How society will positively advance

gfm7175 wrote:
... or form any sort of argument at all with relation to it?

A website link is not an argument.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
... or form any sort of argument at all with relation to it?

A website link is not an argument.

Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

tmiddles wrote:
You just ducked the debate here: link

tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

tmiddles wrote:Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

Acutally, contrarian statements do not need to be supported. He who makes the affirmative argument bears full burden of support.

For example, when you claim Global Warming, I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument. Until then, it is sufficient to merely mock you as a known liar who makes chit up. No support required whatsoever.

.

gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

Actually, it IS an argument. Still illiterate in logic I see...

IBdaMann wrote:...contrarian statements do not need to be supported....

IBdaMann wrote:... I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument....

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

What? A healthcare benefit in California??
https://www.coveredca.com/documents-to-confirm-eligibility/proof-of-identity/

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

Actually, it IS an argument. Still illiterate in logic I see...

No it is a statement, an assertion, a claim.

tmiddles wrote:
An argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

tmiddles wrote:
An argument is supported. Like a lawyer in court.

tmiddles wrote:
How absurd would it be if a prosecutor said "He is guilty your honor, the state now rests". Nope, that would not be an argument at all.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...contrarian statements do not need to be supported....

I would agree there is no law against it. It's still useless.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument....

Or you can of course just fall silent. As you have here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.

gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.

I'm a dictionary guy.
You're an intentionally vague guy. So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition and declining to clarify what you mean.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?

Support. A reason.

I can't even address your reasons if you do not present any. I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all. (this is why IBD/ITN love this approach, they hate losing. This is why ITN is reduced to RQAA now)

tmiddles wrote:
"Well you see you're wrong there because..." except you didn't say anything in support of your claim. So I can make no such rebuttal.

tmiddles wrote:
You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

tmiddles wrote: I'm a dictionary guy.

tmiddles wrote:So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition and declining to clarify what you mean.

tmiddles wrote:You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

keepit wrote:
Trash talk ITN.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.

I'm a dictionary guy.

tmiddles wrote:
You're an intentionally vague guy.

tmiddles wrote:
So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition

tmiddles wrote:
and declining to clarify what you mean.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?

Support. A reason.

tmiddles wrote:
I can't even address your reasons if you do not present any.

tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

tmiddles wrote:
(this is why IBD/ITN love this approach, they hate losing.

tmiddles wrote:
This is why ITN is reduced to RQAA now)

tmiddles wrote:
"Well you see you're wrong there because..." except you didn't say anything in support of your claim. So I can make no such rebuttal.

tmiddles wrote:
You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.

I'm a dictionary guy.

Dictionaries do not define words.

James___ wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.

I'm a dictionary guy.

Dictionaries do not define words.

That's true. Dictionaries collect words.

gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.

gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.

gfm7175 wrote:Polar bears are brown because they are black. Has this argument now moved from "unsupported" to "supported" since I provided a reason?

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.

gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

Exactly. Perhaps someday you will stop running away and resume the discussion.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

Uh?? The claim at issue was from here: link

gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.

gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

So that would be:
If A, then A
If Covid-19 is mild, then Covid-19 is mild.

Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.

I said I am a dictionary man. Use the dictionary if you want to know what I mean and I'll clarify as needed. As you're not a dictionary guy you'll have to define your own terms which you decline to do.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.

You really think anyone would find it plausible that you CAN prove me wrong here but choose not to? Just a liar.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.

You claimed Covid-19 is mild.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras TMSb4...

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

Uh?? The claim at issue was from here: link

gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.

gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

So that would be:
If A, then A
If Covid-19 is mild, then Covid-19 is mild.

Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.

I said I am a dictionary man. Use the dictionary if you want to know what I mean and I'll clarify as needed. As you're not a dictionary guy you'll have to define your own terms which you decline to do.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Polar bears are brown because they are black. Has this argument now moved from "unsupported" to "supported" since I provided a reason?

Wow you are jut terrified to actually support one of your own claims aren't you! Yes you WILL be ripped apart because you're full of it. If someone says "Polar bears are brown because they are black." it's easy to move on isn't it? You know it's just crap. There is no illusive reference, or secret knowledge they are holding back.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.

You really think anyone would find it plausible that you CAN prove me wrong here but choose not to? Just a liar.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.

You claimed Covid-19 is mild.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

Exactly. Perhaps someday you will stop running away and resume the discussion.

You are still ducking your debunking here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

keepit wrote:
Hopefully it's not just getting started.

Into the Night wrote:
Covid-19 is mild, according to the numbers from the CDC. It is infecting less and killing less than most any other flu.

Into the Night wrote:
According to the numbers from the CDC, it is.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

No, you are confusing the conversation in this thread with the conversation in another thread.

gfm7175 wrote:Define "dictionary man".

gfm7175 wrote:You're making fun of your own rule,...

gfm7175 wrote:You have yet to answer his question.

tmiddles wrote:And Here: 2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:

IBdaMann wrote:
Just tell me ....

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model

Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.

You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."

You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.

No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...

No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated

You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?

Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,

There is no "back radiation."

Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.

And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Just tell me ....

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model

Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.

You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."

You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.

No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...

No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated

You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?

Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,

There is no "back radiation."

Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.

And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Covid-19 is mild, according to the numbers from the CDC. It is infecting less and killing less than most any other flu.

And what about only looking at the State of New York and not the known universe.

tmiddles wrote:
Is is "mild" in your estimation just looking at at that geographic territory ITN?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
According to the numbers from the CDC, it is.

What numbers?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

No, you are confusing the conversation in this thread with the conversation in another thread.

OK so wtf did you mean by that then?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Define "dictionary man".

I use the dictionary definitions of words and defer to the dictionary definition for words.

tmiddles wrote:
So if I want to say something I either conform to the dictionary definition of a word or I use a different word.

tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:You're making fun of your own rule,...

That made no sense.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:You have yet to answer his question.

No question has been asked and all of those topics have been ducked by IBD and by you for that matter.

Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
36 days with no reply
IBD has not responded to that post at all.

Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
IBD dodged this one too. He claimed I was supposed to respond to something but there is nothing there. Go look!

And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
49 days with no reply
You'll notice this predates the other two and there is without question no response there from IBD.

So yeah, Bullshit called.

I know you clowns hate losing so I'm no surprised you've all been reduced to constantly running away.

R to the Q to the A A

James___ wrote:
An interesting aspect of "global warming" is that where it's the greenest there is almost no warming. An example would be that since California doesn't have the healthy vegetation that it used to have. Why so many fires.
It's known that healthy vegetation absorbs solar radiation and that solar radiation helps to warm our atmosphere. This is where deforestation is constantly overlooked. It produces CO2 while reducing O2 and it decreases the amount of solar radiation and CO2 that can be processed by photosynthesis.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

gfm7175 wrote:

James___ wrote:
An interesting aspect of "global warming" is that where it's the greenest there is almost no warming. An example would be that since California doesn't have the healthy vegetation that it used to have. Why so many fires.
It's known that healthy vegetation absorbs solar radiation and that solar radiation helps to warm our atmosphere. This is where deforestation is constantly overlooked. It produces CO2 while reducing O2 and it decreases the amount of solar radiation and CO2 that can be processed by photosynthesis.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

The Earth spins, it is tilted, etc. etc. etc... There is always warming and cooling. Hell, just at my current location, it has warmed up from being in the 30s to just cracking 40 degrees as of now... I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather.

I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather

James___ wrote:
And yet I was talking about deforestation and you say;

I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather

Kind of makes your opinion worthless. ie., lacking validity.

gfm7175 wrote:...New York State Department of Health ...4/9/20 - 4/15/20, NYS saw about 8,900 new "confirmed" cases per day over that time period. That amounts to a very insignificant infection rate.

gfm7175 wrote:....12,192 "fatalities". Using 20 million as the NYS population number,...Those are rather insignificant numbers.

gfm7175 wrote:
I asserted that a website link is not an argument.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

LIE.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

LIE.

call me on it. Be specific.

IBdaMann wrote:...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...

Do you have anything to actually say IBD or are you now just reduced to dumb jokes, which are also indirect and unsupported?

IBdaMann wrote:
... your (intentional) misrepresentation of my position ... and .

HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...

You mean you've never been on a ship that's crossed the ocean? I've heard about people like you. Kind of hate to say it but maybe if you had more life experiences you'd be a little more aware of what's out there in the world?
While a cruise (have been on one too) isn't the same thing, you'll get the idea that it is an isolated mobile location. I did post a link to what has been observed on ships with a minimum of 1,000 personnel or passengers. On this ship, 1 out of every 5 people are known to be infected. And I don't think everyone has been tested.

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...

You mean you've never been on a ship that's crossed the ocean? I've heard about people like you. Kind of hate to say it but maybe if you had more life experiences you'd be a little more aware of what's out there in the world?
While a cruise (have been on one too) isn't the same thing, you'll get the idea that it is an isolated mobile location. I did post a link to what has been observed on ships with a minimum of 1,000 personnel or passengers. On this ship, 1 out of every 5 people are known to be infected. And I don't think everyone has been tested.

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies

Closest I've been, ocean fishing a few times... Cruise ship hold no appeal, I like a lot of room to move around. I know quite a few people who go on cruises regularly, and get to see plenty of pictures and video. Doesn't look like fun to me, and crowded. When they go ashore, seems like there are only a few places to go. Somehow doubt, that 'being there' would make any better. Cross the ocean on a boat, when you can hop on a plane for the same cost, or cheaper? Not to mention be there in a day, instead of a month...

How many of those confirmed boat cases, actually died? Between the 3 plague ships that dock in Florida, there was a grand total of 7 fatalities, 4 were at sea. Likely poor medical care onboard, compared to a land hospital. They've had higher mortality, on the normal cruise ship stomach viruses in the past, just on one boat...