On clearance in store. My kit says 255 pieces including Silvex wound gel. For $5 it's a really great deal on some items to pick out for the actual outdoors; bandaids alone more than cover the cost and I use a lot of them
I have this kit.....with my two boys camping, we have used then restocked it many times. Its case has survived 3 years bouncing around in my truck. Well worth 5 bucks.
I have never been able to get any of these Walmart YMMV deals. Is there anyway to block seeing them anymore?
I've had many failed attempts but there were some successes. I've bought a Sony 65 tv for $500 and believe me that's a good price for a Sony. They expensive. A WD cloud storage 2TB for $20. $50 for a razor mobile phone controller. Ive seen cheap Seagare external hard drives for I think $60 for a 4TB. It's more the about the hunt for me than the deal.
right on time for next texas blackout and pandemic
Quote
from SpaceMan6969
:
But Gov Abbott said no more lockdown. State is 100% open. Restriction free.
It appears Texas is one of the few that is actually "trusting the science[reason.com]"; TLDR - lockdowns don't really seem to do anything.
The same story of starkly different policies and similar outcomes emerges from a comparison of Texas and California, the two most populous states. While California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered a new lockdown on December 3, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did not impose new restrictions, and the state remained largely open. Yet since mid-January, the two states have seen almost the same drop in the seven-day average of newly reported cases, which has fallen by 85 percent in California and 81 percent in Texas.
Notwithstanding its much stricter regulations, California saw a bigger increase in new infections during December and January, when the seven-day average tripled. In Texas during the same period, the average doubled. Nationwide in the United States, the average rose 50 percent. In the U.K., it quadrupled.
Since politicians are more inclined to impose restrictions when they see infections rising dramatically, it is not surprising that Johnson and Newsom decided new lockdowns were necessary. But on the face of it, those policies, despite the economic and social costs they entailed, were not actually necessary to bring case numbers back down. Since jurisdictions that took a much looser approach saw similar declines around the same time, it seems official commands do not play as important a role in reducing the spread of COVID-19 as many politicians imagine.
34 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
If you don't open, you don't see. Simple.
The same story of starkly different policies and similar outcomes emerges from a comparison of Texas and California, the two most populous states. While California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered a new lockdown on December 3, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did not impose new restrictions, and the state remained largely open. Yet since mid-January, the two states have seen almost the same drop in the seven-day average of newly reported cases, which has fallen by 85 percent in California and 81 percent in Texas.
Notwithstanding its much stricter regulations, California saw a bigger increase in new infections during December and January, when the seven-day average tripled. In Texas during the same period, the average doubled. Nationwide in the United States, the average rose 50 percent. In the U.K., it quadrupled.
Since politicians are more inclined to impose restrictions when they see infections rising dramatically, it is not surprising that Johnson and Newsom decided new lockdowns were necessary. But on the face of it, those policies, despite the economic and social costs they entailed, were not actually necessary to bring case numbers back down. Since jurisdictions that took a much looser approach saw similar declines around the same time, it seems official commands do not play as important a role in reducing the spread of COVID-19 as many politicians imagine.