myata

Yes, you knew.

Common knowledge is not burden. Many European health authorities did not recommend them for children and young adults. This is Germany, for example: Healthy people aged between 18 and 59 years (including pregnant people) are recommended a basic immunisation as well as a booster to build up a basic immunity. "OMG can't wait to have my 6.5 month old vaccinated!". Is it criminal yet? (what is?)

We (the society) will need to figure this one out fast before the WOKE cult appropriates the problem and the solutions. These are difficult times for a sane, independently minded individual. The cults are springing left and right like f-ing mushrooms just try to keep up looking under your feet.

These days, right before our eyes the Republicans are betraying all and every claim, principle and ideal of defending freedom made since the foundation of the party. For the one and only cause: to play into the hands of non-stop lying buffoon Idol. This how it will go in the history. There's no other way to see and interpret this. There may be no coming back to normality and sanity, after this. After betraying every single ideal and principle, what reason remains to exist other than to worship the Holy Buffoon? Yes, you knew.

You can check that. Yes there were jurisdictions that did not recommend these treatments to children and young adults. The reason is obvious: medical ethics; professional standard; the oath, lastly: never harm the patient. When a treatment carries even a possibility of risk to a recipient who by all factual indications does not need it; it cannot be justified by any perceived greater good. You can compare it with blood donation. The critical benefit is obvious, risks to the donor, virtually none still we're not trying to coerce people into donating blood. This is plain and simple bullshit and in addition, a violation of all kinds of professional ethics and standards, and it happened only because this is Canada. Yes we can. What?

What's the magical rate now? Why isn't the sky falling?

Apple and oranges Michael. I can understand it when common folk couldn't get the difference, but anyone in the profession who is making a claim that giving the treatment to young age groups who didn't need them other than in exceptional cases, had a strong effect on the overall severity that could not have been prevented by other reasonable means on the basis of these statistics has to be quite close to l-ing. The difference would mostly be in the terminology, where's the boundary between stretching it to the limits of credibility and already, lying because by the education one has to understand that it's not the same thing. If vaccinating 70+ gives a noticeable reduction in severity it does not justify forcing others to get it, regardless of the additional risks and objections. In a normal, sane and responsible world, you would need to: a) prove with high confidence the link between vaccinating young groups and a strong reduction in severity overall; b) prove that it could not be achieved by any other reasonable means, for example improving prevention for the vulnerable groups and c) have a public discussion and a legitimate resolution of the question if and why reduction of risk for some could justify increasing it for the others. None of this have been here. The conclusion cannot be avoided: this is not a responsible democratic government. This is not what responsible democratic governments do, and how they do it.

Yes, and where's the surprise here? Governments in Canada know only how to spend money on themselves. For a long while already. In Ottawa they've been building a light rail.

I won't even talk about numbers here Michael this is the same well trodden path that always, invariably leads to gross failures. We know better than you and you have no choice but to trust us. Wrong. Always. What if "lower" could have been achieved (and has been) without unnecessary risks and misguided advice failing the trust of the society? How far will the slippery argument go?

No, and again: you cannot make people do things for you just because you think it's a good thing. It has nothing to do with democracy. We're way past that.

Because you will need evidence to say that! Because making one risk one's health, or influencing them to do so, just because I think it can be good for us has no place in a normal democratic society.

No, you cannot say that. Believing does not make a fact. There were multiple sane places that never recommended quasi-vaccines to young people, not to say, promoted them.

It was never in the mandate of the government, not to say, unelected bureaucrats to make these decisions. The closest would be a conscription to fight in a war and even then one cannot say it's entirely without a benefit to the conscripts. The standard for this kind of decisions is so tall there wasn't the least of an attempt to justify it in this case. It's amazing that governments in Canada can do just because they can.

We live in an information age. Sources of carbon emissions in Canada. Would you be dumb enough to put most of the efforts in stopping a leak where only a small fraction (less than 10%) goes? Transportation; oil sands; emission-intensive industries; trade; agriculture; industrial facilities. All these produce more emissions than residential heating. What are the results? I have only one explanation for this: "no we can't do anything there it would hurt the pockets of our great buddies. Let's give it to Joe/Jill instead they couldn't care less anyways, they never do. Yeah, and don't forget to throw a tax on it too, every little bit helps" (to our benefits and entitlements). Great working for the future! (whose? where?) Who's listening?

Every genuine vaccine till this incident had a clear benefit to the recipient that strongly outweighed the negative effects except maybe in excluded groups. There's no such benefit for healthy young people under 20-something at least and multiple studies have shown that. Many more responsible health authorities never recommended quasi-vaccines for young people in the view of unclear benefit vs. the concerns of side effects. To approve them and then promote massively (can't wait to have my little cutie vaccinated) was irresponsible and no less than a failure of public trust. These weren't vaccines in the sense that was used before. This is social engineering combined with ruthless and principle-less propaganda of fear at it worst. It cannot be excused and is unprofessional too. They should be ashamed if that notion still exists in the country.

Definitely outside of the norms of a normal democratic political discourse. Like in every other word, or maybe just drop "other".

I can't disagree here. With the slightest of checks this country ever had on its elites and governments, it neglected even them almost entirely with the election show little more than a tradition with meaning long forgotten. That gives the governments exactly zero incentive to do things that makes sense and will produce meaningful result as opposed to those that catch the attention of the crowd in the short interval of its attention span. And nothing matter after this. Anyone can be dumbest of fools to let folks manage their property like that. Yet it's perfectly fine with the country. Astounding.

It's quite simple, and please pay attention: objective and factual. - First, it's the partisanship taken to its ultimate destination. To the point where the objective reality, facts and records don't matter and even do not exist if they contradict the preaching of the day or the doctrine. New "facts" are made up on the fly and need no verification or testing. - Second, it's an obvious personality cult of the Idol. The test is very simple and it's confirmed each and every time one has to deal with the converts. Is critical perception still a thing? Can the Idol be wrong; or Heavens forbid, lie deliberately? Just try it. By this objective criterion, it is a personality cult, as clear they come. - And the third is demonization of dissent. Discussion, difference of opinions, critical questioning are part of normal, civilized political discourse. Not in trampism, and that's a fact. If one is not cheering for every word of the Idol, something has to be wrong with them and they should fear repercussions. One, two and three: all are clear and objective symptoms of an authoritarian cult. This is not a joke: it is a very serious matter and the consequences can be far-reaching as we know very well from the history. One cannot dismiss this reality and these concerns, no. One cannot participate in it lightly. It is not just another campaign and another candidate. Anything will happen and can be the first if it's not seen and prevented by the people of reason, integrity, will and resolve. The price of giving in to insanity will be high and quite possibly, irreversible: a total loss of integrity; principles and self-respect. There's no obligation to descend into group insanity. It is not a given: only a choice. And you were informed.

So the body handpicked by the monarch will keep him in check? Throw the lap "ombudsmen" and "commissioners" in for a great show. Is it serious, in this day and age as a substitute of a functional democracy? Who could see it as serious? Debilitating senility? Or only a democratic farce, as designed and fully intended from the day one of the great democracy? Is there any essential difference?

It was a sleepy faraway haven where nothing ever happens expect once in a long while. But was a long time back; these days, the things are changing fast and we're equipped no better and loathe even a slightest notion of a meaningful change. Not a good position, by any count.

The court once again demonstrated what there's nothing: no effective checks and controls to prevent an abuse of power by a majority government or effectively such. Just none. Yes you can just do it and just watch you. Nothing to add. Thank you. The cheap judicial-like pantomime comes as a bonus, cheap and entirely unusable. In a modern functional democratic society.

Joke PM, joke "parliament", joke "court": a parody of democracy. Oh f-ck it's not the leaders who enshrine constitutions, but citizens who hold their governments and leaders in check and accountable. At all times, too. Is there no hope, here?

removed

The perpetual sadness of Canadian politics: you can only choose the better between the bad. No you can't have that, sorry. You thought you had a democracy but we, the exalted and wise ones, always know better.

The Republicans still have the time: but the window is closes, to retain their integrity and values. With them, a claim to a respectable future. There were all the reasons to support resistance to the rise of Hitler in the last century. One could not run away from this choice. In the times like these, there are no set rules and procedures, only the objective: to face and overcome the societal, or existential challenge. If the Republicans betray now every single claim and principle America has made and has been holding to till now, there will be no excuses and no explanations. Every name will be written to, and recited in the long history. This is what is at stake here: you can make no mistakes here. You will not explain it, or anything by raising hands and pushing buttons. The heart of America will be empty and you will have nothing to say but praises and odes to the Great Leader. Others walked this path before; and you are on its threshold. You saw it and you were warned. No way you couldn't have know where and what you were walking into. The buffoon is on the public record admiring totalitarian thugs and dictators. He ran away from every single confrontation with them. He promised to take the U.S. out of NATO, to leave the world defenseless against the rising Axis of tyrants. There's no way you didn't know. You are making this choice now. Only you will carry the responsibility for it: in ages and generations.