myata

Until and unless convincing objective evidence is provided, reviewed and discussed would it be too much to ask to qualify it with a brief but informative addition: "to me"?

I'm glad that there's nothing much of substance to add here. Maybe anonymous "extremists", "racists" and "misogynists" from great leaders and CBC and that would be it. Good to know.

European leaders are considering endemic end of the pandemic. The inevitable point is, we just have to learn to coexist with Covid as with flu, common cold and other common infections. Focus on treatment and management of the disease, not the people. Let me venture a scenario. When most of the peer countries if not almost everyone on the globe have returned to and lived normal, post-pandemic lives for months if not years; and it's no longer possible to deny in broad daylight, it will be discovered by our enlightened bureaucracy, talked about by the talking heads as an interesting idea, and with time and much "out of abundance of caution" the restrictions and mandates would begin going. Of course, those countries that are doing it now, not to mention, from the early day but that time would way ahead maybe lightyears in the effectiveness of treatments and management. But that we had always so not to worry, nothing new here. And I can't see any other realistic way out of this within reasonable time. Can you?

A government, any government needs to be kept in check and well within its box. Otherwise it will grow without limits and stick its nose into everything. Of course out of the best intentions and for common good. In this country we have no effective checks on the governments, just none. Sure we had opinion polls but now governments are discovering that those can be manipulated particularly effectively with fear, confusion and division. This is a real problem, ahead of everything else, including vaccinations. And if we won't find solutions we'll be screwed in this century if not by pandemic then by one of a host of problems that are piling up.

Another outlandish statement. One exaggeration or misrepresentation does not negate or cancel another lie. It's not a zero-sum arithmetic. A lie is a lie. And a misrepresentation, confusion and so on from a public and publicly funded source is certainly a much more serious issue than that from an individual.

It is not though. When and if you threw out impartiality, objectivity, accountability and transparency you cannot appeal to your own statements that cannot be verified independently as the final truth. Credibility and trust is a two way street, not something that can be taken for granted, by default or mandate.

Two years back same time we heard from roughly the same sources that "travel from Wuhan wasn't a problem and the system is fully capable". Reality check (or do we even need it, the reality, any longer)?

70% in hospital with 80% in the society doesn't look like a strong protection. And this is an objective reality. Now you can take 5 anecdotal stories from the 70% group, or from the 30% one and "prove" or illustrate, on the corresponding level of objectivity, two mutually contradictory points. It's been a while since our media has figured out this innocent trick. Also for most of the age groups it has barely been, or hasn't even been six months after full vaccination. Also an objective fact.

Maybe if we include the absence of a news, or spin on the news, or news with a spin, or mostly spin with a tiny bit of news as a "perspective" and sure, left especially is world-famous for this sort of creative language. Take for example the news on US Supreme Court on mandatory vaccinations - it barely appeared in some of this country's main news" services.

No CBC cannot be blamed for not reporting on the convoy in objectivity. On this morning's news a sufficiently detailed story. That is, two or three terse sentences on the event itself and then a long spin with clearly negative subtext - stores are closing, play a clip of worries and concerns but give word to the organizers or participants of the event being "reported" - no, but how could we? Traffic, and even alluded and anonymous, but yes you got it, dreadful e- and v-words. Honest and responsible, objective investigation professional journalist ethics and standard you sure heard about it - and now watch it in action. News by association, you know. Dr Goebbells didn't need to be that subtle but he would understand. Yes this is a free" and democratic"" country and sure you have the right to protest - but why would you want to do that? Why would anyone want to protest if we have wise and passionate managers who always know what's best for you little ones long before you even get to think of it? Please don't get excited, don't think to much and go back to your little sandbox. We'll figure it out, not to worry!

That makes the owner of this statement a b-word and, if any coercion is involved, e-word. Done, stamp. No , there's no way around it because that's what bigots and extremists of all kinds and shades say, and do. And they always have a strong solid justification. As long as it cannot be questioned and no explanation needs to be given.

I'm not asking anything of viruses they aren't even intelligent unlike some of us. But by all means, please feel free to inject whatever you like however often you like into yourself and then please very kindly, keep it to yourself can you? We can live in harmony that way, you know?

We're now officially at the level of "boosted". Yep, just read this is what it's called, at 40.something %. Has anyone wondered where it's going, from here? Are we heading to double-triple "boosted"? Quad-boosted still OK but then we'll need to switch to numericals, like 23-boosted. Other ideas? Did someone say, exit plan? How to coexist with Covid and not turn into a health-authoritarian state run by hands by a caste of self-appointed "experts" paying to themselves for repeatedly beating their own records in cases and you name it? We are heading into year 3 of the pandemic. Sure it's still too early to ask these questions?

You keep repeating stubbornly an argument that does not exist. A somewhat higher or lower risk of a condition is not acceptable or sufficient grounds for infringements of individual rights. The standard is much higher. If we applied the same arguments in the past we would be living in a health authoritarian condition for decades already with a slew of mandated behaviors and policies, adding new ones regularly.

Maybe we are near the point where the complexity of problems we create is beyond the level of intelligence and scope of interest of an average individual? Problems and conflicts in the past were simple from that perspective: which God to worship; take more or yield less; I want to take this no you can't. Simple, understandable definite problems. Cost could be high but the solution, easy. How do we define the problem of equitable society beyond the level of minimal handout? Sustainable existence and coexistence, in the long term? A reliable balance with the environment? Peaceful nature with standing up and controlling bullies if and when they arise? What fraction of the society would want to spend a day in a year on any of these issues? And yet, can we pretend that they don't exist and one day would just fix themselves and disappear? If this is the case then democracy as we know it, would not be able to help us. We were promised and promising something new and shining but in reality came back to the same, old "bread and circuses".