And that's precisely the problem. Yes of course there are sides, and it's not just "health" vs "economy". Many very established epidemiologists, virologists, medics, most of them with decades of experience and from very renowned institutions openly and in a non-emotional manner outlined why all of this is likely to be about half as dramatic as people make it out to be. But yes, there are also voices to the opposite. There’s the sides

And that's not even to mention the COMPREHENSIVE dialogue between what indeed are even more different sides that very urgently needs to happen.

I'm fully aware of how to report a post. My query is how a certain member can make the stated claim. Is a member of the mod team divulging who is reporting their posts?

While the syndicates in Romandie are against reopening of schools (some EFers say it's impossible) scheduled in 3 weeks, Sweden's infectious diseases chief has said parts of the country could achieve "herd immunity" as early as next month

Bloomberg: Sweden Says Controversial Virus Strategy Proving Effective

At a guess it could be all behind the scenes with red rep and pm's.

Of course it could be those nefarious mods always up to no good by trying to not censor a forum and act in a light handed manner. Where are the doubleplusgood mods when you need them?

Here you are repeating the "Some EF'ers say it is impossible" mantra again, while what we said is that it is impossible to host the kids in their normal groups in the same buildings while respecting the current restrictions for distance. We never said re-opening schools is impossible.

Also that Swedish chief has indeed said that, but he cannot answer these 3 questions:

1. How much of Sweden is or has been infected, and how much of those are currently immune.
2. How long do anti-bodies remain and how much are needed to be effective.
3. What percentage of the population has to be immune to be able to have an effective group immunity when it comes to this specific disease.

Now I have the idea that you do not care at all about these questions, nor will you answer them, but they have to be answered before a successful herd-immunity can be declared.

Also "fun" that this is the same expert who first declared that Sweden is not doing a herd-immunity approach but later changed that into that Sweden has been going for a herd-immunity approach.

Wow - and I got one which got very close followed by months of stress and very weird issues.

Blueangel- yes that is a real concern - I hope NOT.

I've been a mod. I know the arguments that go on behind the scenes on forums such as EF and they're often more divided than the general membership because that's how you maintain an even handed approach. But we never, ever divulged info from the mod and admin forums to the general membership.

The biggest impact it's on our own selves!

(Is it grammatically correct? lol)

Quite right, as is the case here.

I've dropped about 4-5 days of this threads posts so I might have missed the one where it was said that there was direct contact between a mod and a poster.
Did it happen or is it just an assumption?

You think an anonymous forum of this size shouldn't be "censored"*? What an optimistic person you are.

*Moderated is the word.


So, you basically don't know what happened but assume it's an assumption? Nice work.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Moderated, not censored. The line between the two can become blurry.

I'm a happy pessimist. I expect the worst and am happy to be proven wrong.
A person would have to be an optimist hoping to be on an anonymous forum of this size and not see any views that differ from their own.

Moderated, that's the word. Why do you assume people want something else?

It was you who implied other users want "censorship".

Maybe you should follow your own advice and agree to read other opinions on moderating too. How about that?

Not the best wording but I think he's talking about groaning and the content of posts in this thread, not reporting posts.

If it's about distinguishing between real news and fake, then I would prefer censorism and allow to post personal experiences and opinions only.

Reason is that probably nobody on this forum has the skills to distinguish about real and fake, and information is outdated quickly.

I assume some people want something different due to the multiple posts asking for posters banned or even a seperate thread where things must be kept serious.

I said they're trying not to censor, not that people wanted censorship. Please take your own advice on reading. As for opinions on moderating I like the light touch that is here now, I've read the other opinions and am happy with the way it is.

How about you don't edit your posts to add extra snark?

Why shouldn't I edit my posts?

I edit it right now: take your own advice and accept different opinions.

On the BREXIT thread, a member said they had reported a post of mine for bullying, a Mod responded in that thread & my post remained in full.

In my opinion it's disingenious to add further points to a post or a thinly veiled jab at a person in an edit.
Of course there is the reason for edit box which can add clarity.

Your opinion may differ and I accept that.

I don't know why you're getting riled up with me assuming a poster feels attacked with groans and PM's and me asking a question about what happened. Simple posts and you're out the gate going for the throat, by all means you've won the internet for today and I'm none the wiser as to how some people are sure that mods are sharing information with members.