Echo chambering! I'm assuming you have no interest in knowing if there are any studies to support boosters in children.

I am saying it does not appear that the vaccine or boosters are effective against the current variant. I do think it's interesting that my unvaccinated coworkers (as I said some of whom had covid in 2020) seemed to be doing better than the vaccinated with this variant. I am vaccinated and have not had Covid ever.

I'm not sure but will try to find out. I do not know of anyone at work that is unvaccinated that has had Covid in 2022. Many of them had Covid prevaccine. Honestly, everyone I know of that has had it at work in 2022 has been vaccinated. Some of them have had Covid more than once in 2022, even within the last few months.

Praying for him now.

I work in healthcare where those that are unvaccinated are required to test weekly. We have seen a definite uptick in Covid infection among the fully vaccinated staff members, many of whom have had previous infections (some very recently). So far, we have had 0 infections among the unvaccinated staff.

I stand corrected. Only two recorded the rape and one of them "probably" alerted SEPTA. From the article posted by bibiche: Two people may have recorded video of the attack on their cellphone, one of whom “probably” alerted SEPTA of the attack, Stollsteimer said.

Praying

Sadly, after hearing about the incident below I'm not surprised by the inaction of the other passengers you describe. You are probably more likely to be on a social media video than to get back up from your fellow passengers. https://fox59.com/news/national-world/philadelphia-woman-raped-on-train-while-commuters-held-up-phones/

This. This discussion helps me to understand how we got to the current casual attitude regarding abortion. Sad.

For me pain means opthalmologist asap.

Is it just irritated or is it painful?

Because you are having intermittant pain I would recommend seeing an ophthalmologist asap.

100% hope this happens!

So very sorry. Praying for you all.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/04/21/musks_gambit_and_the_future_of_morality_147501.html This sounds like a great idea to me to allow for free speech on Twitter. Were Musk to eliminate Twitter’s censorship, he would thus benefit small shareholders and those of us who adhere to traditional liberalism – to the detriment of the cause of ethical wokeism. The ripple effects of such a move, however, could prove to be even more profound. Were any major social network to reopen itself to free speech, it would create demand for a new, competitive filtering industry that would provide the “protection” that today’s major social media companies insist is indispensable. Individual users could then subscribe to one or more filters – or none at all. Competition would lead to filtering that is superior in quality and better targeted to individual taste than the current monopolistic, paternalistic approaches the social networks impose upon their users. Competitive filtering would thus be great for consumers. Its impact, however, would run far deeper. It would undermine the entire basis for CDA 230 – the exemption that lets social media companies apply editorial discretion to determine what their users see while remaining exempt from editorial liability. The basic argument behind that exemption – plausible when written in 1996 – is that the only alternative is a free-for-all publishing of graphic pornography for children (hence its inclusion in the Communications Decency Act). Without such an exemption, the folks running social networks might have to take responsibility for their actions and decisions – including the decision to label perspectives they dislike as “misinformation.” A genuinely free-speech Twitter would thus motivate competitive filtering and erode the liability exemption that has helped elevate a handful of tech companies into the controllers of American speech. A Musk-led, free-speech Twitter would restore the true freedom of speech that has served America so well since its founding.

It is not the shareholders choosing not to sell. The board members, not the actual shareholders, are making the decision to choose the "poison pill" rather than sell to Musk.

Recent examples of repeating lies, misinformation and propaganda enough... Moderator, please remember Hunter Biden is not a political figure as Jen Psaki has pointed out. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins On February 19, 2020, The Lancet, among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism. Signed by 27 scientists, the statement expressed “solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China” and asserted: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Restricting participation is already happening on Twitter. I doubt he intends for there to be no moderation. Perhaps more even handed moderation would be nice. Because you have decided he isn't a "rational person" he should not be allowed to make this purchase?

We're not talking about free speech "all across the internet". We're talking about free speech on Twitter which currently does not happen. What's the "issue" with Elon Musk that you think makes him ineligible to buy Twitter? I too would like to see him start his own platform, sell all of his shares of Twitter, and sit back and watch the upcoming lawsuits filed by the shareholders against the Twitter board that would likely be filed.

Right, I know, he's not the right kind of rich guy! He actually believes in free speech, whereas the right kind of rich guys do not.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost?s=r Elon Musk has reportedly attempted to purchase Twitter, and I have no idea whether his influence on the company would be positive or not. I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity! A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while. David Sirota @davidsirota as someone who isn't a fan of Elon Musk, I still find it darkly funny that billionaire-owned media is suddenly having a moral panic about a billionaire possibly buying Twitter April 14th 2022 94 Retweets604 Likes Probably the funniest effort along those lines was this passage: We need regulation… to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication. That was Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, railing against Musk in the pages of… the Washington Post! A newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos complaining about rich people controlling “channels of communication” just might be the never-released punchline of Monty Python’s classic “Funniest Joke in the World” skit.

I can't wait to see how this shakes out. https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/elon-musk-purchases-stake-in-twitter-after-slamming-its-approach-to-free-speech

That was a great game! I didn't really care who won. I just wanted it to be a good game.

And apparently the academy did not ask him to leave as they had originally claimed. https://www.tmz.com/2022/03/31/academy-lied-asking-will-smith-to-leave-oscars-slap-chris-rock/