Deadpool

Man, the Astros must be PISSED.

Smoking rates have declined a lot, which is a great thing, and it's also an addiction that's hard as f*** to quit (I say this as someone who has never been a smoker). Most people start smoking by like ~12, the cases of someone starting to smoke in their 20s or 30s are so phenomenally rare as to be not worth mentioning, so you can't fault an idiot kid for being an idiot really... My grandfather died of lung cancer, and he'd been cigarette free for over 20 years at the time, he started smoking in the army during WWII when they were literally issued cigarettes. But, I suppose, in the very specific case of someone who was over the age of say 25 when they started smoking, somehow wasn't addicted to the highly addictive substance, and refused to stop even though they have all the information, yes, that person is a bad cancer victim. My fiance's mom died last summer of cancer (at f***ing 50, damn...). She was a heavy smoker until the day she died. But it was breast cancer that moved into her bones. So... Yeah, she was a smoker, but was she a bad cancer victim because of that? And maybe that 8 year old kid was a HUGE dick, you don't know.

I've never done a non-prescription drug harder then pot, but I vehemently disagree that there are like "good addicts" who are where they are due to circumstances and "bad addicts" who are where they are because they're just not good enough to resist drugs. That's some ******** right there. Addiction is a disease, there aren't good cancer patients and bad ones. There aren't people who deserve their depression and those who are just good kids who got dealt a bad hand. f*** 100% of that noise.

If everything went perfectly, Arizona Baseball in May would be amazing. It would definitely grow the game, it would be not only the only sport to watch, but the only live entertainment of any kind, really (aside from the occasional live-stream "concert" or whatever). The problem is that if even small things go wrong, it could be a complete and utter catastrophe. All it takes is one infected hotel staffer and baseball could be well and truly f***ed. I do like the fast tracking of the auto-strike zone though...

She's 30, I'm not with a teenager or anything

My fiance was 2 in 1992. So, this does not apply for me.

Close enough. At my (our) age, the difference between 2 and 5 years is like a weekend bender.

What am I like, 2 years younger than you?

Man, I wish I was old enough to appreciate Steib at the time. Those numbers are f***bonkers nuts.

If he drank as much as a normal person, he'd be fine. Spanky drinks enough for 10 men. I've seen it with my own eyes, it's astounding.

Is it weird that I'm a bit bummed that Ryu's kid won't be born in Canada because of this?

Will anyone?

Dude, math shows that you are wrong. I'm not arguing that medical science hasn't improved in 100 years, that's a stupid argument that nobody is making. You are mathematically wrong when you are posting numbers, which are math, and about which you are incorrect. Even with the lowest possible death toll, your "2.5-3%" number is off. The LOWEST it could possibly be is 3.5% That is 100% the absolute bottom, that's assuming only 17M deaths, which is from one single study which is a MASSIVE outlier from every single other study done on the subject. That's not disputing your raw data, that's taking the raw data you provided and doing math to it. Trust me, take your numbers and use a calculator, and then ask someone who knows how to use a calculator to do it for you. My range of 3.4% to 20% is based on the death toll range (which you admitted and provided) of 17-100M deaths, and using tricky 4th grade math, turning that into a range of 3.4% to 20%. If the death toll was 17M (unlikely, but I'm humouring you) and 500M people were infected (1/3 of the global population, which seems to not be a number that is in much dispute). then 17,000,000/500,000,000 * 100 = X Where X = 3.4 You're f***ing wrong. Period.

"Both newspapers and scientific journals frequently state three facts about the Spanish flu: It infected 500 million people (nearly one-third of the world population at the time); it killed between 50 and 100 million people; and it had a case fatality rate of 2.5 percent" The math here is off wildly. If it infected 500,000,000 people and had a case fatality rate of 2.5%, it would have killed 12,500,000 (which, you'll note, is lower than even the lowest estimate provided). If it infected 500 million people and killed between 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 people, it would have had a case fatality rate of between 10 and 20% Both of these things cannot be true. The confusion here is "case fatality rate" (Case fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths from a specified disease over a defined period of time by the number of individuals diagnosed with the disease during that time; the resulting ratio is then multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage*) with global mortality rate (...number of deaths serves as the numerator for both measures, mortality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the population at risk during a certain time frame.*) The global mortality rate of Spanish Flu was between 1 and 6%, the case fatality rate was between 3.4% and 20% The current global mortality rate of Covid-19 is 0.000126% (though, that will absolutely climb and the final number won't be known until the whole thing is over...). The current case fatality rate is ~4.15% (this number is obviously high because deaths are easy to count, while we don't have enough tests globally to accurately determine the number of cases) *( https://www.britannica.com/science/case-fatality-rate ) Editing to add that while I did the math myself here, I read the Wired article that was quoted afterwards, and he actually did the same math as me and came to similar conclusions (he ruled out the extremes and came to this conclusion "we find that a reasonable estimate for the global case fatality rate of the Spanish flu is 6 to 8 percent. To be clear, this means that 6 to 8 percent of those who were infected died. Global mortality of the Spanish flu—which is to say, the proportion of all people everywhere (infected and uninfected alike) who died from the disease—was probably between 2 and 4 percent."). He also adds "Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Jennifer Leigh recently told The Los Angeles Times that the overall [case] fatality rate for Spanish flu may have been closer to 10 percent." This is why it's important to read the whole article, rather than cherry picking one line to back up your argument.

So you made an entirely new thread in which to bicker? Are you new to the internet?

It seems that a few teams have already developed potential vaccines, but because we're not idiots (generally) there are months of tests before it can be widely distributed to make sure it doesn't kill people. Really, super, probably very unrealistic best case scenario is 6 months from now, but yeah, a year, or even longer is more likely.

From the interviews I've read with him, Kloffenstein and this dude are going to be a REALLY good match. Hopefully he ends up in Lansing sooner rather than later.

More people went to see the Jays play last year than the Leafs and Raptors combined... (Edit: this is back of the napkin math, so it may be off by a bit, but not much...)

So, in the unlikely event that the whole season is cancelled, what happens with contracts, arb and option years, etc?

That would be a golden shower age....

It's going to be a golden age of eSports...

Guys, I think the Orioles might not be very good.

Panik isn't on the 40 man, so options don't enter in to it for him. We'd have to toss someone off the 40 man to have him start the year in Toronto as well, so that may complicate matters, depending on how things shake out.

It was probably a "House" situation. They removed the appendix, and that didn't fix the problem (and they still had 20 minutes of runtime to fill) so they took out the Gallbladder next. In the end, it was Lupus.