wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:32 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:46 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:57 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:52 pm
OK, they don’t have conclusive proof that all 19 were infected at the polls, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the polls were the most likely source. Other sources were “possible,” but anything is possible.
And it wasn’t just voters who got sick. It was poll workers as well.
i saw one poll worker. maybe there were more. maybe they vote also before their shift is out.
i saw earlier today you were an attorney? why would it seem reasonable to conclude the polls were the most likely source? what do you base that on?
I’ve probably read the same several articles that you and others have read.
I haven’t seen anything that broke down the 19 cases into those who were only voters and those who were poll workers (who also may have voted).
The report say that “several” of those infected reported other “possible exposures.” While concededly I am drawing conclusions from reporting, which is often imprecise, the available information we have suggests that the large majority of the 19 have not identified other possible sources of the exposure.
Also, certainly a poll worker would have been possibly exposed during a multi-hour shift in which the worker would have been in close proximity to the voters and would have handed papers back and forth.
It was widely reported that voters had to stand in line for hours. Certainly voters could’ve been exposed during that time.
Without any other information about what the “possible” sources were for “several” of the persons who became infected, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that the most likely source was the polling stations.
If there is additional reporting on this down the road, I would certainly take a look at it.
Yes, I was a lawyer, now retired.
ok, thanks. fwiw here looks like the original story:
https://waow.com/2020/04/21/dhs-hesitan ... -question/
headline's a little different. snippets from DHS don't allow me to draw any conclusions at all. i hope you wouldn't be on my jury if i were a defendant.
there were 684 confirmed cases in wisconsin from 4/9 until 4/21, the time period spoken about here. if there were ~650 k voters per RedfromMI, that amounts to about 11% of the state. i'd expect inside the margin of error that 75 +/- people came down with corona in that time frame that also went to the polling booths. that's if the polling booths had no effect on their contracting it in the first place. and that's almost 4 x the 19 they have tabulated so far.
i'm not trying to be a **** here, apologize if it seems otherwise. really just pointing out that what and how we take in our media has become a real vicious cycle on the divisiveness that's out there.
you have every right to draw whatever conclusions you like from it.
I don’t think your comparison between the number of confirmed cases and the number of in-person voters is necessarily relevant to determining how many people were infected at the polling stations.
Sure, there is a lot of missing information, such as personal interviews of the 19 individuals. Also, the articles don’t explain why the writers say these people contracted the virus at the polls. Presumably, though, they didn’t make that linkage up out of thin air.
The DHS said in the article you linked that they could not establish a linkage “with certainty” between attending the polls and contracting the virus. Of course that is the case, but to me, that isn’t very helpful to the discussion.
Not sure why you seem to be resistant to the notion that it seems likely some people contracted the virus by going to the polls. Whether it was all 19, or more, or fewer, I don’t know.
We are talking probabilities here, which essentially is all we can do with the information we have.
Forgive me if you have mentioned your occupation, but I don’t know what it is. In civil law, we rarely if ever deal in certainties, but rather in probabilities. From what I’ve seen, I am comfortable concluding that it is more probable than not that at least some, maybe a majority, of the 19 contracted the virus at the polling places.
In the law, you have to make a decision based on the available evidence. If additional evidence is introduced, that might change how you decide the issue. If you have more evidence, let’s see it.
Do you agree it was a really bad idea for Wisconsin to hold in person voting in this primary?
i hope Docs feelings are not hurt.
