It ascribes a characterisation to homeless people (that they would prefer to get drunk than have a home) that there is simply no evidence for. The comment blames homeless people for their own destitution purely based on the commenter's preconceived bias against homeless people.
Thanks, but I didn't ask for evidence that "alcohol poisoning is 5x higher in the homeless population", I asked for evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk."
I'll be happy to retract the "hateful" comment if anyone can provide evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk".
Without evidence, he stated that all homeless people in Finland are homeless because they would "prefer to get drunk". I don't think it's incorrect to describe this as hateful, because it's very clearly informed by a bias against homeless people rather than any real evidence.
This is the equivalent of jumping into a discussion to say that Black people are poor because they "keep buying cellphones". It's not a serious intellectual comment, it's cloaked hatred.
> Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent.
When you posted this hateful nonsense, did you think nobody would bring you up on it? Can you provide anything to back up this assertion?
> Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem.
Is it supposed to make me feel better that not only are we not spending enough on the problem, but what little we are spending is going to line the pockets of Big Pharma instead?
> Then it switched to being a Chromium based browser in 2013 so they could utilize the Chromium plug-in ecosystem.
Opera switched to Chromium because they didn't consider it profitable enough to keep developing their own engine, and laid off a large portion of their browser developers. It was entirely about money and nothing to do with using Chrome extensions.
I've seen no reliable sources make the claim that Parler was built on WordPress. To the best of my knowledge this stems from a misunderstanding, and Parler had a WordPress blog which was compromised, but that is a completely separate system to the main social media site, which is not WordPress.
Self closing tags are perfectly valid in HTML 5 and there's nothing wrong with using them. Even if the parser ignores them, they're still useful for the reader. HTML 5 does not require you to close your paragraph tags either but most people still do it because tag soups are hard to understand.
> Is the part we are disagreeing about what “not _yet_ showing any change” means?
No, it's the meaning of the entire statement. Your translation means "coronavirus did not result in an increase in deaths in 2020", whereas my translation means "the spread of coronavirus may be wider than the number of excess deaths in 2020 indicates". The meaning is wholly different, it is saying something orthogonal to the point you want to make. It says nothing about whether the number of excess deaths is higher or lower than usual, just that you cannot take the number of excess deaths and determine the spread of coronavirus from it.
> Please keep in mind though that the claim you’re responding to was that 2020 the year didn’t see a significant increase in deaths - it was a very average year to die as a Swede.
I am keeping this in mind because I'm trying to point out to you that you have no data for excess deaths in 2020 so you cannot make this claim.
> In [0] it states that 2020 is an average year in deaths
It does not.
> In [1] it shows averages for the previous years in numbers summing while years up.
This still has no relation to deaths in the year 2020. You cannot tell anything about deaths caused by coronavirus from data that only goes up to 2019.
> "The growing spread of Coronavirus in the community is not year showed any change in the number of deaths in Sweden"
My translation is "The increasing spread of the coronavirus in society is not yet visible in the number of deaths in Sweden", meaning, "there may be more coronavirus cases than we can tell from just looking at deaths". A significantly different meaning to "coronavirus did not cause any change in number of deaths", which is in any case flatly contradicted by the same article which describes increases in excess deaths in the second quarter.
For what it's worth, I am willing to believe that despite the massive increase in excess deaths in the second quarter, it could be offset by reductions in excess deaths in other quarters. So if you do have data that specifically compares excess deaths for the last few years feel free to share it. Currently you haven't got anything to support your statement.