CSNbbs

After watching some of those SEC games yesterday, I guess we’ll find out quickly enough as to the likelihood of the virus spreading in an outdoor setting.

I know what you mean.

...but only if everyone would just wear the damn mask we wouldn't be in this mess

https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/c...nts-report

(10-13-2020 12:12 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]...but only if everyone would just wear the damn mask we wouldn't be in this mess

https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/c...nts-report

Looking back, I posted a bunch of times on July 27th that I didn't think mask policies would work. It isn't a comment on the efficacy of masks. It's simply a comment on how/where this virus spreads. Even the most conscientious mask wearers I know do not wear them when they are around close friends and family. They spend a ton of time together, at a birthday party or whatever, and they aren't wearing their masks. This is exactly the type of environment in which the virus has been proven to spread, time and time again.

Yet, we're made to believe that wearing our mask at the grocery store is going to save lives. Get out of here with that nonsense. The virus isn't spreading at Food Lion. It's spreading at Suzy's birthday party. But, because I love my family enough, I'll take the chance and go to her party anyway, sans mask.

Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Quote:The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

(10-13-2020 12:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2020 12:12 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]...but only if everyone would just wear the damn mask we wouldn't be in this mess

https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/c...nts-report

Looking back, I posted a bunch of times on July 27th that I didn't think mask policies would work. It isn't a comment on the efficacy of masks. It's simply a comment on how/where this virus spreads. Even the most conscientious mask wearers I know do not wear them when they are around close friends and family. They spend a ton of time together, at a birthday party or whatever, and they aren't wearing their masks. This is exactly the type of environment in which the virus has been proven to spread, time and time again.

Yet, we're made to believe that wearing our mask at the grocery store is going to save lives. Get out of here with that nonsense. The virus isn't spreading at Food Lion. It's spreading at Suzy's birthday party. But, because I love my family enough, I'll take the chance and go to her party anyway, sans mask.

You make a good point. If people are generally wearing masks in public but removing them when among family and friends, then that is when they are most vulnerable. But what I don't get is why people still focus on what masks do to prevent you from getting sick when you wear it. The primary purpose of wearing a mask is to prevent you from spreading the disease to others. Most people do that in public out of common courtesy for others. In an intimate setting with family & friends, you have more confidence that they are looking out for your well being as you are for them and don't feel the need for a mask. That puts you at a higher risk because others are not wearing a mask, not necessarily because you are not wearing one.

And regarding the article, the way he presented the data you could just as easily conclude that wearing a mask gives you COVID (which some people believe). I actually thought he might go there but stopped short.

A study of more than a half-million people in India who were exposed to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 suggests that the virus’ continued spread is driven by only a small percentage of those who become infected.

Furthermore, children and young adults were found to be potentially much more important to transmitting the virus — especially within households — than previous studies have identified, according to a paper by researchers from the United States and India published Sept. 30 in the journal Science.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/3...DLQa5rZLaM

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/e...ce.abd7672

(10-13-2020 08:29 PM)Grommet Wrote: [ -> ]A study of more than a half-million people in India who were exposed to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 suggests that the virus’ continued spread is driven by only a small percentage of those who become infected.

Furthermore, children and young adults were found to be potentially much more important to transmitting the virus — especially within households — than previous studies have identified, according to a paper by researchers from the United States and India published Sept. 30 in the journal Science.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/3...DLQa5rZLaM

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/e...ce.abd7672

I don't know how to post the entire thread here, but Alasdair Munro analyzes this study here:

(10-13-2020 02:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Quote:The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

(10-14-2020 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2020 02:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Quote:The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

(10-14-2020 07:54 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2020 02:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Quote:The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

(10-14-2020 08:01 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 07:54 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2020 02:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Quote:The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

(10-14-2020 08:09 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:01 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 07:54 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2020 02:47 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a good article about the Great Barrington Declaration and its critics.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-b...WvkyAZc2m4


From the Declaration:

Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

(10-14-2020 08:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:09 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:01 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 07:54 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that we have highly respected experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford represented in The Great Barrington Declaration, yet it gets treated like some fringe group, and have even been taken down by some social media platforms and shadow banned from Google Search results. (Google has been badgered into changing that now). If you want to know what it is like to live in China just try finding positive COVID news with Google.

Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

(10-14-2020 08:47 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:09 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:01 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 07:54 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]Some of the criticism might have been warranted because it was signed by "Dr. Johnny Banana" and 'Dr. Person Unknown".

Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

Okay. What does any of that have to do with taking people who, frankly, are smarter than the career government workers that everyone blindly place their faith in, seriously. Let's be serious, anyone who works in medicine knows that their counterparts in government agencies are second rate. These guys at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are far superior in their fields to a guy like Fauci that has been a government hack whose primary job is to secure funding for his department for the last 40 years.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

(10-14-2020 08:53 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:47 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:09 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:01 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody can sign it. Don't see how a couple jackasses adding fake signatures to a publicly available petition detracts from the impeccable credentials of the authors.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

Okay. What does any of that have to do with taking people who, frankly, are smarter than the career government workers that everyone blindly place their faith in, seriously. Let's be serious, anyone who works in medicine knows that their counterparts in government agencies are second rate. These guys at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are far superior in their fields to a guy like Fauci that has been a government hack whose primary job is to secure funding for his department for the last 40 years.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with the holier-than-thou attitude, but I certainly agree their voice should be heard and considered appropriately. I just feel that the message can be lost in the delivery if you don't pay attention to the details. Because everyone else will be.

(10-14-2020 09:41 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:53 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:47 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:09 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]If it stands on its own merits, then why have allow jackasses to sign onto it?

What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

Okay. What does any of that have to do with taking people who, frankly, are smarter than the career government workers that everyone blindly place their faith in, seriously. Let's be serious, anyone who works in medicine knows that their counterparts in government agencies are second rate. These guys at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are far superior in their fields to a guy like Fauci that has been a government hack whose primary job is to secure funding for his department for the last 40 years.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with the holier-than-thou attitude, but I certainly agree their voice should be heard and considered appropriately. I just feel that the message can be lost in the delivery if you don't pay attention to the details. Because everyone else will be.

If I were to guess, the reason they went to petition is to try something to get people to pay attention to what they are say. These guys have been publishing articles and trying to get their expertise out to the public for months, but everything they have done has been buried by media, social media, and Google Search manipulation. Seriously, I see screenshots or snippets from these guys, but when I go looking to find the info I can almost never find it on Google unless I have the exact title of the article to search. I know this stuff may all sound like conspiracy theory, but it is really happening. The petition was absolutely shadow banned by Google until they were called out on it. Facebook and Twitter, just yesterday actively limited interactions with the news that came out about Hunter Biden, and admitted it.

(10-15-2020 09:13 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 09:41 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:53 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:47 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]What? It's a petition. Anyone can sign it. I signed it. That's how petitions work.

Your take on this is the exact problem with the conversation around COVID. Anything that is not aligned with the narrative is attacked for some completely irrelevant reason and then simply dismissed. You are dismissing leading experts in fields relevant to this pandemic who work at 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world because some random people added their name to an open petition. What sense does that make?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

Okay. What does any of that have to do with taking people who, frankly, are smarter than the career government workers that everyone blindly place their faith in, seriously. Let's be serious, anyone who works in medicine knows that their counterparts in government agencies are second rate. These guys at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are far superior in their fields to a guy like Fauci that has been a government hack whose primary job is to secure funding for his department for the last 40 years.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with the holier-than-thou attitude, but I certainly agree their voice should be heard and considered appropriately. I just feel that the message can be lost in the delivery if you don't pay attention to the details. Because everyone else will be.

If I were to guess, the reason they went to petition is to try something to get people to pay attention to what they are say. These guys have been publishing articles and trying to get their expertise out to the public for months, but everything they have done has been buried by media, social media, and Google Search manipulation. Seriously, I see screenshots or snippets from these guys, but when I go looking to find the info I can almost never find it on Google unless I have the exact title of the article to search. I know this stuff may all sound like conspiracy theory, but it is really happening. The petition was absolutely shadow banned by Google until they were called out on it. Facebook and Twitter, just yesterday actively limited interactions with the news that came out about Hunter Biden, and admitted it.

Are stories from the NY Post considered news by people? Therein might lie the disconnect.

(10-15-2020 12:42 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-15-2020 09:13 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 09:41 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:53 PM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2020 08:47 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, I did not dismiss it. I simply pointed out some reasons why it is being criticized.

Second, if you are going to make a petition, then have a way to validate who signs it. Otherwise it diminishes the validity of the whole petition. But they didn't have to make it a petition in the first place. Gather the people who you want to sign onto it (i.e.the prestigious people you mention) and have only those people back it so you don't have a bunch of wahoos diminishing the message.

Okay. What does any of that have to do with taking people who, frankly, are smarter than the career government workers that everyone blindly place their faith in, seriously. Let's be serious, anyone who works in medicine knows that their counterparts in government agencies are second rate. These guys at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are far superior in their fields to a guy like Fauci that has been a government hack whose primary job is to secure funding for his department for the last 40 years.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with the holier-than-thou attitude, but I certainly agree their voice should be heard and considered appropriately. I just feel that the message can be lost in the delivery if you don't pay attention to the details. Because everyone else will be.

If I were to guess, the reason they went to petition is to try something to get people to pay attention to what they are say. These guys have been publishing articles and trying to get their expertise out to the public for months, but everything they have done has been buried by media, social media, and Google Search manipulation. Seriously, I see screenshots or snippets from these guys, but when I go looking to find the info I can almost never find it on Google unless I have the exact title of the article to search. I know this stuff may all sound like conspiracy theory, but it is really happening. The petition was absolutely shadow banned by Google until they were called out on it. Facebook and Twitter, just yesterday actively limited interactions with the news that came out about Hunter Biden, and admitted it.

Are stories from the NY Post considered news by people? Therein might lie the disconnect.

You cannot be kidding me. You should expose yourself to more points of view if you are buying the idea that that NY Post story is fake. There are freaking pictures of Hunter Biden off of that laptop... how are you going to argue that it was not his laptop? And if it is his laptop, then how are you discrediting what was found on it.

And in case you didn't notice, Joe Biden did not deny that the emails are real, and he did not deny that he met with Burisma.

NY Post... NY Times, what's the difference other than the side of the political aisle that they represent.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/15/h...-giuliani/

I grew up in New York. The Post has always been considered a tabloid. Maybe one step above the National Enquirer.