Leaderboard

Interesting that you used the word "indictment". According to this document, it was pretty much a conspiracy of the "entire" Biden administration. But only one person is named as having any charges. Four years of liberals saying that conservatives were crazy. And four years of conservatives saying that this was a conspiracy. Which was right? We now have the official answer. It was just another flu that happened to be on the stronger than average level. And we shut down the entire world over it. Does anyone else find it convenient that this report was released just after Biden pardoned Hunter? Does anyone else find it convenient that both of these actions happened about a month after elections -- after the deadline for any recounts or possible runoffs were passed? Nope. Nothing to see here. No coverup at all. Obviously, conservatives were just being paranoid. Liberals still take special measures to avoid COVID today.

In all seriousness, the town I live in is relatively peaceful. In a normal year, we have 1 - 2 homicides, and the police generally crack the case within a reasonable amount of time. In 2020, we had 6+ homicides. ...With most of the deaths coming from a family annihilation. ...That has been attributed to the lockdown. That's what is going to stick with me more than anything else, the fact that the stress caused by the lockdown led to an entire family no longer being alive.

Trust me - there are people who remember.

I believe this is a semantic argument. From a layman's perspective, that is essentially all it was. Consider the following. DIFFERENCES From your link: I don't see a whole lot here that says that it was any different from the common flu in any meaningful sense. From a practical perspective, it was a severe flu. You can pick nits all you want. And you'd probably be right. But from a layman's perspective of the effects for over 90% of the population, these items listed above indicate that the effects we see as patients resemble the flu with heightened levels of severity in several ways. And the level of severity is not sufficient to really treat this with much more scrutiny than a common influenza virus. These are good points. But they are outliers. They primarily affect those who already have health issues especially those who are already hospitalized. And some claim that was only for people who got the vaccine. (This is unconfirmed, of course. But we really don't know.) But the flu also causes more dangerous symptoms in the elderly and those who are already weakened or hospitalized. But the "more symptoms" are simply "different". Whether they are "more deadly" is part of my conceding that it was a "stronger than average level." These few differences may or may not be enough to induce the average person to consider additional protocols. But I consider the shutdown of the entire world to be overkill. And the grift that ran rampant throughout the entire era is enough for me to say: That was too much! Wouldn't it be great if it were possible to actually get the real numbers of deaths and hospitalizations so we could compare? That would tell us volumes about how much of it was hype and how much was necessary. But because of the way they funded everything, the level of grift during those years caused it to be greatly exaggerated. So, we may never know.

I find myself having a hard time getting worked up over this. We’ve had how many years for folks to get this taken care of? What’s happening now is people who just haven’t bothered to take the necessary steps are finding out there are consequences for their inaction. I could make a comment about the parable of the 10 virgins but won’t. I fully realize this perspective is somewhat lacking empathy and I own that. My wife was also in the circumstance where her surname name changed when we were married. She later went to probate court to make the first name by which she had been going her entire adult life her legal first name. Following that, she also went through the process to have her birth certificate updated to reflect her alternative names. This didn’t change her birth name, it simply noted there are other legal names by which she is known. When she went in to upgrade to an enhanced license (it’s like a Real ID on steroids) she had all her paperwork with her and had no issues whatsoever. It took her no longer than it took me to make the change. The issue women who’ve change their name are running into is they don’t have supporting documentation. It’s a legal change; one needs to keep that documentation handy and in a safe place. This wasn’t the only time my wife has been asked to present that supporting documentation. If one doesn’t have their documentation, it takes time and effort to obtain it or recreate it. With the deadline looming just a couple of days away, time is the one resource no one has.

That is normally how it is characterized. But certain social scientists define it a different way: If it takes more energy to be social than the energy one receives from being social, that person is an introvert. If one receives more energy by being social than it takes, that person is an extrovert. Many people are not stuck in either tendency forever. Sometimes, people can change back-and-forth throughout their lives. IOW: Here is how it manifests in me: I'm not good at "mingling." This is usually the common setting that people socialize. When I was single, I was never good at "dates." There were only two exceptions to that rule. My (now) wife was one of them. I have always been good in "forced interaction" like when we go to work, or a class. I've excelled at public speaking and group discussions (both as a leader as well as a participant). "Well, aren't social gatherings/mingling just a group discussion?" Yes, I suppose they are. But usually a "classroom" situation puts some order and focus to it. This very forum has some "order" to it. In a group where you're mingling, there is no order to the discussion. You can't really get your point across or fully explore a question in the midst of chaos. It seems that for both Vort and me, the question is this: Is it energizing or enervating? For me, I change back and forth because of the type of encounter. If it is ordered, it takes less energy from me. If it is chaotic, it takes more energy from me. Additionally, the individual(s) I'm with will also require more or less energy to be around them. What about just playing? I never learned to play when I was young*. So, unfortunately, I see games as a competition. And that's not why people play games. I don't know how to "play". So, it is always enervating. If it is an actual competition (OTOH) then I'm in. *I did play with my kids when they were younger. But that was where there was a special dynamic that we just don't have in the world of those over 10. I simply can't apply that same attitude to peers.

No there aren't. Those questions have been pretty soundly answered for a lot of years now. Including most recently, the 2024 house report which I'll link here (again, for like the third time in this thread): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024.12.04-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT-ANS.pdf And the indictment doesn't just fall on China, but also the WHO.