Posts by Ronald Chavez2

Larry Walker24 said:Sure, you can just write it in a PDF, you skeptic.

I can't.

coppersailor28 said:I don't think it works like that.

The whole "alternative facts" crowd moved over the second the 'Skeptics' subforum opened up...
...which, for the record, wasn't even intended for those types using 'alternative' logic on the main 'Coronavirus' subforum.

Ugh, I'm having a hard time decoding this one; could someone give me a hand?

Morgan Peterson said:On the contrary, I believe my colleague explained the situation perfectly. 👍
We don't just hand out partial bans like candy for a single controversial post; if that were the case, the thread author would have been sanctioned ages ago.
We are looking at ten full pages of various threads regarding the Coronavirus PDF, which implies this individual has been systematically violating the rules and ignoring warnings for at least a year.
And now, the streak finally comes to an end.
I wish the author a pleasant time browsing the rest of the Forum, and I truly hope they manage to learn something valuable from this experience.
Oh, one more thing—just a little heads-up: posting via a clone account of a partially banned user is treated with the same severity as posting via a clone of a permanently banned user. In short, it’s simply not worth the effort.

I haven't been on this Forum for an eternity, yet I've contributed plenty to the Coronavirus discussion and racked up more warnings than in all my other time here, though I think you're well aware that those warnings weren't issued for trolling, but rather for trolling in the wrong direction, if that makes sense.

I'll ask one more time: why exactly did this come to an end, and specifically, which single controversial post was the one that sent me into a partial ban?

Thanks for the food for thought; I’ve been circling around those same ideas myself.

I won't dive into all the other side stories just yet, since there's more than enough to chew on here, but I can't help wondering what exactly was it that finally pushed me over the edge regarding this whole situation.

For some reason, the Coronavirus subforum seems to have vanished from my view today; is this just a technical glitch, or am I more likely being banned from that specific section?

If it’s the latter, I’d appreciate it if the moderation team could clarify the reasoning behind such a move, if only so I can educate myself and others on what to avoid to ensure we aren't breaking any rules in the future.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I logged out briefly to check the Coronavirus subforum again, and noticed one of my recent posts was on a thread regarding Ursula von der Leyen and mandatory vaccinations, where I was debating with user lazybones12; strangely, my last post there was deleted despite containing no insults or violations of the site guidelines, and even my interlocutor seemed puzzled by it in a subsequent post, even though we weren't exactly seeing eye to eye on the subject.

What exactly is the issue here?

bluepuma9 said:Latest updates from South Africa
New cases and hospitalizations are ramping up even faster than they did during the previous waves. It seems like younger people are getting hit harder this time. There was even a case involving a 15-year-old who passed away due to pneumonia complications.

Are we actually going to see some actual links for this, or is it all just hearsay?

urbanwalker72 said:At this current stage, however, those returns are quite underwhelming when measured against the broader market. Much like how certain tech stocks might lag behind the S&P 500, Pfizer and its pharmaceutical peers are currently underperforming the general index. It honestly feels as though even someone making decisions entirely at random would find more lucrative opportunities elsewhere right now.

I previously shared some charts on a different thread to illustrate this reasoning, so I won't dwell on the details here.

For Pfizer to truly dominate the landscape and extract massive profits from this situation, the crisis would need to persist for many years; they won't see sustained, overwhelming gains from just three or six months of activity, but perhaps if this drags on for several more years.

Which is exactly why they keep announcing boosters indefinitely, isn't it?

Linda Harris59 said:We’ve spent years listening to anti-vaxxers claim that every single scientist is just a paid shill for Pfizer, working overtime to push their vaccines.

Look at what happened in Japan. The virus died out there, yet instead of the scientific community giving credit to vaccine-induced herd immunity—which would have lined Pfizer's pockets with billions more—they actually stated that the virus simply burned itself out!

How can you reconcile that? Anti-vaxxers constantly preach that scientists are forced to act as walking advertisements for the jab. Yet here we see them doing the exact opposite by claiming the virus vanished on its own.

Consider this another anti-vaxxer myth thoroughly debunked.

Japan operates in an entirely different league where it seems institutions actually do their jobs, vetting vaccines independently to decide if they're safe for their people. I recall news a few months back about a specific batch of modernin being pulled because of anomalies. Compare that to how the FDA and EMA just check if Pfizer numbered their paperwork correctly and filed their approval request properly, and that's basically it. It feels absurd when you consider how they pull samples from almost any other product, like food, just to ensure safety and labeling compliance—leading to those occasional recalls you see in stores—yet when it comes to a vaccine injected directly into the body, that level of scrutiny is missing, leaving everything resting on the word of the very companies trying to sell the product.

Linda Harris59 said:It’s complete nonsense. To actually build up natural immunity, you would have had to face the virus head-on without any preventative measures, essentially gambling with your life and risking a fatal outcome.

It stands to reason.

The Omicron variant emerged from regions where vaccination rates were practically non-existent. That is precisely why this specific mutation gained such massive traction; it evolved to bypass even the natural immunity people had already built up.

A good number of people already encountered the virus before the vaccines were even available, so isn't it worth examining the actual strength and duration of that natural immunity? From a medical standpoint, of course, it would be a complete nightmare for Pfizer if science officially proved that natural immunity is more robust and lasting than their products, potentially making those endless boosters unnecessary for those who have already recovered—not to mention the massive revenue they'd lose in the process.

Linda Lee4 said:That’s just plain wrong.

I have to admit, those comparative studies are quite clever, aren't they? I've come across several articles that always seem to pair vaccination against the combination of vaccination plus prior infection, only to triumphantly declare that the latter provides superior protection. People run away from comparing vaccination solely against natural immunity as if they're fleeing a demon, surely out of purely altruistic motives rather than the fact that such a comparison would cost Pfizer and its associates a fortune, wouldn't it?

Sarah Ross21 said:Look, let’s round up to 1% just to make the math easy. In the US, that’s roughly 3.3 million people. 3.3 million graves. 3.3 million burial plots. A massive cemetery like Arlington National Cemetery holds about 265,000 graves. Can you visualize that? We're talking about Arlington, plus another twelve such cemeteries—brand new.

And that’s only 1 percent. Imagine if it hits 2 percent; that’s another dozen Arlington-sized graveyards filled to capacity. If it hits 3 percent, that’s eighteen more full graveyards. Get it? Not to mention there aren't enough hospital beds for even that 1 percent, unless you think the capacity of the American healthcare system magically expanded overnight.

Isn't it obvious that for someone to pass away, they first have to get infected, and surely they won't all fall ill at once or have 40,000 people die in a single day? Furthermore, isn't it clear that death itself didn't just suddenly appear with this pandemic, but has been part of life all along?

Sarah Ross21 said:Forget the damn certificates. You're obsessing over a scrap of paper while ignoring the bigger picture: everyone is terrified. With or without proof, it's happening everywhere. 😁😁

I’m betting on survival of the fittest. Back when the plague hit, it was the strongest or the smartest who made it through. And if you think this situation is going to bring out the best in people? Not a chance. 🙂I'm an optimist, though!

At most, maybe 0.5% of people are actually rattled, which includes everyone already on edge, so Omicron doesn't really have much room to cause chaos despite all the sensationalist headlines we see in the news.

So, this rookie pundit just went full throttle on his latest take, though I can't help but wonder why he’s even bothering to weigh in on the pandemic when he was so certain everything would be back to normal by March

People who have already recovered from COVID-19 and finished their initial vaccination series are now exempt from quarantine after being exposed to an infected individual, regardless of how much time has passed (though if symptoms pop up within 14 days of that last contact, they’ll still be treated as suspected cases).

https://www.cdc.gov/pdf/example-document-ENE-ver-12.pdf

The time limit on isolation protection has been scrapped.

Mark Richardson86 said:Hmm... well, if you actually sit back and consider the fundamental mechanics of how a contagion spreads through a population, everything starts to make sense... which is precisely why those isolation measures were put in place in the first place...

The data suggests that vaccines primarily serve as protection for the individual receiving them, and they provide quite effective protection at that, yet any impact on preventing transmission seems to be marginal at best, so why should we rely on it for anything significant? My question remains the same.

Carol Kelly3 said:If you ask me, there's a main reason for these mandates, and I think the governments implementing them are actually doing the right thing. Maybe they're just dragging their feet because they're scared. I don't think rights will be suspended, and everything will probably stay voluntary, but I guess some kind of pressure needs to exist for the sake of the whole country—and for those people themselves, too.

Fine, but how exactly can you claim the government is in the right here, especially when the health data clearly shows we've already identified the specific high-risk groups, meaning most people don't actually need any kind of protection from the virus?

Carol Kelly3 said:I guess the point is trying to get more people vaccinated, which is really about looking out for public health. It’s kind of hard when people don't know—and it's not even their fault—what the best move is. I'm not talking about that 1% who clearly know what they're doing and are choosing to opt out. I mean the other 99% who actually want to get vaccinated but have been totally messed with by fear-mongering propaganda. Those people should be allowed to get their shots since that's what they want. In a free country like the US, people should probably have that choice, but it feels like the other side has really messed that up so far.

But how are we supposed to ignore the reality that most people don't even need this vaccine, given that the statistics clearly show their health isn't at risk from the virus?

Furthermore, does this mean we just suspend an individual's right to bodily autonomy whenever the government decides they've been manipulated into making a "wrong" choice? If we set such a precedent, what happens when a different administration takes power and decides that women seeking abortions are merely victims of modern decadence? Will their right to control their own bodies be stripped away too, even though, much like vaccination, the consequences of these decisions fall primarily on the individuals themselves while the broader impact remains marginal?

Carol Kelly3 said:That’s just not true. I mean, a clearance proves someone was vaccinated, recovered, or recently tested—it confirms actual facts, and it lasts as long as it lasts. How the government chooses to use it is a different story. I’ve said before that it shouldn't be used for anything essential. If the people in power weren't such cowards—which seems to be the case everywhere in the West, I suppose—they could have used it as a work requirement. Then we'd see how brave those "experts" actually are.

Introductory remarks, maybe. You call the only people trying to help us out "psychopaths," but you don't seem to notice the actual aggressors and real sociopaths on the other side. 😵It’s probably going to take us a really long time to recover from this, especially since we've swallowed so much propaganda.

And what is the actual objective here, other than just flexing political muscle and forcing people into compliance simply because they have the power to do so?

Megan Green72 said:It’s simple—what you just wrote is straight up wrong. ☕

If you actually bothered to explain exactly which part was wrong, would we ever reach an end? But then again, it's much easier to just recycle the same old propaganda and hope someone eventually buys into it, isn't it?

Interesting enough. I won't pretend to be an expert on everything those economic analysts have ever published, but from what I've gathered, there wasn't any blatant profanity, trolling, or unnecessary provocation, so it makes me wonder why you were the one singled out for being banned from that subforum.

It strikes me that there are plenty of other people who consistently lower the quality of debate over there, though they all seem to be on the "right" side of the aisle, which is probably why they get away with whatever they want.

Susan Martin4 said:Here’s the play-by-play:
1. Email one: The kid in daycare is likely positive since there are symptoms and a parent tested positive. They're testing tomorrow. But the kids aren't allowed in daycare tomorrow. If the test comes back positive, we get a formal notice about sick leave, which lasts until September 30th.
2. Email two: The epidemiologist writes in stating siblings can't attend school or daycare either.
3. Email three: Suddenly, siblings *can* go to school or daycare tomorrow, but if the kids officially get put on sick leave, then they're barred again.

Total chaos. Just pure chaos.

What a complete circus. Honestly, if this were September 2020, I might have understood because everything was new back then, but isn't it just exhausting that a year later, some of these health officials still haven't figured out the protocol for students, not to mention how they keep tripping over their own rules?

And why on earth would a close contact have nothing to do while in quarantine, especially when the contact hasn't even been confirmed positive yet and is just staying home as a precaution to see if symptoms develop? If we followed this ridiculous logic, half the country would be stuck in isolation within two weeks.

You might want to politely ask one of these esteemed experts exactly what criteria they're using to force a student into quarantine, given that the standard rule is being a contact of an infected person; in other words, who exactly was your child in contact with that triggered this?