Rachel Fowler11 said:Yeah, I get where you're coming from. It’s just... honestly kind of trippy, and actually pretty messed up, that you could be under some official quarantine order without even realizing it...
It gets even worse when some stranger calls you from an unlisted number, tells you you're stuck at home in isolation for the next two weeks, and then just hangs up on you.
Gregory Thompson3 said:So, here’s my two cents. Since I actually had to quarantine twice because of COVID, I figured I’d share my experience.
The first time, I had this persistent cough. My manager suggested I should probably get checked out, so I called the local clinic nearby and walked them through my symptoms. They set up a test for me right away, and within half an hour, I got a text with the exact time and location to head over. I went in, but the test came back negative. Even so, because of that cough, the doctor advised me to stay in isolation just in case it was some atypical strain. So, I stayed home. About 24 hours later, I got a notification from the CDC letting me know I wasn't positive.
The second time happened when I was flying back into the States. I didn't have any symptoms at all, but I still spent 14 days hunkered down at home. I didn't even bother testing since I felt fine. I just received a few automated texts from the health department—since you have to list your travel history and info when entering the country—asking me to self-isolate and to contact my doctor or the local health authorities if any symptoms popped up. That was pretty much it.
Honestly, it's not that big of a deal to stay in your apartment for 14 days if that's what's required of you. Especially if you end up testing positive.
Unfortunately, statistics show that the average American (who, according to the Federal Reserve, accounts for 86.5% of all bank deposits in the US) holds a savings balance of only $3.50. These are figures from a few years back, and I doubt much has changed since then.
For many small business owners, being forced out of work for 14 days is a massive blow. Being out twice is even worse. A lot of people go under and have to close their doors entirely because they can't access funds during those 14 days. I know this firsthand; I used to run a small business myself, and believe me, it isn't easy for them.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but think back to how many shops closed down after the spring lockdowns. In my city, there were quite a few closures over the last year, and from what I can see, that trend is continuing.
Being on sick leave for 14 days might not be an issue for you, but for many others, it is.
Nicole James said:No, that isn't the only thing that matters. We also have to consider the long-term consequences for those who actually survive the infection—the "long haul" issues. It's equally important to look at how infectious people can be and what kind of lasting immunity develops within the population over time...
You just undermined your own point by using the word "potentially" regarding those consequences.
We don't actually know much about these "potential" consequences—they are "possible," sure, but not necessarily certain. If we’re going to split hairs, every single illness leaves some sort of mark. For all we know, the aftermath of COVID might actually be less severe than the aftermath of a bad case of the flu.
So, since we're still in the dark, why defend epidemic control measures from such a pessimistic standpoint? Why not approach it as an optimist?
And more importantly, why not ask what negative impact these very measures will have on people? (Like stalling the healthcare system and delaying treatment for other diseases that could, frankly, be far more dangerous and lethal than COVID-19.) Or consider the economic blow to citizens through job losses and plummeting revenue... which inevitably pushes people into high-stress situations that leave their own lasting health issues.
crimsonranger3 said:I assume that call from them actually means something.
Anyway, beers tomorrow? 🤣
Look, it’s simple—just don't answer any calls from unknown numbers for the next two weeks and the problem goes away. It’s almost too easy (as they say in the North America). 😛
BTW—by doing this, you're basically building up immunity to COVID-19 (at least until you catch it from another colleague again). Do it once more and you'll have permanent immunity.
Chris Kim13 said:I’ve got about 20 people working in the exact same open office space every single day. One coworker tested positive for COVID, and now the higher-ups are playing favorites with the isolation rules. The lower-level staff are being sent home to isolate, while all the management types get to stay put because they’re supposedly "getting tested" instead. Are you kidding me? We were all breathing the same air and working side-by-side every damn day!
So yeah, apparently the rules only apply to certain people. Same old story, right?
Is that really such a shocker? Not everyone gets an invite to the VIP lounge 😛 — the little guys always get left behind. It's just the corporate hierarchy at work. 😁
melloworca6 said:There was this one guy in America who used to post all this "enlightened" crap online, just like you—acting like the whole thing was a hoax, saying nobody could tell him what to do, refusing to wear a mask, all that nonsense. Well, he was buried about three weeks ago. Caught that "little flu" everyone was talking about and died.
My grandmother told me her friend heard from a neighbor who spent all day reading the news about this old man up in Canada—name's Steve, he's 93. He was a tough guy, always refused to wear a mask when he went to the local nursing home cafeteria for lunch. And wouldn't you know it? He passed away. They're saying it was COVID.
So, Lutore Lex—given that I know from your previous posts on this forum that you don't suffer from dysgraphia or any similar condition, the way you wrote your last post suggests one of three things:
a) You’re drunk and/or high. b) You're sick (maybe a fever so high you've lost touch with reality). c) You're just a provocateur looking for a reaction.
If it's "b," let us know somehow so we can call an ambulance to your door.
It was just a joke. To be honest, you did the right thing by stepping in on this mask debate—the bickering had gotten out of hand and was starting to grate on my nerves too.
The problem now is that the arguing has migrated over to the conspiracy theorists. That’s where the Wobbie lives now—acting like a teenager who just needs to have the last word at all costs.😁
Looking at it objectively, it's basically a form of trolling. It's like if someone jumped into an Apple discussion board just to trash the brand while praising Huawei or some other manufacturer instead. Or imagine someone browsing a travel guide for San Diego and constantly insisting San Diego sucks while Savannah is the place to be. Or a thread dedicated to LGBTQ+ discussions where someone shows up just to dump nothing but negativity on the community.
Logic tells me that a forum for conspiracy theorists is naturally meant for people who view the world through that lens. Sure, there’s room for opposing views and healthy debate, but when you get one "know-it-all" who isn't looking for constructive conversation but just wants to argue for the sake of it—someone who feels the need to contradict every single post—then it crosses the line into trolling and spamming. Like they say back home in the country, "too much of a good thing is never good."
The "Mask Mandates: Yes or No" thread is a bit different because the title itself invites conflicting opinions, so polarization and heated debates are almost guaranteed. But as I said, it was good to de-escalate things. It was getting too intense.
Dear Moderator Gerald Chavez7, please unlock the "Masks - yes or no" PDF thread.
Ever since that forum troll (Gerald Chavez7—mind you, I didn't say "troll" 🙄) Wobbie migrated to other subforums, there’s nothing left to sustain this place.
I trust you'll understand the situation. Thanks in advance for the help. 🙏
Frank Martin2 said:I'm fully in favor of stopping the censorship being carried out by certain moderators just because someone expresses an opinion different from their own.
As long as a comment isn't insulting or discriminatory toward any individual or group, doesn't incite violence, is phrased civilly, and stays on topic without causing other issues, it shouldn't be deleted simply because a moderator disagrees with the sentiment.
In the specific case mentioned by hollowwalker24, the moderator gave a bizarre justification for deleting posts—essentially, they decided to categorize scientists, research teams, or studies as either "scientific" or "unscientific." They then proceeded to scrub any posts that pointed toward what they deemed "unscientific" sources.
Naturally, the "scientific" ones were the experts who happened to agree with the moderator's personal views, while the "unscientific" ones were anyone they disagreed with—even if those people are highly respected figures within the global academic community. If it weren't so pathetic, it would almost be funny.
That said, I think this particular moderator has softened their stance lately. I haven't noticed any more of this censoring on this sub-forum thread recently, which is a good thing. I hope it stays that way.
Uh... just realized a moderator finally chimed in, and they clearly haven't changed their tune much 😁 as I had hoped in my previous post. 😛
I'm fully in favor of stopping the censorship being carried out by certain moderators just because someone expresses an opinion different from their own.
As long as a comment isn't insulting or discriminatory toward any individual or group, doesn't incite violence, is phrased civilly, and stays on topic without causing other issues, it shouldn't be deleted simply because a moderator disagrees with the sentiment.
In the specific case mentioned by hollowwalker24, the moderator gave a bizarre justification for deleting posts—essentially, they decided to categorize scientists, research teams, or studies as either "scientific" or "unscientific." They then proceeded to scrub any posts that pointed toward what they deemed "unscientific" sources.
Naturally, the "scientific" ones were the experts who happened to agree with the moderator's personal views, while the "unscientific" ones were anyone they disagreed with—even if those people are highly respected figures within the global academic community. If it weren't so pathetic, it would almost be funny.
That said, I think this particular moderator has softened their stance lately. I haven't noticed any more of this censoring on this sub-forum thread recently, which is a good thing. I hope it stays that way.
I went in with high hopes, but the movie ended up being completely uninspired, predictable, and just plain dull. Honestly, after wasting an hour and a half on this, I can't help but feel I could have spent that time doing something actually productive—like taking a nap.
It really all boils down to how much willpower these officers have. Is there an actual threat of being fined or cited here? I mean... if I head out for a solo bike ride and cross the county line without any issues, then loop back home via some side roads, is there a chance a different patrol unit catches me on my way back?
A question for both pro and amateur cyclists. Do police officers actually pull cyclists over at checkpoints, or do they just ignore us and focus entirely on the cars?
It didn't break the bank—the whole thing was shot in one tiny room with the lead actor and two extras. Proof that you can still make a great movie on a shoestring budget.
Just follow what Lawrence Wright80 suggested. That’s exactly how I set things up at my place.
You can snag an extra router on Craigslist for $33 or even less (honestly, I’m actually selling my old AT&T Thomson unit on Craigslist right now for $13). Just hook it up to your current setup via a LAN cable, set up a separate Wi-Fi network on the new one, and you're done. For next to nothing, you've got two parallel networks running in about 15 minutes. The only potential headache would be if you actually need to throttle the speed on that guest network. I wouldn't know—I've never had the need to mess with it, so I never bothered looking into it—but I assume pretty much any router's settings will let you tweak that.
I just saw the Chinese coast poster for this movie, and it features Ruby Rose right next to a bunch of sharks. Online ads are pushing her everywhere as if she’s one of the leads.
But honestly, her role is practically nonexistent. If you edited all her scenes together, you'd barely have two minutes of footage. She says maybe a couple of short lines—hardly even full sentences. So why is the marketing department working so hard to hype up her involvement? What's the deal here? What are they actually playing at?