, but we don't have to go to stupid or dishonest as the ONLY options.

We all like to think that everyone on the opposite side must either be dumb or evil, but sometimes it's possible to be honestly wrong.

To be clear, she's not on the "opposite side" from me.

Or, probably more precisely, they are ALL on the "opposite side" from me.

But repeating the number 100,000, even earnestly but mistakenly, given everything we know of the virus over the past two years now, is still at best a sign of stupidity in my eyes. 

Even if fed by an aid, that's the kind of number that warrants pausing, and understanding, before repeating. It immediately rang false to every single one of us here, because we've been alive and paying attention the last two years.  I'd expect at least that much from a Supreme Court Justice.