Winston

May I suggest being careful giving the data too much credit, " 50% of the people in the hospital with covid are vaxxed" "With" not "for" or "have" covid. I say this because the data does not indicate if people in the hospital are in there because of covid, or were infected with covid in the hospital while say in surgery for a completely different issue. The data does not indicate the reason someone enters the hospital, their age, or any comorbidities. Functionally the data is too generalized to formulate a conclusion.

This is false equivalency. Obey stops signs, speed limits, traffic lights and wear seatbelts are laws created for the public to follow, with evidence pointing to cases where failure to do so causes great harm or death. Obey stops signs would be equivalent to washing your hands at a hospital. What you are suggesting instead is we manage where stops signs are placed and how we should design or run stop signs in neighborhoods. Why would we be asked to manage stops signs or hospitals, we pay into such systems so we are not required to think about such things. What is the point of paying managers if we are the managers of these systems? The equivalency would be for a mobile company telling you that you use too much internet, thus you are to blame for the shortage in bandwidth, thus they force you to use less internet or limiting your phone. Although this may be true, this is not your problem. You pay for them to solve these problems for you. There is nothing about pay for service system that is community based. If it was a voluntary system, where your responsibilities were treated as payment, I could see your point. But its not.

The general public is not responsible for maintaining the health care system. There are a number of high paid individuals who chose to take a position. A position where they maintain the health care system, specifically for the greater good of the public. Look to those individuals who are responsible, not the general public, if need be replace the responsible individuals. Generally we do not blame young teens for breaking their leg and causing an extra body in the emergency system. Vaccines are not a guarantee and do not prevent hospitalizations or ICU cases.

Have we considered that jbander is trolling the form? No attempt at an argument is made, or tasteful discussion of evidence or recognition of fact.

Please read above, I address this, Malone has no example of lying, holds many titles and is respected in the scientific community. Please consider taking a few critical thinking, introduction to logic and reasoning courses, university level preferably. They will help you form a complete understanding on how to determine facts, statements, opinions and falsehoods.

Does anyone know why the BC CDC has not updated the data or date in their summary? http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data The last update was for December 9, We are almost a month in, yet it should be updated every week. "Data summary- The surveillance deck is a summary of COVID-19 related indicators that can help inform the pandemic response in British Columbia. "

I can not find a direct quote of Malone saying or indicating he was the sol inventor of mRNA. Articles stating that "he invented the vaccination" is completely different than Malone saying "he invented the vaccination", one is looking for monetary funding, the other is scientific/engineering dishonesty ( see Elon Musk example above). I 100 % agree, most, if not all biochemical projects are created and solved using 100s of people. Again we are talking about the Elon type of problem the world has, the idea that a leader must take credit for all worked accomplished, which as you pointed out is dishonest. The issue is that your premise has no evidence still, the claim that Malone stated he is the sol inventor does not appear to exist. I have many examples of articles citing him as the inventor, and yes they are incorrect, but that should not affect his own value. What exactly does Malone state that is a lie? Malone holds several position and academic titles, and is considered an expert in the field. This is respected. Although he may not be right on certain positions does not mean we should not hear him out.

If I may be a bit more specific, he discovered the method used in the technology. He helped with the creation of the technology. He, along with over a 100 other scientists invented mRNA technology. I think people get hung up on "he invented the technology" as it seems to indicate a solo venture. As you know, we tend to say silly things like this in society all the time, for example Elon musk made the model X, but in reality he took part in a section o social funding for the car, not the engineering. Semantics aside, Dr. Malone is a qualified expert to speak on virology, irrelevant of the invention position he held.

Based on the articles, Dr. Malone discovered the possibility of transfer mRNA by liposome for signal cellular information transfer. As you know, this would result in the production of proteins within the cell of that specific mRNA strand information. Dr. Malone did not invent mRNA vaccinations (no one did, it was a joint effort), but he also did not claim that he did either (unless one could find such a specific claim). It would be quite difficult to be a "100% bullshiter" in the scientific community, especially with the risk of loosing your, BSc, MSc and MD title. Dr. Malone studied in the field of biochemistry, biology and virology. These fields of science are quite difficult, not something your average person attempts. Dr. Malone is a virologist and immunologist, with a decent positive track record, one would say an expert in virology. Generally we are told to listen to the experts. We should be allowed to listen to the differing opinions of professional virologists or an immunologists, irrelevant of the information conveyed.

"handicapé intellectuel" Don't worry, as we found out earlier, trolls can't understand French.

90% how did you come to such a percentile? What data did you use? jbander1A you keep mentioning the term "hatred" in several posts, but never give an example of what it looks like or which group is hating? This is quite disorganized.

Why does the carbon tax exist if it is not to counter the effects of carbon emission? "A carbon tax will be only successful when it stops the economy and people start dying in mass - something we could achieve by simply starting a war."- that sounds quite unethical, so we can agree that the carbon tax should not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong, your saying that the system is complex, we must view more than one action at any given time, from burning gas to also include cutting down trees. I would agree, there is more to the climate or environment that one specific input. What I am specifically showing is that the system is complex, as you mentioned, probably nonlinear. Thus a full understanding of how the total system responds to a specific input is required before any generalized taxation can take place. If we do not know how the basics of the system behaves with simple mass to a change in climate, how can we implement a carbon tax? Unless I am mistaken. This is precisely what I am looking for, without a generalization, per mass of CO2 is causing per unit of what exact monetary impact? (since the tax is monetary)

No link? There are numerous problems with this idea, even the idea that a vaccination would have prevented the death is false. Recent stats indicate the death rate is higher in the vaccinated 70+ age group, compared to the unvaccinated 70+ age group death rate. http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-12-09-Data_Summary.pdf The father 90 years of age had roughly a 29% chance of dying if infected. Under what criminal offence should this person be charged? How is this criminal? The choice still resided with the father not the son, unless you can provide evidence that the son forced the father to avoid vaccination, no such "criminal" case could be made.

Ill expand on my question as it is not exact. For example burning a specified amount of diesel a week, causes 1 kg of Co2 gas to be released into the atmosphere, what specific effect(s) does this 1kg release of CO2 have to the climate or change in climate? I am not looking for generalizations or an LCA, but specific measurable changes, from mass released to resultant climate change. Why? If specific steps or cycles are know for say 1 kg of CO2 emission, the results could be quantifiable, thus predictable with acceptable uncertainty. This predictability would seem scientifically justifiable to use in taxation. 50 dollars per Tonne of CO2 emitted is the minimum number enforced federally by 2022. The exactness of the number indicates either a rounding or an arbitrary price setpoint. However without knowing the precise measurable results per CO2 Tonne emitted, this number could be far too high or far too low.

I am curious how does a group or an individual measure the effect they have on the global climate temperature or changes in weather?

There is quite a few statements to this post, for example hatred, what hatred are you referring to? Can you give an example? The way your paragraph is written explores many ideas all jumbled together, no direct point or argument statement. Alternatively maybe this is your way to mentally vent.

Only they could answer this question, but few if anyone is asking this question publicly.

Most of the hospitalizations come from 30+ in the unvaccinated group. On the other hand, most of the hospitalizations come from the 50+ in fully vaccinated age group. This would indicate, comparing older age groups, the hospitalizations are nearly equal, at 100 per million unvaccinated to 95 per million fully vaccinated. The point is that for the older generation, vaccination and hospitalizations are nearly identical irrelevant of vaccine status. Even the death rate is higher for 70+ fully vaccinated group than for the 70+ unvaccinated. Hence, In terms of data analysis, age and preexisting health conditions, would be primary predictors of expected outcomes. Since most of the deaths occur in the 50+ age group, we could focus on treating those in the 50+ age group and maintaining health in that 50+ age group, instead of focusing on vaccine status for the groups below the 50+.

According to BC CDC week 49 situational report total annual numbers (Jan 2020- Dec 2021) 70% of hospitalizations are from the 50+ age group. 75% of ICU patients are from the 50+ age group. 96% of deaths are from the 50+ age group. 57% of those deaths are from the 80+ age group. 90% of the 50+ age group population is vaccinated, yet the 50+ age group has the highest numbers of any age reference point. In terms of data analysis, age and preexisting health conditions, would be primary predictors of expected outcomes.

One could point out that a change in word does not make light of or change the statement. Even if evil was replaceable, it is quoted in the bible several times over, with the same meaning. Someone else causing evil |ie misery|, would be the hold the same meaning as god creating evil | ie misery|. " I make peace, and create | adversity, affliction, calamity, distress misery, woe|" they are all synonyms of the word evil. God still creates horrible actions, from affliction to misery, quite immoral.

At this point, I don't see the value of further discussion with you. I don't believe you are interested at all in any information I gave you.- All the information you provided me, I provided an answer back, showing you how it is a circular argument, has a lack of scientific understanding, or has a misleading unfounded conclusion. You have your mind closed.- Not at all, I just expect measurable evidence or a solid argument, like most unbelievers. So I won't pursue this any further at this point. - I understand, you have been shown a different perspective about your religion, and you wish to remove yourself from the conversation. You went into the discussion in the hopes of changing my mind, but not your own. It is pointless as far as I can see.- You see it as pointless because I do not believe in a god as of yet, which tells me you went into the discussion in the hopes of changing my mind, but not your own. You take the opposite position and do not seem to hear anything I put forward. So I will leave it at that. - I heard everything you put forward, and I countered it with logic, science or simple acknowledgment of circular arguments. Providing information that has unfounded conclusions or a lack of scientific understanding has no value in a debate. To conclude this conversation There is no evidence of a god, let alone a biblical god. The god of the bible appears to behave sadistic and psychopathic, tempting with the intent to harm, killing and murdering children for his pleasure.

If atheism is true then all our thoughts and values, and all our deepest convictions, including our belief in the validity of logical argument and the existence of mathematical and scientific truths, are simply an accidental by-product of our cerebral biochemistry and the mindless movement of atoms. - This individual does not understand how biology or chemistry or physics works, "accidental, by-product or mindless" are terms not used in any of those fields of study. Our thoughts transpire through systems of both chemical and physical atomic/molecular interaction, primarily led by our genes or environment. The system's primary goal is to thrive and reproduce. Subjective morality exists purely from a collective understanding and genetic propagation of the individual, thus the collective. For example, allowing killing of individuals in a collective inhibits the collective ability to prosper genetically. This means we are deluding ourselves when we think that we have free will, and with it, that inner freedom to weigh evidence and judge between conflicting arguments without which there can be no successful pursuit of truth, or acquisition of knowledge.- Initial premise incorrect. Assumption that biological thoughts have no value is not determined and factually wrong, since there are unbelievers. For example people who both are not religious and do not believe in a god are still ethically functional, and can behave morally. This occurs without having “free will” (undefined). This argument also can be applied to those that do believe in a god, as their minds are the same physically as those that do not. By this argument, thoughts of God are a chemical illusion just as much as free will thoughts are a chemical illusion. In reality, all our reasoning and conclusions are nothing more than the unplanned result of a long chain of entirely random non-rational physical causes over which we have no control.- There is nothing random or non-rational about our minds unless you want to talk about quantum interplay of the mind. The mind works quite well towards a goal, the goal of surviving and reproducing, nothing random or non-rational about the system. This idea is also incorrectly applied to evolution. A lack of understanding of biology or physics is no reason for an unfounded conclusion. In other words, if we have no souls and no spiritual connection to God as the ultimate source of reason and truth, it follows that our brains, and therefore all our mental activity, are imprisoned within a process of physical determinism that discredits all thinking. - Minds are imprisoned within a process of genetic determinism, but this does not discredit the thought process or genetic goal. Why would this discredit our thinking? Physical determinism does not mean anything is discredited, it just means there will be a genetic thought process for an individual which may vary slightly per individual. We cannot be sure that any of our thoughts correspond to reality, moral or scientific, since we are biologically conditioned to think them regardless of whether they are true or not. - This is based on the premise there is absolute truth or untruth, no support that absolute/objective truth exists was produced. I would argue absolute truth does not exist. Genetic individual or group truth exists, but it is not objective, only subjective. By discrediting all thinking, including their own, atheists cut their own throats philosophically. Their view of ultimate reality is therefore self-refuting." - Random sentence without a premise, why would we discredited our thinking just because it is genetically favorable thinking? Could quantum physics play a role in changing our thinking? Potentially, but that is inconclusive. The assumption that our thoughts are only genetically or environmentally controlled thus makes them discredited is exactly how it sounds, an assumption. No argument was made that are thoughts are discredited, especially when our thoughts have built the world, observe the world and interact with the world around us. Since you are challenging me on my morals, where does God get his morals from? And the answer can not be "god" because that is a circular argument. Otherwise I could say I get my morals from my morals, you see the circular logic. I have commented on many of your questions. Please answer the question, how do you not see god's behavior as sadistic or psychopathic? If a human were to act like god, killing and hurting others, would that person not be considered psychopathic or at least sadistic?

Since by definition God is the reference point of what is good and evil, and you claim to be able to judge God, what is your reference point for such claims? - I do not have a belief in objective good or objective evil, those are religious concepts created to bring order to a collective through theocracy. I would not force my ideas of right or wrong on someone, instead I would recommend a system in which one should operate in the collective for the benefit of the collective. This provided the individual does not lose any simple agreed upon rights of that individual. Simplistically, treat me with respect and I will treat you with respect. How do you determine what is good or evil? - Objective right and wrong does not exist. If I were to define good, it would be a result that produces at least maximum benefits with minimum loss to both the individual and to the collective. Genetically good is the action which produces a result that allows continuation of the body and reproduction. But this is subjective. Is it your human reasoning or personal opinion? Tell us what is your standard to be able to make such judgments or claims? - What is best for genetic prosperity of the collective, but ultimately for the individual, ultraistic behavior of the collective. If you have nothing, then it is just your own invention or imaginings - If we go this route in the conversation, where I as a human have no ability to hold my own moral understanding without the existence of a god, we would have to examine for evidence of a god, which we already determined there is no measurable evidence of a god. ( no supernatural spiritual is not measurable evidence) If the entire universe is His creation, then “morality,” including life and death, is by definition under His control. - As per the bible God did define certain morals such as the 10 commandments, “ you shall not kill. " being one of them, yet god throughout the bible kills many people and innocent children, breaking his own morals. God can not be moral yet break the moral rules, that would make him immoral. So if you don't accept God as the standard of right and wrong or good and evil, then all you have is your own ramblings which have no authority in a universe that you are a mere speck in and was created by God, the only absolute standard of good and evil - Lets try a different approach since god existence is questionable. Why can't genetic morality exist? Traits handed down from those who behaved in positive ways, which led them to reproduce more often than those that did not.

I absolutely agree, although that ideology may have been around before Jesus. But the entire religion is based on a sadistic psychopathic god, that takes pleasure in torturing and killing an innocents, one of which is Jesus. Biblically, god repeats this sadistic behavior and actual murder. Why would someone follow a religious ideology when the supposed creator does not follow his own rules? This baffles me.