I've said it many times before but I'll guess it's not the last time I will repeat: if you are not familiar with basic flying, electronics and airline ops, your chances of correctly understanding the Airbus FBW are close to nil. If despite unfamiliarity with aforementioned you still have the urge "to know" about the uncoupled sticks it is very easy to satisfy it by believing folks claiming to be experts while airing theories that only show they either have never got into transport cockpit or enjoy misleading others.
Uncoupling the sticks is not an issue because when it comes to transports
only one pilot can be in control at any time, be it left, right or auto. Grabbing the wheel from your cockpit significant other or "helping" him/her is not an usual, approved procedure (there is good reason for it) and can be used only in extremis and for very limited period of time. Also algebraic sum of sticks nicely replaces the rigid coupling; as simple spring makes displacement proportional to force the effect is the same as if two pilots were fighting over coupled controls.
Both AAIB and BEA noted it is not possible for assisting pilot to know what inputs the handling pilot makes with coupled sticks. Neither made any conclusion or recommendation regarding it; most of the interpretations of their position you could read on this thread are pure conjecture. It might come as news to some but while you are flying stable and not particularly maneuverable aeroplane with relatively large weight and C.G. range, it's not just amplitude of your colleague's across the cockpit inputs of concern to you, neither is your own when you are PF. How much pull? Just as much as it is needed and feedback is not through wheel/stick, it is from aeroplane's attitude as observed on AH or through windshield.
Artificial feel is not there to help you feel speed error, it is designed to a) prevent you from ripping your aeroplane apart through overload or
killing passengers at high speed b) have reasonable forces and maneuverability at low speed maneuvering e.g. landing. If aeroplane gets mistrimmed, pilot trying to get the aeroplane to proper flying speed will have to fight the stick forces while retrimming. No need for a lot of imagination to understand what happens to pilot firmly believing he can feel speed deviation through wheel. Thomsonfly at Bournemouth might provide some clue.
That Airbus is unstallable is early marketing hype turned into libel. No such claim can be found in FCOMs or derived from them, at least by the reasonable and knowledgeable pilot. Airbus FBW has very clear architecture, modes of operations, operating procedures and limitations. Those unable to cope with it are welcome to air their inability to understand it on PPRuNe but shouldn't be type rated. In ideal world, that is.
200 hours wonders made their way into multi engine heavies' cockpits since at least WW2. Except the hype, there is nothing out there to suggest that they were inadequate in their role or that those who couldn't cope with basic items, such as flaring to land at 10 hours could somehow be magically taught at 200, in heavy. Type rating course just shows you the difference between flaring 172 and 777. In the days of yore, it was done in 6 circuits. I don't see folks who made their first landing in type on line after ZFT bending airframes a lot, can anyone?
As there are a few folks who managed to keep the bus within protection limits and still wreck it and LoC accidents are fortunately rare even on unprotected aeroplanes, protected FBW was not made mandatory on passenger transports. As what you read about it on PPRuNe is mostly untrue, it is not banned or Airbus was asked to redesign it either.