Jump to content
RED

Max Dean to Penn State?

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, 9insoft said:


Is new data always good data? Not always which lies the.........?

Contradiction-the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

If you are now changing the use of "contradiction" in this thread, I'm done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Drew87 said:

Are you really blaming the course of a pandemic on someone (I’m fairly confident) you’ve never met based on their thoughts alone? 

To stop you before you start, I’ve lived in China for 7 years and will be again soon, because there are parts of it that are incredible, but jesus mary and joseph I would never ever invite the top to bottom systemic baggage you oh so quietly skated past into the United States.

Yes, China is “back to normal,” but I’m pretty sure that we don’t want to take everything that comes with that sort of normal.  Look around and marvel at the grass you can walk on; the tap water you can drink; the schools that, while very imperfect, actually teach critical thinking instead of brutalizing children from the age of 5-17; the ability to chose, at every level of government, who represents your voice, the fact that you have a voice...

You do realize that this entire forum is not allowed to exist in China currently correct? We would all be getting visits from “concerned neighbors” in short order for having this discussion in this fashion. Value your ability to disagree and dissent, you use it readily, but as you value it for yourself, value it for everyone.  You do realize that, if you found your way to this forum, you have a ton in common with everyone else here right?

“People like you” is a vile phrase.  That could actually be your neighbor, the person who you might need help from if your house caught fire, if you slipped and fell or got hit by a car.  Don’t say that, or things like it.  Those sorts of words are a verbal albatross around the collective neck of the country.

Maybe if he wasn't running around unhinged calling people 'cucks' I'd feel worse about what I said...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheOhioState said:

You are living in a communist country with no access to unbiased news.  The human abuse in China is staggering.  Christians are abused.
Pollution is rampant, which is which the Paris Accords are a joke with China in participation.

It's worthless talking to you.  

Advice:  Get out.



 

You sound like a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, klehner said:

Any organization headed by RFK Jr. can be dismissed out-of-hand, sorry.  Anti-vaxxer through and through, independent of COVID (or any actual data).

This raises a couple of questions:

  1. Did you knowingly reference a source from a thoroughly discredited organization?
  2. Do you typically not check the background of the source of your opinions?

RFK isn't the issue, the VAERS data itself is the issue and that data is compiled by the very experts you trust at HHS and CDC. Beside that, the article links directly to the CDC website for you but you seem to want to make the issue the presenter of the linked information as opposed to the information itself and source thereof. This is why I don't play along when you demand I post the inconsistent messaging of the so called experts. Everyone knows it is out there, but you would just dismiss it rather than acknowledge it.

 

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination

Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

I am not saying anything other than this. The VAERS data says there are reports of 4,178 deaths following taking of the various vaccines for Covid 19. Although small in percentage terms, can you not figure out why a person who ALREADY HAS THE ANTIBODIES might not want to take the vaccine? If you can't figure this out you are being obtuse. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

RFK isn't the issue, the VAERS data itself is the issue and that data is compiled by the very experts you trust at HHS and CDC.

Yet instead of pointing to the VAERS data and providing a reasoned analysis, you linked an anti-vaxxer site?  Feel free to answer my two questions at your leisure.

Here's a Reuters fact-check article that points out the errors likely in your anti-vaxxer article:  https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-data-does-not-prove-thousands-died-from-receiving-covid-19-vaccines-idUSL1N2LV0NY. Had you done due diligence ("Hmm, this article I Googled is from a well-known anti-vaxxer web site.  Maybe I can check some other sources that are probably more reliable"), you'd have seen lots of more reputable sources, and even links to the CDC itself that show why your source is flawed and sensationalistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

That does not make the VAERS data any less relevant. 

But, as I said above, it makes it obvious that the VAERS data has been misrepresented in service of a deeply biased anti-vaxxer position.  You'd have known that if you actually wanted to understand, rather than wanting to find anything to validate your world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, klehner said:

Yet instead of pointing to the VAERS data and providing a reasoned analysis, you linked an anti-vaxxer site?  Feel free to answer my two questions at your leisure.

Here's a Reuters fact-check article that points out the errors likely in your anti-vaxxer article:  https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-data-does-not-prove-thousands-died-from-receiving-covid-19-vaccines-idUSL1N2LV0NY. Had you done due diligence ("Hmm, this article I Googled is from a well-known anti-vaxxer web site.  Maybe I can check some other sources that are probably more reliable"), you'd have seen lots of more reputable sources, and even links to the CDC itself that show why your source is flawed and sensationalistic.

There could be 100,000 deaths and Reuters might run that same article. 

The only point I am making here is that there are, in fact, recorded deaths post vaccine. If you trust that there is no connection what so ever, that's on you. If you wish to use some common sense you'd probably assign some value to that information, meaning you'd understand that many of those deaths are merely coincident and unconnected, but some of them likely are connected. 

The flu vaccine typically results in between 100 and 200 Adverse death reports each year. Some years less than 100. With Covid we see more than 4,000 deaths between December 14 and May 3. That's a lot. But go ahead and make it about something else. I am more concerned with that information itself as it helps me to better understand vaccine hesitancy. Much better than the snarky comments from the TV ad I saw from the CDC. 

 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, klehner said:

If you are now changing the use of "contradiction" in this thread, I'm done here.

Not at all.... 

Definitions from Oxford Languages
Search for a wordsearch_grey600_24dp.png
con·tra·dic·tion
/ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
 
noun
plural noun: contradictions
  1. a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
    "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
    • a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
      "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
    • the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
      "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
       
      You are the closed minded play with words guy, that has 2 ways.... my way or the wrong way.... remember I’m the bad spelling dumb dumb guy you had to correct....
       
      At the end of the day I’m pullin’ your sausage....and by the way you fire it up on that keyboard, I hope you’re 6’8” 295lbs and can crush skulls....I’m done too...
       
      Max Dean to Penn State.
       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

 

There could be 100,000 deaths and Reuters might run that same article. 

The only point I am making here is that there are, in fact, recorded deaths post vaccine. If you trust that there is no connection what so ever, that's on you. If you wish to use some common sense you'd probably assign some value to that information, meaning you'd understand that many of those deaths are merely coincident and unconnected, but some of them likely are connected.

 

So, you are telling us that an anti-vaxxer (RFK Jr) is more believable than Reuters and the scientists who actually know the science?  Did you read this part?

Quote

Dr. Joël Belmin, head of geriatrics and vaccination coordinator at l’hôpital Charles-Foix in Paris, said, “In older people, due to their great frailty, a significant amount of spontaneous mortality is expected. In a retirement home, one in five people die each year. It’s therefore difficult to directly attribute these deaths to the fact that these people were vaccinated.”

Is it possible that someone died from the vaccine?  Of course.  Is it far, far more likely that people in the cohort at (the unknown) risk of the vaccine would die of the infection?  Of course.  Is it silly to take a much greater risk (dying of COVID) than a *miniscule* risk of the vaccine?  Of course.  It is pure anti-vaxxer (read:  not based on evidence) to avoid vaccines that have been one of the great medical innovations of modern history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

 

With Covid we see more than 4,000 deaths between December 14 and May 3. 

And with nothing whatsoever indicating any causation.  Other than your anti-vaxxer web site.  Did you go to the VAERS web site and read all the disclaimers that essentially say not to do what your anti-vaxxer site did, because it would be nonsense?

Here ya go:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html. Updated this week.

Quote

Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.  Get the latest safety information on the J&J/Janssen vaccine. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.

On what basis do you dispute what the CDC is saying?  Because RFK Jr says so?  Tucker Carlson?  Scott Atlas?  Your Google skillz?  Claims like what you are making contribute to not reaching herd immunity, thereby causing the deaths of many more people, and continued shutdown of businesses, schools, and other non-socially distant activities.  Based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, klehner said:

And with nothing whatsoever indicating any causation.  Other than your anti-vaxxer web site.  Did you go to the VAERS web site and read all the disclaimers that essentially say not to do what your anti-vaxxer site did, because it would be nonsense?

Here ya go:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html. Updated this week.

On what basis do you dispute what the CDC is saying?  Because RFK Jr says so?  Tucker Carlson?  Scott Atlas?  Your Google skillz?  Claims like what you are making contribute to not reaching herd immunity, thereby causing the deaths of many more people, and continued shutdown of businesses, schools, and other non-socially distant activities.  Based on what?

I am saying that I can understand why the news of 4,000 deaths reported to VAERS  would cause someone who has already caught Covid and has the antibodies to become reluctant to take the vaccine. Pretty simple concept.

The CDC telling me a review has not established causation does not also rule out causation. That takes time. Again, pretty simple concept. 

The confused guidance from the CDC on mask wearing is at least moving in the right direction. Too bad they didn't cover this msg. board's mandate on mask wearing while jogging or climbing outdoors and alone. 

 

Choosing Safer Activities

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

I am saying that I can understand why the news of 4,000 deaths reported to VAERS  would cause someone who has already caught Covid and has the antibodies to become reluctant to take the vaccine. Pretty simple concept.

 

 

Choosing Safer Activities

The antibody titer you get from a single infection is not as great as the two shot moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Somebody who has been infected previously would be well served to receive the vaccine. To be perfectly honest, somebody who has been infected and then receives 2 doses of the vaccine will be better protected from the virus than somebody who has not been infected, but is vaccinated, as not only will there be a high titer against the spike protein from the vaccine, but the immune system will also be primed to recognize the parts of the virus not present in the vaccine. The vaccine is one of the safest vaccines ever produced given the number of people who have received it (many of whom previously had covid) and the lack of adverse events.   That 4,000 number is BS and unreliable.  When an issue came up with the J&J vaccine, the government identified it and put it on hold.

 

I honestly don't understand what people are scared of with the vaccine-this is a shot in the arm...basically everything in it is being applied locally in the arm, the ingredients are known agents and safe, and it is manufactured by the best facilities in the world. I would be scared if I had to receive Sputnik V, Sinopharm's vaccine, or even J&J/Az, but a hamburger from McDonalds or 20 oz bottle of coca cola is worse for you in the long term than the Moderna/Pfizer vacccine.  

In terms of the CDC mask guidance-I'm in agreement with you that people who have been vaccinated should no longer need to wear masks indoors or outdoors and that the country should soon fully reopen, I just think that this policy should be enacted ~June 1st, thereby giving everyone in the country enough time to have received both vaccine shots.  The issue is that some who are immunocompromised or extremely elderly are still at some risk even if vaccinated (albeit significantly lower risk than before), which is why vaccine mandates are such a great thing, because to fully protect them will require herd immunity.  Honestly, I wish our society was a bit less politically correct and just said, "It is your right to not get the vaccine, but if you want to fly on a plane, use an uber, or go to a public school or university, you must be vaccinated."  I don't think we will be able to see mandates kick in though until the FDA fully approves the vaccine (should happen in the coming months).  I'm curious to see what happens with Dean at PSU once they mandate it. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

In terms of the CDC mask guidance-I'm in agreement with you that people who have been vaccinated should no longer need to wear masks indoors or outdoors and that the country should soon fully reopen, I just think that this policy should be enacted ~June 1st, thereby giving everyone in the country enough time to have received both vaccine shots.  The issue is that some who are immunocompromised or extremely elderly are still at some risk even if vaccinated (albeit significantly lower risk than before), which is why vaccine mandates are such a great thing, because to fully protect them will require herd immunity.  Honestly, I wish our society was a bit less politically correct and just said, "It is your right to not get the vaccine, but if you want to fly on a plane, use an uber, or go to a public school or university, you must be vaccinated."  I don't think we will be able to see mandates kick in though until the FDA fully approves the vaccine (should happen in the coming months).  I'm curious to see what happens with Dean at PSU once they mandate it. 

Well said on the bits I deleted.  However, wrt mask wearing by the vaccinated:  the vaccine prevents one from becoming ill, but it might not prevent one from being *infected* or *infectious*.  Hence, the guidance to continue wearing a mask when social distancing is not possible and when around non-vaccinated people.  Current CDC guidance:

Quote

The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. 

There are thirteen colleges in NJ alone that are mandating vaccination for on-campus students in the fall.  These include Rutgers, Stevens, and Princeton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

The antibody titer you get from a single infection is not as great as the two shot moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Somebody who has been infected previously would be well served to receive the vaccine. To be perfectly honest, somebody who has been infected and then receives 2 doses of the vaccine will be better protected from the virus than somebody who has not been infected, but is vaccinated, as not only will there be a high titer against the spike protein from the vaccine, but the immune system will also be primed to recognize the parts of the virus not present in the vaccine. The vaccine is one of the safest vaccines ever produced given the number of people who have received it (many of whom previously had covid) and the lack of adverse events.   That 4,000 number is BS and unreliable.  When an issue came up with the J&J vaccine, the government identified it and put it on hold.

 

I honestly don't understand what people are scared of with the vaccine-this is a shot in the arm...basically everything in it is being applied locally in the arm, the ingredients are known agents and safe, and it is manufactured by the best facilities in the world. I would be scared if I had to receive Sputnik V, Sinopharm's vaccine, or even J&J/Az, but a hamburger from McDonalds or 20 oz bottle of coca cola is worse for you in the long term than the Moderna/Pfizer vacccine.  

In terms of the CDC mask guidance-I'm in agreement with you that people who have been vaccinated should no longer need to wear masks indoors or outdoors and that the country should soon fully reopen, I just think that this policy should be enacted ~June 1st, thereby giving everyone in the country enough time to have received both vaccine shots.  The issue is that some who are immunocompromised or extremely elderly are still at some risk even if vaccinated (albeit significantly lower risk than before), which is why vaccine mandates are such a great thing, because to fully protect them will require herd immunity.  Honestly, I wish our society was a bit less politically correct and just said, "It is your right to not get the vaccine, but if you want to fly on a plane, use an uber, or go to a public school or university, you must be vaccinated."  I don't think we will be able to see mandates kick in though until the FDA fully approves the vaccine (should happen in the coming months).  I'm curious to see what happens with Dean at PSU once they mandate it. 

Good post, just curious, do you have any links to the claim that immunity from the vaccine is better than from infection?  I’m definitely pro-vaccine, but I’ve been of the opinion that in terms of any potential mandates, a recent antibody test should be as good as getting the vaccine.  I thought the CDC just recommended everyone get it “because they don’t know how long immunity from infection lasts” or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, klehner said:

Well said on the bits I deleted.  However, wrt mask wearing by the vaccinated:  the vaccine prevents one from becoming ill, but it might not prevent one from being *infected* or *infectious*. 

Actually, speaking of contradictions, the CDC Director basically said exactly that, but then the CDC walked it back:

https://people.com/health/vaccinated-people-do-not-appear-carry-spread-covid-19/?amp=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, klehner said:

Well said on the bits I deleted.  However, wrt mask wearing by the vaccinated:  the vaccine prevents one from becoming ill, but it might not prevent one from being *infected* or *infectious*.  Hence, the guidance to continue wearing a mask when social distancing is not possible and when around non-vaccinated people.  Current CDC guidance:

There are thirteen colleges in NJ alone that are mandating vaccination for on-campus students in the fall.  These include Rutgers, Stevens, and Princeton.

this is why I said remove the mask mandate starting in June, when everyone in the country will have had ample time to get vaccinated. Obviously those who are vaccinated can still become infected and pass on the virus, but it becomes significantly less likely (to the point of acceptable risk). Those who are immunocompromised should continue to wear them though (ideally N95). 

28 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Good post, just curious, do you have any links to the claim that immunity from the vaccine is better than from infection?  I’m definitely pro-vaccine, but I’ve been of the opinion that in terms of any potential mandates, a recent antibody test should be as good as getting the vaccine.  I thought the CDC just recommended everyone get it “because they don’t know how long immunity from infection lasts” or something.

Just look up the clinical trial data. You see increased antibody titers after the second dose compared to natural infection. The reason isn’t loss of immunity-It follows a basic principle of immunology, where repeat exposure leads to increased immunity (and a faster immune response).  So a 2 dose vaccine is likely going to be better than a single exposure to the virus. It also could partially be that mRNA technology is just really freaking good at priming the immune system. 
 

A similar example of this principle is allergic diseases. Anybody who has allergies knows that the first exposure is generally mild, but subsequent ones increase in strength and pace of onset. 
 

But yeah, somebody who has previously been infected will likely have very good immunity to the strain that infected that person. One that protects most people from severe disease. I wouldn’t want to have gotten the original strain though and then encounter the South African variant (or those similar to it). Even the vaccine loses some efficacy against it where a booster will likely be needed, but not enough that appears too worrisome. There just isn’t a reason to avoid mandating the vaccine even for those who have previously been infected. It will still be beneficial (although to the same degree as somebody who hasn’t been exposed).

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dman115 said:

  And are there scientific studies/data/facts/evidence that staying 6 feet away from someone while outside, wearing a mask won't spread the virus, but if you are within 5 feet, WATCH OUT!! 

The issue with this goes back to something I talked about previously, working at ends of the extreme.  The context you are putting this in, is as if to say the science says there is a brick wall at 5ft 11 inches, when that is not the cast at all, if you look and read into it, open minded, as much as you say you do.  What these recommendations are doing is placing the best ratio/balance of restriction and safety.  In other words, the six feet is not a guarantee, it is a mitigated enough risk to be 'okay'.  And it is based on studies....how far do these particles from our mouth and nose travel when we talk, breath, etc.  Within those studies, they found that 6 feet was the distance that mitigated the risk enough to be safer....meaning staying 6 feet does not 100% guarantee safety, its the point where the risk is reduced enough to "move forward' (pun intended).

Same with masks.  Nobody says masks are 100% effective.  They mitigate the risk/spread.

Same with groups.  Viral load is important.  Smaller groups don't protect anyone 100%, they mitigate the risk.

Vaccines are not 100% effective.  They help in greatly reducing spread and disease, but are not 100%....

So on and so on.  Working on either ends of the extreme is just another thing that is going to keep us in this longer than we should be.  The problem with this kind of thinking is that if these mitigations protect 47 of 50 people who otherwise would have gotten sick, operating at the end of the extreme is going to focus on those three people that still broke through, and say "see this **** don't work'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lurker said:

The issue with this goes back to something I talked about previously, working at ends of the extreme.  The context you are putting this in, is as if to say the science says there is a brick wall at 5ft 11 inches, when that is not the cast at all, if you look and read into it, open minded, as much as you say you do.  What these recommendations are doing is placing the best ratio/balance of restriction and safety.  In other words, the six feet is not a guarantee, it is a mitigated enough risk to be 'okay'.  And it is based on studies....how far do these particles from our mouth and nose travel when we talk, breath, etc.  Within those studies, they found that 6 feet was the distance that mitigated the risk enough to be safer....meaning staying 6 feet does not 100% guarantee safety, its the point where the risk is reduced enough to "move forward' (pun intended).

Same with masks.  Nobody says masks are 100% effective.  They mitigate the risk/spread.

Same with groups.  Viral load is important.  Smaller groups don't protect anyone 100%, they mitigate the risk.

Vaccines are not 100% effective.  They help in greatly reducing spread and disease, but are not 100%....

So on and so on.  Working on either ends of the extreme is just another thing that is going to keep us in this longer than we should be.  The problem with this kind of thinking is that if these mitigations protect 47 of 50 people who otherwise would have gotten sick, operating at the end of the extreme is going to focus on those three people that still broke through, and say "see this **** don't work'.

Totally agree Lurker...my point...while clearly not well articulated...is that working at the ends of the extreme does mean it happens at both ends of the extreme.  Requiring wearing a mask after being fully vaccinated is working at one end of the extreme.  Shutting down schools and sports is working at one end of the extreme.  Not to mention it is funny what "science" people pick and choose to hold as gospel and what they choose to ignore...data clearly shows that letting kids attend school and do sports has a very low risk factor, but yet that "science" isn't followed.  

Bottom line is this virus SUCKS!  People dying is TERRIBLE!  To bad a global pandemic didn't bring us closer together as a country, but instead drove further division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dman115 said:

data clearly shows that letting kids attend school and do sports has a very low risk factor, but yet that "science" isn't followed.  

If the science isn't followed, why then have, the vast majority (I agree not 100%) we been having school and school sports?  They were shut down at one time and then deemed to be safe and opened up, after more was learned about the virus.  How do we have the data to show that schools and sports are safe, if we don't have the schools and sports to supply the data???

As for the shut downs, etc that have and did happen.....I can only speak to where I live.  I'm not going to be one of these people here who acts like they know the precise situation on the ground of a place they haven't been.  I live in South Florida, we've been a front runner in how to handle this virus, as evidenced by being one of, if not the least "shut down" state in the country, yet having a well below national average death rate while having the most dense population of people most vulnerable to this virus.  But we were pretty much completely locked down at one point in the beginning.  Why?  To answer that I'll relay a conversation I was having with a friend of mine about 13 or so months ago.  At the time we didn't have any restrictions even though this thing was growing fast.  What he had were leaders, in agreement, telling us: Hey, we don't want to shut this down, we want to keep things open, but we need you to do a few minor sacrifices for us: stay out of crowds, don't crowd up.....keep distance from others.....etc etc.  Our citizens here responded with a big fat middle finger, and continued to pack the bars and beaches, in some cases even more so out of sheer rebellion. So they put in some minimal restrictions, and said hey, we don't want to have to lock this down, so please, follow these minimal guidelines, and do the things we asked you to do previously.  The middle finger got bigger and the rebel crowd grew.  I was talking to my friend at this point, who well among the 'you can't tell me what to do' crowd (even though at that point they were asking, not telling), through his covid rebel parties, etc etc.  I told him, they're not telling us to do anything yet, they're asking to avoid a terrible situation,  But if people are going to continue to behave like this, we're going to get shut down.  His response: oh, so the if you act like a child you're going to get sent to time out game?  Basically, yeah!  And as the middle finger grew, the restrictions got tighter.  

Again, I know other places the timeline and response was different.  My point being that here at least, in a large way, we asked for the tightening of restrictions that we did get, because we refused to think of this from a perspective of community, but instead as soon as we were asked to make some minor changes for a little bit, immediately took it as an infringement on our rights, when at the time we weren't being forced to do anything.  Agree that working at both ends of the extreme happens on both ends. Agree completely and that one side is just as divisive and destructive as the other.   If I'm guilty of working on one end of the extreme, I can look at myself and fix that, because that's what I have control over.  Or, I can focus on the other side and just talk about how they too are working at the other end of the extreme, even though I have no control over how someone else is thinking and operating.  Which do you think is more productive?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, lurk_nowitzki said:

Stupid question by me: anybody have any wrestling related information and/or opinions to add to this thread?

Don’t be a troll!

But I’ll add something....If you haven’t seen  The Last Cruise check it out... it’s about the cruise ship where covid 19 tore through...in early ‘20...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lurk_nowitzki said:

Stupid question by me: anybody have any wrestling related information and/or opinions to add to this thread?

It got buried in the the thread, but @9insoft already pretty much closed the discussion by saying he's going to PSU.  Now we are waiting for the official confirmation, but there really isn't much to discuss in the meantime.  So naturally a discussion of Covid has come up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...