.2% and Natural Immunity

Activity on our Forums and Pinecam's has been dwindling for years for precisely the reason that homeagain stated - they're all on Facebook community groups and NextDoor now. That has nothing to do with who's currently in office, it's been decreasing for years to the point that Pinecam recently posted that they are looking for volunteers or they are going to shut down the site by the end of the year. Frankly, I find that sad; at least they're locally run, and FB and NextDoor sucks - most people I talk to hate them.

I can't speak for others, but the reason you don't see me in here much anymore is for 2 reasons: 1.) I have 2 jobs, a family to spend time with, and am volunteering for the Jeffco Wildfire Commission, Elk Creek Fire, and three nonprofits and 2.) it's a waste of time for me to provide factual rebuttals that people simply ignore because it doesn't agree with their pre-held notions. Exactly like that absurd "Johns Hopkins study" about lockdowns that was recently posted. My rebuttal was pretty much duplicated and expanded on in the MedPage Today article that HA just posted and it was called laughable. rick, you've posted multiple times that "your worthless media sources" (as if you've ever checked out the sources I say I use, or that others say they use) don't cover some story and then when I cite actual examples, it's ignored. Why should I bother? I'd rather spend my time posting news and events, updating MMT's calendar, covering emergency incidents, and working on my site upgrade.

If this site is merely used to vent anger or to beat a dead horse rather than have an actual conversation where both sides listen and debate back and forth, people feel like their opinion isn't valued and they leave. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with who's in the White House. There's plenty that I'm pissed off about with the Biden Administration which I'm sure you'd applaud, but why should I bother bringing it up here when my other equally valid points that don't conform are just ignored?

P.S. Yes natural immunity is important, NO, it is not more beneficial than vaccines that are developed specific to a virus (and you can find that data in published papers because it hasn't been ignored in the scientific community). As evidenced by the DATA showing that the vast majority of people who are dying are unvaccinated. If the natural immune system were better, that would not the the results we see, but IT IS. If you ignore that, you're getting outraged by cherry-picked fake news and you don't give a damn about the truth.

Edit to add: Wayne didn't leave because he was insulted, he left because he was angry with what ramage said. He had every right to be angry over something that was below the belt, and to leave. He didn't harass admins to ban the other person, he should get credit for that?

That other poster you mentioned was banned because he repeatedly said horrific things and abused multiple members of this site in violation of the TOS. He is not welcome here.

I didn't call Fiore's comment laughable, Rick called my response laughable.

I didn't say that economists don't have a right to address COVID and it's consequences, but yet again you and Rick both chose only one small part of my entire response to address, ignoring all the rest. The fact that it's from economists means you need to take it in that context that they are only going to focus on the economic impact and not the health, societal, et al impacts. They also cherry-picked the studies which they included and it was NOT peer-reviewed, rather published by the institute which one of the authors runs.

Did you see that interview by the AP reporter in which he kept questioning (Axios, but feel free to search for whatever source you prefer about Matt Lee confronting the Biden administration, the story is in them all) the Biden administration official to provide evidence other than just his word that Russia was trying to conduct a false-flag operation? It's exactly like that - just saying something is so doesn't make it so without proof.

Being skeptical of that which you agree with is just as important than being skeptical of that which you don't. If one does not bother to check into that paper's citations, conclusions, etc but just grab this one headline from the National Review about one publication that isn't up to snuff and presenting it as worthy for news organizations to treat as credible diminishes the credibility of those who swallow it without question.