COVID-19

[Fbolt]

Sixstar, it's unfortunate that your rational and fact-based arguments are met with emotion, name-calling, and belittlement.

 

[TorontoGold]

That would cut both ways.

 

[GoIrish41]

I liked when the mayor in the town i live in mandated masks to go in a store. Mind you I hate both political parties equally, so I went on ebay and got a Finnish military gas mask with the big filter canister on the side, then put one of the stupid paper masks over the canister. Got alot of weird looks walking into Walmart and grocery store as a 6'6" hillbilly with a gas mask with a .45 on his hip

Cool 👍

 

[Fbolt]

That would cut both ways.

Where did he use emotion, name-calling, and belittlement in his argument?

 

[Bantry19]

Unlawful? TBD. It's contested and in the courts. For the record, I very much oppose the use of executive orders.
Illegal entry is the only choice? False. Immigrants can still seek asylum at ports of entry.

How can immigrants seek asylum when the refugee admissions program has effectively been frozen since January?

Trump Administration has already unlawfully violated the compliance framework laid out by the courts as litigation progresses.

Of course, then there’s the violation of the spirit of the law and refugee admissions program by prioritizing South Africans and lowering the ceiling of refugee admissions to an absurd 7,500 people.

You can’t possibly think Trump Administration has acted in good faith here. Serking asylum is now a dead end. Fact

Both are now US citizens, so you can't deport them. Both entered legally on visas. Their issues were post-entry work violations, and no fraud was legally found. If they had entered the country illegally, and they were within the window of deportation, agree.

Both entered under false pretenses. In fact, the only reason Melania had not been deported was because she lied about the visa fraud she had committed.

“Obtaining g a work permit does not retroactively legalize unlawful entry.”

Your words.

Hosted on yahoo, which you linked. Don't deflect. You erroneously posted an article about a family that illegally entered and tried to argue that they were here legally. Just admit you made an oopsies.

Where did I try to argue they were here legally? Didn’t happen, nor did I make an oopsie.

You missed the point. My fault for not spelling it out.

Trump campaigned on focusing deportations on “the worst of the worst” and “violent criminals.” That’s not what’s happening here. People who are trying to live and raise their families in a better world are being targeted, even as they try to navigate the lengthy and complicated road to legal status. People who have done nothing but contribute to American society are being targeted.

Yes, they came here illegally. Just as Trump’s wife and largest donor did.

First, I'm not doing anything. Second, the pendulum swings. I don't agree with restricting legal entry, but do you think Trump would have done that if the borders weren't loosened so excessively in the previous admin? Both parties have behaved badly.

Yes, I do think so. Do you think Trump is doing what he said he would while campaigning?

Encounters are the primary official metric for tracking attempted illegal crossings and is published monthly by US CBP. So, what is your gripe?



I answered the question in my first post about the topic. Messy, gray, and I see both sides. that was my position.



Okay, understood. You are not a strict party loyalist because you hold even further left progressivist foreign policy ideals than mainline Democrat policy. Fair enough.



Got it. You aren't a party loyalist because you hold more progressive ideology than mainline. Noted.



you didn't say election messaging or strategy. you said "dogshit candidates." now you are moving the goalposts to include redistricting and voting availability. I have to admit: nice retrofit.

also - don't think that I didn't notice how you didn't specify what you oppose. It was a nice attempt though.



Still lacking specificity regarding policies. Do you oppose DACA? Medicaid expansion?



Are you saying that the official 2024 Democratic Party Platform is AI generated? Because that's where I pulled the points from.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

people talk football stats here all the time. this argument is flawed from its foundation.



When did I assign a strength/weakness rating for Trump WRT illegal immigration?

Remember: encounters are the primary official metric for tracking attempted illegal crossings.

Why do I assert that the Biden admin allowed these encounters?
Obama: 550k encounters/year
Trump1: 600k encounters/yr
Biden: 1,900k encounters/yr

Find the outlier. This is data, not my feelings. What stat do you dispute here?

 

[TorontoGold]

Encounters are the official metric for attempted illegal crossings.

A three-fold surge. This is ~8.9 sigma event, about the same odds as winning the Powerball jackpot ~12 million times in a row.

So, what is your explanation for this surge, if you claim that it wasn't influenced by a major policy shift?

Economic conditions in the countries in which they were fleeing weren't exactly the greatest. Look at Mexico, huge exporter of goods to the US. We all know the supply chain issues of 2021-2022. I'm not using that a single explanation but situations like that are what I believe to have caused the surge.

Additionally, if we were to assume that the President's immigration policy directly influenced the encounters at the border. Then why did encounters increase under Trump compared to Obama? Trump's rhetoric was much stronger than Obama's. A big selling point of the first Trump admin was his border policy, and yet we saw an increase.

Deflection shields activated. "Dog-shit candidates" isn’t policy, and expanding it after the fact to mean redistricting or voting access is goalpost-moving. Just own that your first example wasn’t a policy disagreement.

It's election policy and strategy. I used dog shit candidates as an easy choice because it's easily identifiable.

you said you weren't a loyalist. i asked for receipts. your receipts were weak. now you're spiraling.

The onus is on you to prove I'm a loyalist first. You made the claim without proof, and then me (like the argumentative idiot I am) took the bait to respond to the 5 reasons why not.

I do appreciate that you answered the questions. Truly. And while I disagree with some of your answers, I do respect that you answered them. And I do agree that you have been more generous with the responses than others on the right on this board. In fact, even when we disagree, I at least respect that you try rather than resorting to name calling like others here.

I will always fight fire with fire, you're a snarky condescending SOB and so am I.

DESPITE my last paragraph, agree to disagree, haha. And you can do the same for me.

You should know by now that I don't ask for permission lol

If it wasn't purposeful, then it was either accidental, negligent, incompetent, unwilling, or just an 8.9-sigma random event. So, which is it?

You like data, so I'm speaking data terms (encounters). I'm not changing any tune.

And no, Trump didn't purposefully increase the encounters in his term. A 50k bump is less than a 0.3 sigma event. Pure statistical noise with no meaningful correlation. I thought you liked data?

I do not believe Biden's policies lead directly to the surge. I believe the larger US foreign policy and interventionalist policies within southern America lead to the destabilizing forces that in turn lead to the surge, but that is over decades and amongst many presidents.

Look at Italy - do you believe Meloni to be on the Left? She saw an increase of ~2x the number of refugees once she took over. A bit tougher to get into Italy than it is the southern border. Plenty of other examples around the world of conservative politicians seeing immigrant surges that are beyond their control.

Italy: number of refugees 1992-2024| Statista

In 2024, Italy hosted almost 313,000 refugees.

www.statista.com

 

[TorontoGold]

Where did he use emotion, name-calling, and belittlement in his argument?

Plenty. We both use it against each other. Only one of us in this threeway conversation is upset. No need to get emotional.

 

[sixstar]

How can immigrants seek asylum when the refugee admissions program has effectively been frozen since January?

Again: asylum isn't frozen. resettlement is frozen. doesn't matter how many times you say it, the fact remains: asylum isn't frozen.

Trump Administration has already unlawfully violated the compliance framework laid out by the courts as litigation progresses.

Again: it isn't unlawful until the courts deem it so. It is currently contested in court. Lawful assessment TBD.

Of course, then there’s the violation of the spirit of the law and refugee admissions program by prioritizing South Africans and lowering the ceiling of refugee admissions to an absurd 7,500 people.

No argument there.

Serking asylum is now a dead end. Fact

100 percent false, as I previously stated. Stop conflating resettlement and asylum. Stop citing opinion as fact.

Both entered under false pretenses. In fact, the only reason Melania had not been deported was because she lied about the visa fraud she had committed.

“Obtaining g a work permit does not retroactively legalize unlawful entry.”

Your words.

Facts over feelings. Both entered legally. Either you accept reality, or you continue to lie to yourself. Your choice.

Where did I try to argue they were here legally? Didn’t happen, nor did I make an oopsie.

You missed the point. My fault for not spelling it out.

Trump campaigned on focusing deportations on “the worst of the worst” and “violent criminals.” That’s not what’s happening here. People who are trying to live and raise their families in a better world are being targeted, even as they try to navigate the lengthy and complicated road to legal status. People who have done nothing but contribute to American society are being targeted.

Yes, they came here illegally. Just as Trump’s wife and largest donor did.

Yes, I do think so. Do you think Trump is doing what he said he would while campaigning?

You literally quoted my post where I said: "Why? Because immigration should happen lawfully. People are free to come to America, provided that they follow the processes and laws we have established.” And then you provided the link to the story about the family that entered illegally and retroactively applied for asylum.

But now you are moving goalposts and claiming that your focus was on nonviolent illegals? okay guy.

Again - Elon did not enter illegally. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. If you insist on continuing to ignore reality to fit your narrative, that's on you. But it holds no weight in an actual debate.

Trump said multiple things. He said he would focus on the worst first. He also said that he was going to conduct "the largest deportation operation in American history." The second statement did not qualify on criminal history - it was broad and sweeping. The first statement is objectively only partially true. The second statement is not true yet, but might scale to be the largest ever. Do I think he's doing what he said he would do? Partially.

Give me one example of a President that has perfectly followed through on all major campaign promises.

Economic conditions in the countries in which they were fleeing weren't exactly the greatest. Look at Mexico, huge exporter of goods to the US. We all know the supply chain issues of 2021-2022. I'm not using that a single explanation but situations like that are what I believe to have caused the surge.

Additionally, if we were to assume that the President's immigration policy directly influenced the encounters at the border. Then why did encounters increase under Trump compared to Obama? Trump's rhetoric was much stronger than Obama's. A big selling point of the first Trump admin was his border policy, and yet we saw an increase.

Economic conditions are always a background factor. Mexico's GDP grew by 5% in 2021 and 3.9% in 2022 while unemployment decreased. That's economic improvement (or recovery). Further, ~67% the surge came from non-Mexican nations like Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, etc..

The uptick between Obama and Trump, again, is statistical noise. Encounters plummeted initially in 2017 under Trump (~304k/yr), until migrants adapted and shifted from individuals to family units (~18% of encounters to ~64%), and asylum applications doubled, according to DHS. These shifts sidestepped Trump's original enforcements by exploiting gaps in US law, returning immigration numbers back to "normal" levels.

The surge aligns directly with the change in admins.

The onus is on you to prove I'm a loyalist first. You made the claim without proof, and then me (like the argumentative idiot I am) took the bait to respond to the 5 reasons why not.

Challenge accepted. I'll revisit and take another thread off topic in the future with this, I'm sure.

I will always fight fire with fire, you're a snarky condescending SOB and so am I.

Agree to agree.

I do not believe Biden's policies lead directly to the surge. I believe the larger US foreign policy and interventionalist policies within southern America lead to the destabilizing forces that in turn lead to the surge, but that is over decades and amongst many presidents.

Look at Italy - do you believe Meloni to be on the Left? She saw an increase of ~2x the number of refugees once she took over. A bit tougher to get into Italy than it is the southern border. Plenty of other examples around the world of conservative politicians seeing immigrant surges that are beyond their control.

Italy: number of refugees 1992-2024| Statista

In 2024, Italy hosted almost 313,000 refugees.

www.statista.com

This isn't comparable. The 2x increase was on a base of tens of thousands, not millions. And it was driven by a distinct and identifiable external event: Libya migration corridor reopening. Following the EU and Libya agreements, migrations fell ~80% within 2 years; another distinct and identifiable event.

In contrast, the US saw a 3x increase on a basis of millions, catalyzed by the rollback of Trump-era enforcement policies, and it was sustained for the entirety of the Biden admin until being squelched under Trump 2.0. What other distinctly identifiable events could explain that?

 

[ndfanatic78]

Well, I'm not usually one to argue others' points for them, but since you asked...

Third world countries with the highest homicide rates: Turks (103 per 100k), Haiti (62), Jamaica (49), Ecuador (45), South Africa (43)

#10 worst is Honduras at 31 per 100k.

Cities mentioned by IrishWayDomer:
St Louis all (54), East St Louis (112)

Chicago all (13), Greater Grand Crossing (124), Englewood (93), Fuller Park (90), Washington Park (81),

Minneapolis all (18), Phillips (25), Hawthorne (22), Near North (21)

So, you tell me: what does the homicide rate tell you about those cities?

So then why did you chime in. You keep saying you aren’t taking a position but all your conjecture sure seems to point to you thinking it’s ok to zip tie people, put them in cages, and shipping them off in planes without any due process. Now you are going to come back with “all I’m doing is brining data points.” Which is a red hearing. Your data points don’t prove anything ICE is doing is moral or legal. You are just pointing to numbers of HUMAN beings having encounters with border patrol. If border patrol was having more encounters with potential persons trying to illegally cross an imaginary line doesn’t that mean Biden’s administration was doing more to prevent illegal crossings than the 2 administrations you compare his to.

you DO realize that this family entered America illegally, yes?

Darwin Leal: immigrated in 2023 and was "released on parole after processing." Read: this was an irregular border crossing and did not come through the legal port of entry.

Wife and older daughter: entered via the southern border "por trocha" (through backroads), then turned themselves in to immigration officials.

Applying for asylum and obtaining a work permit do not retroactively legalize unlawful entry.



First, economic contribution has no bearing on the legality of US entry.

Second, while illegal immigrants do generate net economic benefits at the federal level through taxes, they also impose net negative (deficits) on state and local governments.

Tax payers are responsible for all levels.



Facts over feelings. Facts are inarguable. Would you like a mirror, or are you satisfied with your Yahoo news article that didn't back your point?

The only cost to local govt and states are medical services. How else do they negatively impact local and state govt.? I know farms in our local community are hard hit finding help to work the fields, constriction companies are having a hard time finding help for massonary and framing work.

When you are a human being fleeing persecution and have to migrate through multiple countries just to get to the border and then are told you are being refused entrance and will not even get a chance to apply for asylum and then Mexico tells you you are about to be sent back, what do you think they are going to do.

Last you keep saying you believe in facts and yet you keep implying that the Biden administration some how had a policy that encouraged this activity yet I can pull up factual evidence of his VP literally giving a speech in S. America telling immigrants not to come to America, they will be sent back. Where is your evidence other than numbers of any policy at all that his administration had encouraging them to come?

 

[ndfanatic78]

Of course, then there’s the violation of the spirit of the law and refugee admissions program by prioritizing South Africans and lowering the ceiling of refugee admissions to an absurd 7,500 people.

You can’t possibly think Trump Administration has acted in good faith here. Serking asylum is now a dead end. Fact

Dude you cant use that argument, remember Trump and his people aren’t racist. The white people, 7.3% of population, in S. Africa owning over 70% of the farm land have a very serious problem with persecution as the people of actual African decent want their land back and are actually trying to work out, through the government, a transition to a more equitable distribution of the land. But brown people who are literally being lynched, starved, and poisoned by US corporations and governments backed by the US have no reason to ask for asylum or cross an imaginary line to escape it.

Now here comes @ShamrockOnHelmet to post some stupid laughing emoji because he has absolutely nothing else to add but to laugh at the suffering of human beings while living in a country that’s greatest current export to the world is death and destruction.

And now back to blocking this thread

Go Irish!!!!

 

[Blazers46]

Is this thread not about Covid anymore?

 

[Fbolt]

Reading Toronto and 78 posts and rebuttals:

 

[ab2cmiller]

Is this thread not about Covid anymore?

Nope

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

Now here comes @ShamrockOnHelmet to post some stupid laughing emoji because he has absolutely nothing else to add but to laugh at the suffering of human beings while living in a country that’s greatest current export to the world is death and destruction.

Go Irish!!!!

That you hate it makes it even funnier. 🤷‍♂️

 

[ndfanatic78]

Reading Toronto and 78 posts and rebuttals:

Dude lay off the crack. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

 

[Fbolt]

78, I enjoy eating popcorn and watching you flail.

 

[sixstar]

So then why did you chime in.

go back and look.

gorirish41 said: "conservatives hate brown people"
then you said: "all conservative policies fuck brown communities."

I asked for evidence and provided counter-evidence.

You keep saying you aren’t taking a position but all your conjecture sure seems to point to you thinking it’s ok to zip tie people, put them in cages, and shipping them off in planes without any due process.

is that how you interpret my statements? that i think it's okay to put people in cages? where did i ever say anything close to that?

you have a twisted view on reality, guy. maybe stop strawmanning and read what i'm actually saying.

Those who enter illegally should face removal in accordance with the law, but it’s terrible to see those who are here legally getting swept up in this mess. I do not fully support the sledgehammer approach that ICE is taking.

Now you are going to come back with “all I’m doing is brining data points.” Which is a red hearing.

no, it isn't. might want to look up the definition (and spelling)

Your data points don’t prove anything ICE is doing is moral or legal.

they were never intended to. stop reaching.

You are just pointing to numbers of HUMAN beings having encounters with border patrol. If border patrol was having more encounters with potential persons trying to illegally cross an imaginary line doesn’t that mean Biden’s administration was doing more to prevent illegal crossings than the 2 administrations you compare his to.

let's establish inarguable facts:

1. laws are laws. being a human isn't a legal defense.
2. the border isn't imaginary. it is a LEGALLY defined national boundary under both US and international law.
3. encounters don't mean better enforcement, they mean more attempts and more crossings.
4. the surge coincides precisely with Biden's reversal of Trump's enforcement policies

with that said, what is your explanation for the 8.9-sigma event surge in border crossings? go ahead - i'm listening.

The only cost to local govt and states are medical services. How else do they negatively impact local and state govt.? I know farms in our local community are hard hit finding help to work the fields, constriction companies are having a hard time finding help for massonary and framing work.

education, housing, social services, to name a few. None of these are federally reimbursed. They are footed by the state and local taxpayers.

When you are a human being fleeing persecution and have to migrate through multiple countries just to get to the border and then are told you are being refused entrance and will not even get a chance to apply for asylum and then Mexico tells you you are about to be sent back, what do you think they are going to do.

facts matter. here are the inarguable facts:

1. that is not how asylum law works. under both international and US law, asylum seekers are expected to claim refuge in the first safe country they reach. if someone can safely live in mexico or any other transit nation, then that person is expected to claim refuge there.
2. fleeing persecution ends when you reach safety, not when you reach your preferred destination. asylum law protects people from immediate persecution - it doesn't grant them the ability to SELECT the US after multiple safe transit countries.
3. the US is not rejecting asylum seekers. we are still admitting them into the US, pending the asylum hearings which take years.

again, facts over feelings. it isn't cruelty, it's law.

Last you keep saying you believe in facts and yet you keep implying that the Biden administration some how had a policy that encouraged this activity yet I can pull up factual evidence of his VP literally giving a speech in S. America telling immigrants not to come to America, they will be sent back. Where is your evidence other than numbers of any policy at all that his administration had encouraging them to come?

What evidence do I have other than quantitative fully correlated official data from DHS and CBP? lol dude.

It doesn't matter what the VP said. words don't matter; actions do. Biden admin actions:

1. ended Trump's "Remain in Mexico" (MPP) program
2. ended Title 42 expulsions
3. restricted ICE removals to historic lows
4. expanded parole and asylum programs far beyond prior limits
5. halted border wall construction

these are verifiable actions, not opinions or emotions. what specific counter-evidence do you have that these didn't incentivize illegal crossings?

Dude you cant use that argument, remember Trump and his people aren’t racist. The white people, 7.3% of population, in S. Africa owning over 70% of the farm land have a very serious problem with persecution as the people of actual African decent want their land back and are actually trying to work out, through the government, a transition to a more equitable distribution of the land. But brown people who are literally being lynched, starved, and poisoned by US corporations and governments backed by the US have no reason to ask for asylum or cross an imaginary line to escape it.

stop conflating your moral rage with legal reality.

asylum isn't a sympathy program. it is a statue with five qualifying grounds. asylum requires: "credible fear of personal persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group."

this is explicitly defined and governed by the 1951 Refugee Convention and US Immigration and Nationality Act.

Race or history of land ownership in South Africa is irrelevant to asylum eligibility.

emotional comparisons don't change the fact that US asylum is a legal process, not a moral debate.

facts over feelings.

And now back to blocking this thread

strong mouth, weak spine


gattaca/toronto/banty/goirish, you all liked his post. i guess none of you care for facts?

 

[GATTACA!]

Mods need to move this thread to the politics board.

 

[RDU Irish]

Dude you cant use that argument, remember Trump and his people aren’t racist. The white people, 7.3% of population, in S. Africa owning over 70% of the farm land have a very serious problem with persecution as the people of actual African decent want their land back and are actually trying to work out, through the government, a transition to a more equitable distribution of the land. But brown people who are literally being lynched, starved, and poisoned by US corporations and governments backed by the US have no reason to ask for asylum or cross an imaginary line to escape it.

Now here comes @ShamrockOnHelmet to post some stupid laughing emoji because he has absolutely nothing else to add but to laugh at the suffering of human beings while living in a country that’s greatest current export to the world is death and destruction.

And now back to blocking this thread

Go Irish!!!!

Is this thread not about Covid anymore?

We did fund it's creation Blazer. Anthony Fauci is obviously Trump's fault.

 

[ozzman]

Promising study.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Promising study.

Too late. People have already done their own research. 😆

 

[GATTACA!]

Promising study.

Good luck surviving cancer if you’ve already died of myocarditis!!

 

[sixstar]

So, ozz, cack, and gattaca: do you openly accept the results of retrospective studies without question? Yes or no?

What are your thoughts on the study caveats, limiting results to the ~100 day ICI treatment window?

Any thoughts on why the article headline is incongruous with the limited scope of the study?

Or were you all too quick to support the article without reading the study because you wanted to confirm your bias?

 

[ozzman]

So, ozz, cack, and gattaca: do you openly accept the results of retrospective studies without question? Yes or no?

What are your thoughts on the study caveats, limiting results to the ~100 day ICI treatment window?

Any thoughts on why the article headline is incongruous with the limited scope of the study?

Or were you all too quick to support the article without reading the study because you wanted to confirm your bias?

Did I say I accepted it without question? I said it was a promising study. I'm hopeful and interested to see what happens in an expanded situation.

 

[TorontoGold]

Did I say I accepted it without question? I said it was a promising study. I'm hopeful and interested to see what happens in an expanded situation.

Imagine if the COVID vaccines could save hundreds of thousands of lives? Would be wild to have that happen! Of course you’d still have someone in diabetes socks claiming that they’re too healthy to risk it and that any positive benefit is some personal affront to their entire personality.

I guess Mossad did 9/11 has kind of lost its juice, Seth Rich and Ray Epps don’t really captivate the sentient person’s mind, and flat earth society doesn’t get the respect that antivax can provide.

You could have every government in the world, thousands/millions of lives saved, promising research done, and it STILL won’t hold a candle to guys selling supplements online who tell people it’s scam by big pharma but you should use their promo code on FreeThinkers.com for monthly supplement packages! Now, those guys are believable.

 

[SportsingHard]

sixstar: do you openly accept the results of retrospective studies without question?

ozzman: Did I say I accepted it without question?

The level of discourse here is fascinating.

 

[sixstar]

Study shows mRNA shot has statistically significant temporally-sensitive adjuvant-like effects to ICI treatments. Study and story both ignore the common challenge of relapse due to immune escape, which raises questions about the mRNA approach’s long-term viability as an alternative to established, more effective ICI adjuvants.

WaPo publishes headline stating the shots, "set off a powerful alarm that rallies the human immune system against cancer and nearly doubles the median survival length of patients"

Uninformed masses gobble up headline without recognizing or caring about incongruous conclusion or limitations. Sigh.

 

[sixstar]

Imagine if the COVID vaccines could save hundreds of thousands of lives?

Again, let's use the only government published dataset that provided raw, age-stratified death rates between vax cohorts. The graph below used their final report, before UKHSA stopped publishing the data.

Why is the death rate higher in many vaxxed cohorts? Can you point me to where the lives were saved?

Do you have any raw datasets that prove your point?

 

[GATTACA!]

Again, let's use the only government published dataset that provided raw, age-stratified death rates between vax cohorts. The graph below used their final report, before UKHSA stopped publishing the data.

Why is the death rate higher in many vaxxed cohorts? Can you point me to where the lives were saved?

Do you have any raw datasets that prove your point?

Because people that feel the need or are/were being recommended multiple doses are rough vulnerable shape to begin with.

Why does it seem like people that have gotten chemo are dying at a higher rate than the average person who hasn't?? Is chemo lethal??

 

[sixstar]

Everyone was being recommended multiple doses. Targeting highest risk occurred early in vax rollout, but this data is from 2022, when vax was available to, and administered to, the masses.

Plus, if the vax was saving even thousands of lives, you would see a decrease signal correlated with vax uptake. The data here ranges from zero signal to inverse signal.