myata

It's not coming clear who though? Those who took countless billions from the public over decades for getting the system into this state? Or those who exercise their right to control what's going into their bodies, whatever we may think of them and their decision? I personally think that vaccinations worked and accomplished much for many diseases. They are doing great work so far protecting vulnerable population from severe cases of Covid. But do anonymous experts have a carte blanche to put anything in your body that they think right today but tomorrow maybe oops, not like there's been no precedents? This is a serious question for the society, so no need to sidestep and distract from it with hand waving and scary pictures. Ultimately, in some decades time, it may be a big question, which behavior was more irresponsible.

According to the latest numbers, Ontario has vaccinated over 11 million with at least one dose, with the population over 12 of about 12.3 million. Adding two groups, those who are medically exempt from vaccination (1-3%), and those who recovered earlier (up to 1/2 million), the total of population with some or strong protection against current variants should come to just under 12 million. And it means several things, for today and tomorrow: 1. The remaining eligible still not vaccinated fraction is tiny, at most a few percent. Can it cause the upheaval that is happening in the system according to media reports? If it's happening is it due to vaccination issues or the chronic state of the system itself? Everybody's guess as we have no reliable and trusted information to confirm that. But we know that some jurisdictions in the world are doing much better, and the virus is the same. 2. If it cannot be confirmed with confidence, what is the grounds and justification for vaccination-based restrictions? Are they based on reason and science (see above), or another guesswork of anonymous experts? And for the future. All hinges now on the next, fifth wave in the January - April timeframe. Either we dodge it somehow and then a sigh of relief, though a downside would the expectation that the that rumbling and bumbling policy and crumbling system somehow worked and could be used as-is in such events in the future. Or we don't. And in that cases (see above) it should be absolutely clear that: 3. The wave would be that of the vaccinated and the policies would not have been successful. Blaming non vaccinated would look very unlikely (given the numbers, above) to plain scapegoat hunting for failing policy. 4. We haven't learned much how to handle these events without escalating drama and a big panacea shotgun (lockdowns, masks, uniform vaccination). And so, likely right back to square one. And then, 5. What path would it leave us with? Mandatory vaccinations in some and growing number of areas are already a fact, just by a policy, no checks and very little if any justification. Ability to work dependent on (continuing?) vaccination. Mandatory universal vaccination? Yes but what is mandatory without enforcement? And can the society be kept safe without isolation of non compliants? There. This is not a given and maybe we'd still dodge it. But a scary thought is how close we've come to that. And it didn't even take much. And nothing is finished yet.

What a curious way to say it. You have a carnivorous giant living not too far who was known to harass neighbors. A passer-by suggested to build a good fence to keep him away. Oh no no! that would be a war! we'd rather hope for diplomacy! If you're weak and it's no secret to anybody no matter what you think to yourself about yourself how would diplomacy help you?

Isn't it obvious? Evolution gives us only two choices: adapt and do what's necessary to survive the next age; or go extinct. We want to pretend that there's another way, smile and chat away serious problems but what if it's only an illusion? If a "partner" comes to your shores with aircraft carriers and you have none, and your air fleet is sixty years old and nobody to run to, sure diplomacy can help you write the terms of surrender.

That answer is long time answered by the evolution but we forgot or wouldn't want to know: if a species wouldn't, couldn't etc run as fast as required by the environment they may go extinct. And there's nowhere to explain why they couldn't and no appeals.

A. Imagine the pro-democracy faction, that had support of the majority of population won election and formed the government of Hong Kong. Question: how would diplomacy help it against China's rewriting the law and forcing it on the territory? B. Same question, in some hypothetical future, military exercises near Pacific coast of Canada (now: Taiwan and South China See) with US looking the other way because Canada decided to rely on diplomacy (and if it was the case, I couldn't be blaming them). Ironic how Trump was so wrong to seek understanding with Putin, but makes perfect sense, to some, to play diplomacy pantomime with China. But of course China knows very well the real worth of everybody it's dealing with and wouldn't fall for general niceties. Recall our great PM's last visit to the country. By the way this is just another case of a little processing organ coming to believe itself to be the cause of all things in the Universe. In reality though diplomacy solves no problems - it's only a frame, a language in which solutions achieved by other means are expressed and written. If China wanted New Zealand and with no ugly Aukus submarines around, good luck praying to diplomacy or Santa Claus, Buddah etc with the same outcome.

A very good story. Indeed it makes a lot of sense that "hospital authorities across Finland are preparing for a surge in demand for intensive care units against the backdrop of a sharp increase in Covid-19 cases in recent weeks" rather than playing dramatic performances in the media. From the recently posted numbers (hospital protests topic) the ICU utilization these days was 19 and from the article just one university hospital has 70 to 80 beds. It's not that people don't have any problems but how they approach them and solve them. With dramatic art or good planning, sufficient resources, well organized work and professional competence.

Vaccination level in Finland is high, but still lower than in Ontario. The numbers for hospitalizations and ICU recently posted in another thread, they are significantly better. The toll per capita is less than a third of Ontario's. The conclusion that an impartial observer has to make from these facts is that a talent in dramatic arts is not necessarily a good token of an effective management in the public health system.

What a great idea given that thanks to the immigration policy thousand if not millions (soon) of Canadian citizens visit China on a regular basis. Sure diplomacy would help... till not so gentle knock on the door. If still excited about UN and diplomacy just look at Hong Kong.

Or maybe a Russia complex? Yes (almost) all we do (in public matters) is second rate but at least we're big!

In Finland there's no shortage of ICU and no dramas. What if it's not the virus but the style of management and operation - artistically dramatic or professional and competent?

There's a simpler word for that: freeloaders. China is increasingly showing trends to dominance in the South Pacific, around Taiwan, suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, activity in South China See. Clearly, this kind of problems cannot be solved with smiling diplomacy, general goodness and nicely inclusive talking. So indeed why would anyone be interested? A simple question immediately clarifies the matter: how long would independent New Zealand last if it weren't for those ugly submarines?

Apart from many nuances, two principal questions that define a democracy are: can the society choose its government; and can it control the government in power? The answer to the second question is very clear: there are no effective controls over governments in Canada, majority or minority. And to the first one, is very limited choice still a choice? Is strongly suppressed choice still a choice that qualifies for a democracy?

If he didn't say that, our eyes just told us that this is very true. The question is, can it still be called a democracy? Do elections make a democracy? In China and Russia there are elections. OK they may not be what we call "fair" though from at least some points it can be relative. Is $50K to register and hundreds of thousands to run a campaign so that only monstrous party-corporation can handle that, "fair"? But imagine there were two CPC, red and blue one, would it make China a democracy with the world's best 9.5 out of 10 rating?

Well, looks like the question may not have a good answer in binary, categorical terms, so maybe it's worth examining the grades. Let's consider a different, less divisive example like driving. Certainly, driving carries an inherent risk of endangering others. Surely different people drive differently at different times and so the risk varies. How should the society go about minimizing these risks? Should it invest in adjusting the roads or restrictions on drivers? What restrictions can be put on those who drive and how are they defined and introduced? I think these are the questions that should be considered and discussed, hopefully reaching a wide agreement if not an absolute consensus. Are we doing that?