Venandi

Not actually responding to you per se although I can see how you would think that. I found the “fun” aspect of your post intriguing so I used the quote simply for the sake of the quote. You could have been anybody here, even someone who cares. Frankly, I took no particular notice of your screen name at the time, only your tone. The link itself has value in terms of being a snapshot. Statistics are difficult to get a grip on when they’re overly broad, at least they are for me. Maybe it’s why there’s so much interpretive debate and insults flying around here. Smaller groups, like specific police departments, policing in general, or the military as a whole can sometimes shed more light on trajectory than huge swaths of data that require in-depth examination. With this particular group we see relatively young, relatively fit members who were assessed to be medically fit for police duties prior to receiving the vaccine. It provides a snapshot, that’s all. The quote I used was a target of opportunity, I used your words as illustrative of something that may cause us grief in the future and of the cavalier way we are approaching (and deflecting) the issue based largely on narrative. That said, be assured that I’m rooting for you, no one hopes that my concerns are groundless more than I do. Yes you can, but there’s only two possible outcomes here so I’d prefer not to, your milage may differ. Over the long haul, this either gets better or it gets worse. I usually begin seriously assessing contingency options when the likely hood of a specific occurrence is at 30% and rising. Nothing in my experience suggests that ignoring such things leads to good outcomes but please, you do you with my blessings. Ya… I know, thanks. I try to adapt to the reality of that by considering a range of unintended consequences and negative outcomes, sort of a QA thing… after all, we did get a few things wrong on our journey to Crazy Island. I call it maintaining a positive attitude through the assumption of a negative result. In other words hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And yet here we are (for the last time BTW) discussing how much you don’t care. Your first sentence seems curiously at odds with the last one. It also stands as an example of “strength of an idea” which is one of the barriers to prudent contingency planning. Then again, it’s your’s to embrace with my blessings. As an aside, I only used words and phrases that were previously hurled in my direction by others, none of them were/or are mine including ilk and CHUD. They’re unlikely to see the light of day again in any future correspondence. Your closing sentence is noteworthy though and part of the reason I used those terms in the first place. I hope it resonates here more than I expect it will, but hey, if nothing else it serves as a second example of me rooting for you in the same post… cool eh? With that said, I’m now done with the “opinion forum” experiment. I'll leave you to it. Best wishes to all.

https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_police_knew_of_potential_harms_caused_by_covid_yet_pushed_it_on_employees_anyway_new_report_claims The real fun may be paying for all of this. And the real question may be: Sure, it may be my CHUD like countenance, lack of self awareness, or the fact that I don't work for a Governor but what if police, military members etc aren't lying about these injuries? What if the incidence of injury claims remains linear over time? What if it curves upward due to neurological symptoms that take time to manifest? What if that morphs into a BSE type event, or any similar occurrence that impacts safety of the blood supply? Not that long ago farm boys (without Phd's BTW) were being ridiculed for suggesting that cows don't eat sheep, remember that? I'm not smart enough to guess the outcome here, just scraping together enough brain cells to avoid gross overconfidence and complacency. As I observed previously, there are only two sides in this and one of them is wrong, and not just a little wrong, F----- big time wrong. The "if you weren't a CHUD you'd move on" comments may age just as badly as the hateful anti-vax rhetoric of the past did. IMO, the question too horrible to contemplate is" "what if your ilk (not my term BTW) are as right about this as you were everything else?"

Imagine trying to have a rational discussion with these folks.... I don't think it can be done. The "vote em out and crush em" option isn't my preferred outcome but I find myself at a loss to recommend anything else now. This was mentioned earlier but here's a bit more on it. I chose Rebel because I couldn't find it elsewhere: https://www.rebelnews.com/liberals_quietly_expand_the_vaccine_injury_support_program_under_budget_2024 People are now discussing this with a sprinkle of "is it true" flavouring but I've followed some of the snippy advice here and moved on a bit, what if this gets exponentially worse over time? What if it just continues in a linear manner? Is it a question worthy of reflection or something to dismiss as hailing from the subterranean realm of the CHUDs? Here's a similar question for the selfie crowd: what if Momma bear comes back?

Agreed, it's a bit like calling multi tour veterans (who've had every vaccine known to man) anti vaxxers. A pretty lame accusation that reflects poorly on the accuser and makes me wonder if there are mirrors in the land of CHUDs (a pejorative term I heard here for the first time). A better question would be: "after all of the vaccinations you've had, why did you balk at having this one?" It seems to me that discussing all this with the "move along and get over it" crowd is a waste of time, I'm rooting for you though because from day one, they've been overtly hostile, rude and condescending. There's virtually no chance of them admitting they were wrong about anything after the fact and even less chance of them learning anything from the mistakes made and damage done. It's a bit like talking to the hand of a teenage girl who's "like soooooo over it like."

Indeed, and it takes us back to some vaccine day one questions I think. The questions I had were high school level biology but the answers certainly required medical expertise and I have absolutely none. But, the only thing easier than asking those questions was ridiculing them, look no further than right here to see why 30% of Canadians balked at the vaccine. Take the off label use of Ivermectin for example, a cheap, readily available and innocuous drug. If you understand how it works (in basic terms) then you would likely accept the idea that it needed to be prescribed early; at the very first sign of symptoms. You would also expect it not to be effective with high viral loading if prescribed too late in the process. But come on now... screaming Trumper, "tin foil hatter” and chicken dancing in a t-shirt that asks “are you a horse?” didn’t address the issue at all. The noise meant that none of those high school questions had a hope of being answered. Then, consider toxicity of the spike protein and add LNPs to the equation and the next question (I think) becomes one of distribution. Is it a surprise that in the presence of LNPs that the protein migrated from the injection site, lodged in organs or was found in breast milk? I don’t think it is but do you remember the bevy of assurances that it wouldn’t happen? The condescending fact checks that were always prefixed with “there is no evidence to suggest.” The rough translation being... Slap, no further discussion required, shut up Trumper. Now I’m curious if the presence of lipids will allow penetration of the BBB? We’ll find out soon enough I guess but why would we assume that it wouldn’t? Don’t lipids facilitate that sort of thing? As to observed effects (vaccine harm), inflammation as a direct result of systemic distribution was another day one question. Again, those particular questions came easy but the answers required medical expertise and discussion in the absence of ridicule. As I recall the inflammation/immune system concern revolved around repeated viral exposures in the wild (during a pandemic no less) setting of full blown immune responses in individuals already susceptible to inflammation and inflammatory type diseases. I think the main concern being repeated immune responses occurring in the presence of a mutated viruses that the body responded to but couldn't actually fight due to the mutation itself? In other words your body recognizes a car for what it is (a car) and it responds accordingly but it simply doesn’t have a key. You are left with an ineffective immune response and all the inflammation that accompanies it in a protracted wash and repeat cycle. Take that a step further and consider the wisdom of mass vaccination during an ongoing pandemic. Then consider the logic behind asserting that it was unvaccinated individuals driving virus mutations. Well, I don't know, but It doesn’t jive with my recollection of high school biology. The long and short of it for me was that I never heard the answers to basic questions and wasn't smart enough to figure them out for myself. It seemed like all I ever heard was ridicule from people who couldn’t even spell BBB. That would be the very same people who now say "move along son", you lack the self awareness to understand that we don’t care anymore. Another of those initial lipid vs BBB penetration questions was about possible future prion diseases and brain interactions (with the protein), I don’t know the answer to that either. But what if it becomes a real thing, what if the unvaccinated actually do move on and stop caring? What if some unforeseen future condition requires unvaccinated blood for transfusion? No one knows how that will play out yet but at a minimum, I'd think y'all might want to consider the possible benefits of being polite in the interim. One things for damn sure, somebody has this wrong and there are only two sides.

You're doing this on purpose... right?

Meaning me losing the bet, not you... it's a simple fact check of the score, an envelope, a postage stamp, and an address ICO the Governor's mansion. Like the weather, I'll just check the published result. Unless the Gov used the media to change the score it should be pretty simple to find out. His intervention would put us on topic again because barring media collusion, the score is known right after the game. The damage we're talking about here (the score if you will) hasn't even been tallied yet. When it is we'll count the ballots see who actually lost and determine who gets the check.

And yet it was your point... maybe it was a point that wasn't a point eh? OOOps... there's another one: Maybe I'll just check the score before sending you a check for the bet you said I lost... Forgive me then, It sounded like you did... maybe I just misunderstood YOUR bias. Nothing, it would be refreshing Your detector might need new batteries... be sure to wear a mask when you buy them.

Ya, that's clearly what I'm saying.

So is the hourly sequence and terminal forecast (FT). There be thermometers and weather facilities where you is, they can even report wind direction/speed, dew point and cloud layers. Some stations report all of that automatically and don't need your expertise... imagine that.

No, I'd look at the hourly sequence, terminal forecast and judge your assertion accordingly.

I'm hoping that's not true whilst fearing it might be. On balance though, and despite previous disappointments, I take some comfort in that fact that Canadians aren't herd animals by nature and won't willingly follow the critter in front of them over a cliff. They can be fooled, but I perceive that many resent the fact that they were. If it's actually true though, it underscores JT's financial support of the media and the coercive effect information management techniques can have in a government/media/national security (and intelligence) trinity. Then again, if it's not, it means that some 70% of Canadians have followed your previous advice, they've stopped whining, looked around them, accepted reality for what it appears to be and moved on. That bodes poorly for the church of woke IMO. I hate in when people say this to me.... but thanks for your service. Please stay the course.

And it's foisted on others by people who excuse church burnings as "understandable." Those who think mindless CHUDS are simply whining about Covid whilst enviously peering upward at their lofty intelligence might want to read this: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joel-kotkin-aggressive-canadian-progressivism-is-descending-the-country-into-crazy Not off topic for those who consider covid a symptom of the trajectory they're no longer willing to abide... as I do now.

That stark reality is something worth avoiding I think. Hence my point. Rolling the dice can be costly and there are better options than signing a waiver and stepping onto the mats IMO. It's not just chud-like whining over covid either, covid is a symptom of wider malaise. Over time, backlash usually happens and it usually goes too far. It's the appetite for such things that always surprises me though, too many foreign vacations maybe, I keep hoping for a different outcome.

I used to be pretty tolerant of other views/actions/lifestyles, the only caveat being not causing injury to others. By failing to anticipate the trajectory, I'm beginning to see that as a form of complacency now. I think it takes supreme confidence to alienate the people whose good nature contributed to opening the window you admit to viewing them from. We'll see if that confidence is overdone or not, I look forward to watching it play out on election day. I sometimes wonder if going along with all this was a reflection of apathy or good nature on the part of moderate (middle of the road) voters. I'm not sure about that, maybe it was a combination of both. But regardless, when good nature is prevailed upon it usually results in pushback, I used to see that pushback as a starting point for discussion and negotiation. An opportunity to review the after action reports and tweak SOPs if you will. But take it a step further, define that inevitable pushback as weak minded whining, throw in (even mild) support for compliance techniques (maybe in the form of ridicule, doxing, job action etc) and I wonder how it all plays out. When people have cause to fear election results it's democracy that usually suffers. The willingness to flirt with the unintended consequences that sometimes follow is regrettable and easily avoided IMO. Usually the reasons for any backlash (and the damage done as a result) are only identified with the clarity of hindsight. Nothing in my experience makes me inclined to roll the dice. Backlashes usually go too far and I think that's a distinct possibility now, as is the likelihood of you not liking it much.