myata

In a different thread it was shown with facts that in the normal world, with competent management of a modern public health care system as of today, the risks of severe Covid outcomes for general population, other than elderly and vulnerable groups, are lower than those of traffic accidents and the flu. And these facts bring out unavoidable (in the normal world) conclusion: blank and indiscriminate restrictions on the the general population cannot continue as there's no longer any factual justification for them. The reasonable approach for a (normal) public health authority in this environment is to focus on effective protection of the vulnerable population and effective monitoring of the situation with effective and honest communications to the public while removing general restrictions that are no longer justified and necessary. And this is not just me saying it. Not only dry numbers and facts. This is happening right now: in the normal world. Transiting through Vienna, stepping out of the train (where you can observe almost perfect compliance with the current - FFP mask policy) you enter a world as seen before March 2020. No masks anywhere in sight. Full restaurants, some with long lines (Friday night, Octoberfest). Night partying, open. Dancing, sure. Folks walking, dancing night long along ever-running Danube. There's no information, knowledge of Covid unless you brought it with you. Austria facts: population 8.9 million; vaccination level 64.3% recent Covid cases 1600; fatalities 10 Did you notice the difference? Authorities work to make normal life possible, as much as possible. We see the results, and comply with necessary requirements. Not because of heartfelt appeals and running tears. Not so much for pumping propaganda. But because we can enjoy normal life, that's why we comply entirely voluntary (I saw no sign of enforcement). Results -> trust -> voluntary compliance vs. Crying and jumping and waving hands -> obtuse, contradictory and meaningless policy -> propaganda and scare -> confused population -> no possibility of returning to normal life. Obviously, these are different approaches and paths. Which one did you choose? Scandinavian airlines dropping mask mandates on regional flights. Or keep marching to the tune of the latest Case Number and Holy Vaccination Percent drum. You choose. The world is returning to normal. The normal world.

I can almost guarantee it won't end for one simple reason: it's working for everybody, there's a near perfect agreement. The elites can't be any happier with their entitlements (check Canada's MP compensation vs peer countries); while the peasants are ever grateful for ever diminishing handout. And who wants to notice that trains aren't running, tuition and housing through the roof and healthcare in the state of permanent crisis "just don't blow on it"? When someone would notice that relegation to insignificance and third world status are getting tantalizingly closer? Is it too late already?

Talked this morning to the owner of a small bakery shop down the road. For them, nothing has changed since vaccination. Same capacity limits. One customer at a time and no vaccination checks. Ok, here's the reality. In countries with good public health management e.g. Northern Europe the average daily number of Covid casulties is 1-2, or approximately 10 weekly. This graph (Quebec) shows that less than 10% happen in age groups under 70. The per capita rate is then approximately 1 : 100,000. This is less than the chance of a fatal traffic accident in Ontario: 1.1 : 100,000. And it's significantly less than the casualties from flu and pneumonia: 28,000 or 8.6 : 100,000 (USA data, much harder to find analogous for Canada, exzperts being extremely busy) One can spin, stretch and squeeze data but it cannot change the numbers and the truth behind them: in a) well managed public health systems and b) general population, excluding vulnerable groups and c) as of now, the cost of Covid is below that that of flu or traffic accidents. And that's why most of developed world, with well managed public health systems is focusing on returning to normal while protecting vulnerable. Except of course, you know who. What would be the next pretext to justify continuation of unnecessary regulations and useless restrictions? Let's guess, there are only two: a) don't blow on the crumbling system (with automatic annual raises and golden parachutes, how else?) and b) just because I said so.

I would rephrase the question differently. It's not about freedom of speech on someone else's turf, it does not exist as has been already pointed out. It's about the freedom to spend, consume, cut, munch, squeeze, wash hand out, etc your dollars to whomever and for whatever reasons the enlightened ruler has chosen to, without any need to explain, justify prove or follow any rules like for example (in some places) the pledge of objectivity and impartiality and adherence to facts and truth. Didn't you know it is called "democracy", no?

Restrained by no checks, oversight, any need to explain, justify and defend its decisions the bureaucracy naturally transgresses from the obligation and responsibility to manage problems and find working and effective solutions (as written in the book) to managing dumb and unwashed pueblo that merits only one way, top down commands and instructions and never an intelligent conversation, nor Heavens forbid, the right to ask questions and obtain meaningful and intelligent answers (as assumed to be the natural, granted by its supreme wisdom permanent and unquestionable entitlement). This is not surprise, of course the story has played out countless times in the History. Surprising is only our expectation to allow it to run its course while expecting anything different. "We think so you are"

That was way more information than asked for but unfortunately, not really related to the question. Regardless of one's attitude to an individual for any reason, do they have the choice, and the final decision on what goes into their bodies, or not? And if they do, what reasons, limits, checks and conditions, should be met to impose broad policies restricting rights of individuals, in public and private environments? Should there be such conditions, checks and limits on the governments imposing restrictions on individual freedoms, or it can be done arbitrarily without any accountability or recourse and indefinitely too?

Here's another angle on the story: we frown on news or events being incorrectly reported by an individual, but what about governments and public offices using misleading and dishonest reporting methods, like 40% of certain cases with "vaccination status unknown"? What I want to know is, is there a difference or should it be the same (l-) word?

These are two unrelated issues. Clinical trials demonstrate to some extent (as there were well known incidents) that a treatment is reasonably safe. But it's in no way a justification to trump the right of a patient to agree to using it. A doctor can tell you, you can use this and in most cases it should be safe. But no doctor could tell you have to use it and no choice. Till now. Who has decided it? How it was decided? Shouldn't, in a democracy at least, people have some say in deciding such matters?

If all tools are the same, would you be fixing your car with a sledgehammer? If after a short, in the context, period vaccines do not prevent transmission, how can blanket restrictions be justified? Certainly, there are specific situations where any positive effect justifies the measure. But these situations have been kept limited and specific and conditional, for example, flu shots for medical personnel. Any other measures, like seat belts have to be proven a) effective and b) reasonable before they are imposed on everybody. How could one jump from these checks and conditions based on what? A conclusion of anonymous bureaucrats in some office somewhere? There isn't a chance that I would inject into my body everything that the folk that consitently produced travel from Wuhan quality of decisions would tell me to. The level of competence and responsibility obviously isn't there, even it was ever a good thing.

What can be added to the fact that none of these: EU, UK require test for vaccinated travelers while US accepts quicker and less expensive antigen screening. You would think that Canada, with the strictest entry requirements in the developed world would be among the most effective in producing great results. Then look and think again. When a bureaucracy has a free hand, free of any accountability, the need to explain and defend its decisions, the reason goes away. Why should management be reasonable if it can be absolute? How many times one needs to stumble on that millennia-old truth? And then, there's the question of exceptions. How many of them enter the country daily and routinely with no tests? How do the two numbers compare? Do they make any sense or just another covid-show Canadian bureaucracy is world famous for, like mask in a restaurant?

No, you just don't know how to read those studies or aren't honest about what you read. In the best case of one specific vaccine among many combinations used in this country, and only for a limited time (maximum of 3 months) vaccination offers significant, up to 60% reduction in transmission. That is approximately one third probability of a non vaccinated individual and at that level can be easily compensated by a difference in behavior. But we cannot repeat vaccinations every three months and by that time the rates of transmission even out between the groups. People pumping simplistic and incorrect picture can actually increase the risks for the vulnerable. For example, many of care workers were vaccinated before summer and it means that by now their rate of transmission is similar to those of non vaccinated. Yet pumping vaccine uber alles propaganda can create a false sense of security where there's actually little or none. In that regard propaganda folks aren't that different with regards to intelligence and responsibility between the antivaxx or pro vac at all cost camps. Reason lies somewhere else, in a different direction or dimension. In an intelligent approach vaccination is not a silver bullet panacea to pray on, but a tool in a toolbox with its own advantages, and limitations that can and should be used with full understanding of what it does, what it can do and cannot. An intelligent authority understands that maintaining trust and credibility with the population through open, clear and honest communication, fulfilling promises and achieving results (and admitting errors and shortcomings) is no less and probably more important than reporting some magic number. Why would we want to mention it here though.

This is the same group stigmatization argument used in any number of blank group persecution including genocides. The danger to the others is associated not with a label but behavior and behavior is specific to an individual. A vaccinated individual often involved in risky behaviors can be infected and transmit infection (see recent studies) as much and more than a non vaccinated one consciously and carefully avoiding the risks. Group arguments and policies go counter to democratic values, are difficult or impossible to defend and eventually undermine credibility of the policies and authority that produces them.

It was already said that at issue is not vaccination or any other policy but the ability and entitlement of anonymous and unelected bureaucrats to create and impose such wide reaching policies without any limits, challenge or oversight. Complete with an absence of the right of a citizen to question and challenge such policies. This is almost synonymous to the definition of dictatorship. We have arrived, without even bothering to notice.

If it's a binary question, I'd go with the latter option. An "idiot" is first, relative and can be redeemed too. Not sure about the former.

A population of peasants has worked very well for the quasi democratic-aristocratic elites for well over a century. Serfs don't ask inconvenient questions, always blindly obey any orders and ever grateful for being allowed to keep a half of their income (while benevolent elites enjoy privileges of diverse offshore havens, eliminate loopholes how could you?) and a handout out of their, serfs, who else's? pocket while the elites appoint themselves salaries, benefits, entitlements, expenses, golden parachutes, mansions, pensions and dinners at top restaurants (on whose, can you guess, never ending buck?) And so the solution seems to be very simple: bring in more peasants. They'll ask even less questions, and will be ever more grateful.

Immunity, as any scientific question is not the point here. The point is that a bureaucracy that manages itself without controls, checks and oversight will always do ever less meaningful work for ever more cost all the way the the state where virtually no work is done (like in rapid Covid-19 response one taxpayer billion fund) and no money left. That truth is thousands years old. We just want to prove it again seem to be having great success at it.

We need more of the third world in this country! Trains not working, substandard projects over budget or never finished, money spent with no result, skyrocketing prices and tuition with automatic annual rises to the rulers regardless of the condition of the country. In this century there are only two directions and the vector is pretty clear.

Canada, 2021 (21st century). A capital of a G7 country. Light rail transit line, completed only a year earlier over the budget and with a several months delay is not running for the fourth week and counting. They say it'll be some more weeks and not months. They are hopeful. Imagine this in a G7 European capital? Now try with Mexico or Ukraine. An announcement in an arriving Air Canada plane: due to concerns of overcrowding in the arrivals area we will allow exiting in groups of 50 people at a time (there are approximately 50 rows of seats in the plane, with 9 seats each in the plane). No, I didn't imagine that. I have a hunch that one day we'll wake up to the news that the country, at least its public component, has stopped working. Before then there will be more, many more third world-level projects and services. Can you tell why it won't happen?

Remember, the character of communication can tell more than a message itself? The fact that they try to bury numbers that may not look good or cause questions in the statistics games (stretching, massaging and all the way to the l-word) tells us more than one important points, for example: the source cannot be trusted; and, that there may be something to hide. And that, maybe, it doesn't even know what's going on. And that is information in itself of course, like watching body language of a known l..r.

Correction: I do what I think makes sense based on my knowledge and intelligence even if someone is paid outrageously for making them, ostensibly, with their bum ("travel from Wuhan"). And there's nothing wrong with that, in my world.

No just information games. You got one shot (as per the record, with health card) you're partially vaccinated. That's common sense, without games. And so on. This is just to illustrate that the point here is not to provide honest information, but to confuse and mislead. Aka, propaganda, plain and clear. And, we're paying for it. And, to add insult to injury, outrageously, with automatic annual raises and increases.

But it's not difficult to pay government bureaucrats and hospital CEOs outrageous salaries and entitlements regardless of the result (as quoted). So let's just keep doing what's easy and see what happens. Like there will be any surprises.

How am I tired of government stretching and massaging the truth. How does it such and where would it take us, eventually (or already has)? The only way to get a shot was with a provincial health card (Ontario). No, one couldnt get an appointment and a shot without one. So how the fracking frak is it possible, theoretically and in this universe to have almost 50% of cases with "unknown status"? L..r, l..r stupid, clueless l-word. "There are 158 people in intensive care units due to COVID-19, with 13 of them fully vaccinated, six partially vaccinated, 79 unvaccinated, and the remaining 60 with an unknown status."

Seriously? And I thought it was discovered by CBC and our public health proudly "travel from Wuhan" exzperts...

Let's recall some here quoting numbers like vaccinated being 20 times less likely to transmit Covid. That was just saying it as you can say... pretty much anything but here are actual studies: do Covid vaccines prevent transmission? As often there are two news. The good one being that vaccines do prevent transmission, from about 1/3 (AstraZeneca) to 2/3 (Phizer). So after a double shot of Phizer the risk of catching it from double vaccinated who was infected is about 1/3 of that of from a non vaccinated. But there's another part of this story: that protection is short, and after three months the risks even out for the former vaccine, and close the gap for the latter. What does it mean? That those vaccinated before July now may transmit on a similar level with non vaccinated. But if this is the case why drumming and mandating? And as all mindless drumming and mandating it can be not only useless but actually dangerous. Think of health and care workers vaccinated in this period whose transmission levels returning to the level of non vaccinated and with protection of vulnerable waning and with the levels of unreported and non symptomatic infection unknown (we could have invested in mechanisms of monitoring it but couldn't bother to be distracted from marching). Could it build up the conditions for another flare within a few months under the muzak of steadily approaching the holy 99.99%? That is, second stepping on the same rake. Or is anyone still counting how many?