[jeremyt]

But I didn't say that. You just made that assumption.

Just because the article is ridiculous does not mean I disagree with every single thing in there. I just think it's ridiculous, particularly in tone.

And also, I stand behind saying there's plenty of food and water. So, by all means "conserve food and water" if you want to, but saying that people "need" to is overstating the reality.

[Kiro]

So why are you downplaying this?

[6D794163636F756]

I think you're both attacking this problem from similar places. Panicking is a good way to get people to disregard safety measures. Shelter in place is important and one way to help it work is to reassure people that there are enough supplies.

From what I gathered, you're both saying that the correct situation is to stay in place because there are enough supplies? The key is to reinforce that idea and downplay the risk as long as everyone listens. If the roads are muddy and miserable remember that the more experienced participants prepared for this. Staying with them, sheltering in place is your best bet. If you try to leave and not follow safety protocols and the experienced participants you're likely to get yourself into trouble.

While you two are arguing it seems to be on the angle of approach and not the outcome. At least that's what it seems like to me who honestly has no idea what's going on and only barely read the article.

[jeremyt]

Seriously? You're still confused?

I believe the article is factually correct-ish, but is sensationalized and is spreading FUD and causing unnecessary potential panic.

That's why. I'm downplaying because it needs downplaying.

[thih9]

> I believe the article is factually correct-ish, but is sensationalized and is spreading FUD and causing unnecessary potential panic.

This wording is clear to me.

If this was in your original comment, I wouldn’t assume that you’re recommending to disregard safety measures.

Otherwise “ridiculous” or “:rolleyes:” are very ambiguous to me.