myata

They miss the point entirely, and why wouldn't they with $400K salaries, unlimited entitlements and near-complete detachment from the reality? The point is not to watch The Number, beg it, cry to it, go to holy war with it. The point is to learn living normal lives, to the maximum extent possible, whatever is the number of the day. How hard can it be to get the difference? In an all-inclusive virtual c-word tower with a single narrow and tainted window on the world?

Thanks for illustrating the point. You can notice in the graphs up there that the numbers have been fluctuating within stable margins since late January without causing panic, aiiiis! and oiiis! lockdowns, quarantines etc. Mark the difference. One critical test remains for these countries to make it through the winter. If they manage that they'll be across the chasm, being able to achieve coexistence with Covid while maintaining normal life for a great majority of the society. While someone somewhere else will live days, weeks and months etc to watch the Scary Number. For as long as necessary. Maybe till March or maybe forever. Like who defined ends and limits here, intelligence, effective and efficient work of a top-notch healthcare system - or the virus?

There are other, stronger reasons. The status quo of inefficient and massively expensive public bureaucracy and monopolistic traditional private economy stifling innovation and competition all converge to the need for a massive inflow of cash. And short of magic and near-magical developments in technology there are exactly two such sources: borrowing that is, in a public setting, taking money from future generations of taxpayers; and selling the country, its resources and contents. And because smarts, innovation, ingenuity see above, volumes will have to make do for selling cheap. Anything different would require way more thinking, creativity and agility than shoveling money where it swims so thick that can be taken by a bucket.

For a few weeks now, way more frequent reports of break-ins and theft from cars in the community. Wonder if it's isolated, or another sigh of a great new Canadian dawn?

Suppose after vaccination of children begins (FDA recently approved Phizer vaccine in the USA for children 5 - 12) there's an increase of cases in the winter months. This can happen for example due waning protection effect, as for some age groups it's been six months and longer. What would be the response of case-driven management as in most provinces? Would it be a return to lockdown-style measures, defeating the claims of effectiveness of vaccines in the eyes of the population? Or would it be mandating vaccinations to attend schools under the banners "don't be selfish" and "let's defeat it forever"? I think it would make sense to request a clear statement that child vaccinations will remain voluntary in any event, would it be reasonable in your view?

In the meanwhile, a number of countries including UK, Denmark, Sweden, Austria among others have managed to maintain normal way of life through the year to date, after lifting all or most restrictions in spring or early summer. Cases moved up and down, systems stood their ground and the societies had normal life with facilities and businesses open to citizens. That is already an important experience with many valuable lessons learned and the critical test remains in the winter months. If it can be maintained year long, it would be lightyears ahead of the aiiii / oiiiii lets have a lockdown again! exzperts. For all the billions spent, no memory and few lessons learned. Now, what do you think of the next pandemics?

We are burning fossil energy with, say 70% efficiency and it's causing huge problem for our (only) environment. Let's invent cool limitless and cheap source of energy, cold fusion, hot thermonuclear you name it. Then we increase consumption, given that its unlimited and free, 100 times and even with 95% efficiency it would be way more than what is causing problems now. No, energy is not the problem. The problem is billions years old, as life itself: first consume everything in sight, then think. It does not take into account that at some point you'll hit the hard limit; it just never thought about that.

Could it be from the same group of successful inventors that came up with the famous (in Canada) "mask in a restaurant" policy successfully introduced and implemented (in Canada)? Wear no mask for two hours; then put it on for 5 minutes walking to the washroom - and bingo, you are protected! The secret is simple: the virus sees (yes it has those minuscule nano-metric eyes) who is observing wise public health recommendations and policies, thinks and decides to find another target... right next at the table. Intelligence does that, you know.

Thanks for the illustration though, about how much thinking and effort was invested in well over a century into creating a modern and vigorous democratic system of government that could represent citizens and solve their problems as opposed to bestowing upon itself endless and limitless by any common sense, benefits and entitlements. Where citizens slumber...

A government, a bureaucracy with no checks or controls will always find a valid cause to cut itself a generous annual raise; and for everybody else whatever's left enjoy. Like "fix it for a generation". Like there weren't explanations and excuses for decades of hallway medicine. OK nothing new in this old, old story. All has played and multiple times like in a time loop movie but let's try again.

An interesting interview today overheard on CBC with some foreign-sounding guy I think the chief of Ontario's Covid something. I turned on at the point where he was describing a horrifying experience in some countries in Europe (I think Denmark and UK) in a restaurant with no masks and no vaccine certificates checked, place full to the rim, people enjoying life heresy! And no police to call because all that horror is perfectly lawful and authorized. I had similar though on the very positive side experience on visits to Austria and Eastern Europe and met some people who told be it's more or less norm in their countries too. But look, the cases, o horror! If only we keep the restrictions we could get through a few months... with a $400K salary and unlimited lifetime do you have it, yes? Wait and what will happen after a few months? Anything new is expected to happen here? And then it becomes quite clear: the restrictions aren't going anywhere, here. Covid is here to stay, and there are two different and rapidly diverging points of view: live normal lives to the maximum extent possible with Covid; or live to watch the number and be scared every time they twitch for a few months, etc, forever. The guy's world and the normal world; and I don't see much in between.

Do you mean, by a foreign monarch? In an independent, presumably, country in this 21st century? And who said it cannot be done. Finally there would be a meaningful role for a decorative monarchy, if not in ruling own country then hapless colonies. OK there's no point in going any further. If change is impossible, then all discussions and solutions are pointless and moot.

Appointed by who though? Supreme Leader who always knows best? From Republic to Nero is the trajectory, invariably, once the attention is switched and all controls are gone.

I'm only observing here, and yet again, as with mandatory vaccinations we're rolling into preset and predetermined by someone somewhere course, without any review or discussion into mass vaccination of children. What is the purpose and rationale? What are the benefits and risks? Do the benefits justify and outweigh the risks? This is no polio and certainly not the plague. The risks of complications to healthy children are minimal, in most cases even without symptoms. What is the point? Silence. No one around. Those in the know already know everything absolutely and finally ("travel from Wuhan") and no one else around to ask questions and discuss. If vaccines were just made available as a free choice fine, but don't you know where it's heading the moment they are approved? Bandwagon, turn off anything electronic and run, leading up to the ban to attend schools. Did you say, climate change, unexpected calamities and mass migration? How would we deal with them later on? Are you hopeful?

You mean unelected Senate like in Middle Ages? Sounds right for the 21st century, but why not. There are democratic options too, like the house of representatives actually representing the citizens, and them, citizens having a say and ultimate control of what representatives, and not to forget, other public officials make. Works in Norway. Wasn't it the idea in the first place, in a "demo"-cracy? Generally, whenever a bureaucracy is running itself and the society is either backward or lazy and uninterested in controlling and managing common matters, the trajectory is pretty much predetermined and there's nothing new to it see e.g. "Roman republic". Detachment and degradation of public management, enrichment at the public expense, loss of trust and complete disconnection from the reality of the society, authocracy, oligarchy and / or dictatorship.

Judging by the news the bandwagon is rehearsing for mass vaccinations ages 5-12. Serious cases possibly in single digits all seven of them widely broadcasted in the news. The Holy Number has to be attained no matter what, reason, logic, common sense. Heavens help the children.

With all that can be said about CEOs they are in private business often controlled by shareholders and boards. But what does it mean when politicians and top bureaucratic management in public administrations want to appoint themselves compensations and entitlements not unlike those of private CEO, without a shred of risk, responsibility, control and oversight, market checks etc? This is like neverending story, private companies make profit sure here in Canada some/oftentimes via monopolistic control of the market, and then public CEOs want themselves similar rises pretending they are competing like there's space for ,000s of great CEOs in a small backward market. And only common Joe just sighs with his/her 33K stuck in the same spot for decades while prices around them pop up in smoke in turn or all together.

Actually can I propose an experiment, and what if we tried it even once in a bicentennial history? Let's limit MP to median salary by a reasonable factor like 3 (just a number; I think in Norway it's closer to two maybe worth another look). So, yes I know 100K aiiiii can't feed the family. Sure some would go back to their successful private endeavors. The question is, how many? Will it be 300 or 30? How could we know short of seeing it, or should someone just say it, and the end of the story?

We also need to reexamine the definition of "growth". Who benefits from it and who does not, is it always and unconditionally a good thing for the whole of the society? Whole number of creative ways has been invented to show growth on paper and in an abstract number. But are salaries across the society increasing, along with prosperity, or only those of small groups? These are important questions, if growth does not involve rising prosperity for the majority, it can be a trajectory to extreme polarization of prosperity and incomes, not unlike seen in the third world countries.

And they are free to continue doing that (in the private sector) it's no explanation nor rationale for unreasonable and growing income gaps. Representing public is not a competitive profitable undertaking this is a wrong way to set the question and democratic system cannot operate effectively and efficiently in this frame. That is indeed how it's seen in any number of third world countries though, a quick shortcut to getting rich without risks, professional excellence, skills, inventiveness, market checks, and so on. Unreasonable, in the context of economic reality of the country, accumulation of compensations and entitlements on a public pay is a problem from both economical and ethical points of view. Please don't bring the old and tired "socialism" adage into a legitimate and in my view, essential if not critical discussion of accountability and responsibility of public authorities in this country. It, that is, the absence of it is already showing in lagging quality of services and infrastructure and if not addressed is going to get more serious, especially in the view of challenges the century will set.

A - we need to admit the state of affairs, not look the other way till at all possible till everybody wakes up in Mexico. B- we need to think it and admit that it is unacceptable; neither from economical nor ethical point of view; if we allow and accept as normal outrageous, unjustified riches on the public dime while many citizens struggle to survive more year on year that is Latin America, at least a part of its psyche and mentality here, arrived. C - the society will need to discuss, design and implement solutions that would make unreasonable income gaps, in the public sector and on public paycheck, unacceptable and impossible. And now as an honest observer, the last comment is that all three points seem to be a huge, formidable challenge in the country. But if nothing happens, isn't it just a one-way train and the destination is already on the horizon?

A median income of $33,000 means that half of income earners in this country make that or less. We like to think and present ourselves as an egalitarian and inclusive society, though the reality can be not only different, but quite the opposite. How can surreal on the general background of the country luxury of a salary ten times and over of what half of the fellow citizens make, entirely on the public's paycheck, attention, no "socialism" (it does though begin to look like another ism word, for a selected group of us) can be justified? I don't think it can be, logically and rationally - it just has been this way from the get go and nobody ever since wanted to look and think about it. And the obvious conclusion is that it, the gap is only going to get greater and worse, to 20x, 50x (NHL salaries) and so on to ridiculous South American examples, simply because a) it's been like that since get go b) nobody cared and c) nothing can be changed anyways even if anybody did.

And again, the problem is not vaccination, or any method, tool and instrument etc. The problem is how they used, by who and with what intent. Is the intent effective management of the disease, maximum protection of more vulnerable and normal, to the maximum extent possible, functioning of the society? The answers are different of course, depending on the society. In some places, the answer is unconditional yes. In other, it's obvious no, for whatever rationale and / or excuses given. So it comes back down to what kind of a society we are, as opposed to want to see ourselves. And if not for the pandemics how would we have known it, even now many rather wouldn't know.

Yes in a democratic society when and if you see something that does not look right, even just as an individual citizen, there's nothing wrong with noticing and declaring it. Including how public funds are spent in a democratic, presumably, society, on what, with what results and outcomes. This is the only way change can happen if it can happen at all, which is by far not a given or even hope in this country but the statement still stands. There are many, many ways do distract oneself from unpleasant parts of the reality or those that make little sense, the problem with that is that distraction, detachment, making alternate realities within mind will do nothing to change the one that is real, or even slightest possibility of changing it. And then the country may be well on its way to Latin America, where those at the trough divide and consume public pie while everybody else, just survives.

Why do you keep repeating this mistruth? Several times you were shown real examples of jurisdictions that never were in a crisis, managed the epidemics successfully while allowing the society to operate more or less normally. So, no a permanent panic mode is not the only way, only a choice - that of incompetent, ineffective bureaucracies that spent most or all of the money given by the public on themselves and when an effective, working system was actually needed could produce only aiiiii! and oiiiii!