Who owns this site? Who funds it? That will dictate whether we can offer a space for free speech or not. Seriously: does anybody know anything about this???

The fewer rules the better (agree on no porn). Spammers can be dealt with by downvoting. Everything else is a slippery slope. E.g. no violence: means we can not post videos of violent crimes or protests. "No nazis" (to whoever posted that): who defines "nazis", and why not "no antifa", "no communists", "no globalists", "no bolsheviks", "no marxists", "no leninists"? Hope you get the point. No personal attacks would just lead to overmoderation; again: this can be dealt with by downvoting; banter must be allowed.

How can we ensure that the shadowbanning fuckery from thedonald.win does not happen here?

In theory. But I guess that would be criminal :)

Not exactly that one, but a similar test, yes.

That's pretty innocent. Try the 6 million rollercoaster question.

Also genocided their older populace. Nobody over the age of 60 could receive a Covid-19 diagnosis and was refused ANY treatement, even simple outpatient oxygen. Hospitals had orders to refuse admission to anybody over 60 with Covid-19 symptoms. Doctors were told to keep their patients "comfortable", i.e. let them die. Those who went against those orders lost their license. That's socialist medicine for you. No wonder they have no Covid-19 deaths if they refuse to count them. Stop gloryfying this most horrific genocide of the elderly imaginable!

Edit: downvotes for stating facts isn't going to make them go away. This place already feels like reddit.

WELCOME BACK!!!

You are correct. From a purely epidemiological standpoint, there are two problems though:

A. They don't know if any of the current vaccines prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2. What they do know is that those who reveiced the vaccine are less likely to die from Covid-19. They don't know if those people are less likely to contract SARS-CoV-2, or have an asymptomatic infection, or get Covid-19 in a more moderate form (not leading to death). On this note: people who received vaccines such as BCG in the past are significantly less likely to run into any problems with SARS-CoV-2, anyway. So there might be some underlying immunological mechanism there that does not have anything to do with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine specifically.

B. Since they don't know if those who received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can or cannot contract a SARS-CoV-2 infection, as outlined in point A., they also don't know if those people do not continue to spread the virus. (E.g. if the vaccine merely lessens the symptoms of an infection you'll end up with more asymptomatically infected people who spread the virus far wider than symptomatic ones).

Yo, dude, this is an antigen rapid test. PCR tests are reported with CTs (cycle thresholds). Doctors diagnose and treat patients, not lab results.

Voice of reason. Ty.

For the sake of discussion: the speaker also did not present a sealed can of Coke that had not been tampered with. He merely claimed that the glass contained Coke, but someone with Covid-19 could have spat into it :)

Do you really belive that what is shown here is a PCR test ? ROFLMAO. Go to university, study biochemistry, then re-join the disussion in a number of years. Bye.

OP has no idea what he's talking about. Initially, there was a model. However, the first SARS-CoV-2 isolate was obtained in the 3rd/4th week of January from an outbreak in the South of Germany, which was one of the first isolates outside of China (Thailand isolated the virus around the same time, very early into the pandemic).

Edit: sorry, it wasn't OP, it was the idiot that doesn't know what a PCR test is. OP has no idea though, either.