rattlesnake

"Only 3 shots"…

People seem to have very weak immune systems.

I am seeing lots of sick people at the moment. Average number of Covid jabs received by said people: 3.

Whoever had this brilliant idea of creating accounts to start clickbait threads is going to do this forum more harm than good in the long term.

Yes, I meant they are over in the sense that the safety justification for choosing this more constraining process is no longer relevant. But just a subjective opinion of course.

Pay when ordering, the days of "always pay cash on delivery for safety" are over, just make sure the seller has a good reputation on the platform.

The New Normal.

I have lost count of how many such testimonies I have heard. And yet a few here still live in denial.

The Spike protein is the gift that keeps on giving.

"Long Covid"…

May… or may not.

We live in a clown world.

Lots of sick people at the moment.

Bloody foreigners.

It used to be the city of no crimes. The New Normal…

What ditch is that, gamb00ler?

The issue discussed is censorship, not its justifications.

You too are missing the point. Let's continue with your analogy. Would you see it as problematic if an authority figure were to say "I am the sole competent authority in the field of urban navigation and this is incontrovertibly the only street everyone should go down, those who even remotely suggest another route are threats to society", before stating two years later "Going down that road was a mistake"?

Here are a couple, paywalled links for reference and archived links to access the actual article. Many censored social media posts did not contain Covid-19 misinformation A large proportion of posts the government targeted for removal by the digital platforms promoted wild conspiracy theories and misinformation but many others ­simply questioned the effectiveness of lockdowns and masks, shared information now accepted as accurate, and urged people to protest against pandemic measures. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/many-censored-social-media-posts-did-not-contain-covid19-misinformation/news-story/c47a8217ffada2cf576475aef3c12c63 https://archive.ph/BGZ43#selection-305.5-305.77 Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly Government and social-media companies colluded to stifle dissenters who turned out to be right. […] Twitter blacklisted Stanford physician and economist Jay Bhattacharya for showing Covid almost exclusively threatened the elderly, severely reducing the visibility of his tweets. When Stanford health policy scholar Scott Atlas began advising the White House, YouTube erased his most prominent video opposing lockdowns. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-censorship-proved-to-be-deadly-social-media-government-pandemic-health-697c32c4 https://archive.ph/1qaUr#selection-457.37-457.392

Again, you are missing the point. The issue isn't about the effectiveness of masks or lack thereof, it is about Fauci's propensity to assert things in the name of "Science" and then make about-turns a little further down the road.

From the horse's mouth, is that credible enough? Fauci Said Masks 'Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,' Email Reveals Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in February 2020 that store-bought face masks would not be very effective at protecting against the COVID-19 pandemic and advised a traveler not to wear one. https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703

You guessed wrong. This article is an example of the multifaceted government censorship which I was referring to.

And your response was: There were no conspiracy theories around closing schools, it happened in most countries in the world. The fact that they are now saying it was a mistake to keep them closed for so long says what? You thought I was referring to an actual conspiracy, when I was only referring to the term "conspiracy theorist" and its use as a lever of censorship. This initial misunderstanding has led you astray in your subsequent interpretations.

Okay, I will simplify to the extreme. 2020-2021: Government says "close schools for most of the year". Critics say "it will do more harm than good, they should be reopened". Government says "it is anti-science speech and misinformation". 2024: Government says "we should not have closed schools for most of the year".

You are completely missing the point. Facebook complied to government-steered censorship, which was multifaceted. Another example from the UK: Ministers' had 'chilling' secret unit to curb lockdown dissent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-secret-unit-covid-lockdown-b2350647.html