myata

According to the report released by the Council of Canadian Academies "When Antibiotics Fail" drug resistant infections are on the rise and constitute a significant risk for public health and economy. "The report from the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), titled "When Antibiotics Fail," found that an average of 26% of bacterial infections reported in Canada in 2018 were resistant to first-line treatment, with 14,000 deaths linked to those infections and 5,400 deaths directly attributable to antibiotic resistance." 14,000, in a year. Can someone multiply it by two? Worldwide, drug-resistant infections accounted for over 1.2 million deaths. If Covid scared you enough, what about an infection for which there's no effective treatment? Exsperts, hello! Why is this not an existential crisis, jumping and crying, with "rapid response" $$$ Billion funds? Why is this shrugged off; unnoticed and forgotten; with other crises like overdose edging on 2,000 in just one province in one year (BC, 2019)? "During 2019, the suicide rate in Canada for those between 20 and 24 years of age reached 12.4 per 100000 population." At the same, the total Covid toll, in the entire age group 0 - 30 was just over 100. Who is judging and deciding on the priorities here? How are these decisions made? Who created this crisis?

December 2021 -January 2022 number 4 now. Keeping the count.

Boris is in hot water because of his q-wine parties and that is the best condition for our democratic politicians to begin acting with courage and principle. And so Boris may just get rid of all unpopular restrictions. Just like that, snap. And that's how interesting things happen. Imagine for example, nothing much happens. Sure cases jerk up then go down as they always do and done since times forgotten, this time and season. A week, nothing happens, the sky still there, sun rising on the clock. Two and three... like for an example, in Sweden. Yeah but wouldn't that be an interesting situation not in the least because a question could (would be?) asked, casually: right, and what about our jumping and crying, waving hands let's have another out of the abundance of caution lockdown exspert crowd? What's left for it to do, what else can it do, if not managing epidemics and diseases, surely? Creative performances? Convincing media appearances? Talking shows? Of course, sure but isn't it like, an entirely different genre? Yeah an interesting developing story, for sure. Not here maybe. "Out of the abundance of caution and for as long as necessary".

You aren't inventing anything new here. "Arbeit macht frei", remember?

And what if mommy's boosters aren't up do date little Johnny? Will you report her to the vaccination police (as a worthy young vaccination comrade should), to be sent to a vaccination rehabilitation program? A year back now, we had no idea that vaccination mandates were possible. OK, let's check again a year from now.

Why there's no icon here to cry and laugh at the same time? It's crazy, stupid and ridiculous how the history repeats itself... not without our lending a helping hand, as always.

Right and with any and every medication till now you, an individual not the specialist have the final decision on what will and will not be put into your body. Did you forget that already, or what honestly?

Know your favorite feminist! For your own good, as always.

Right. Pick the easier of the two: a) providing real help, working effective solutions to the society; b) writing (useless and ineffective, as evidenced by anything around you) policies, orders, restrictions and shutdowns and performing on media channels. And then, if for decades you've done little else with salaries, benefits and promotions coming on a clock? A no-brainer, no?

Thanks, that was an insight I was looking for. For some time now I was puzzled, what is the point of vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate at any and all cost and no matter what drive, if rationally, mostly on voluntary compliance we have 90% and what critical, absolutely necessary and no matter what difference few more percent would make (no it cannot be the perfect 100% obviously)? But the answer lies not in the epidemiological domain but in the sociological. A perfect, 100% agreement and compliance is needed for the success of the authoritarian, and totalitarian models of management not of the disease, but the population. A success of a working solution is confirmed by the result that can be seen and reproduced, any time every time. A success of a totalitarian dogma is when there's no (visible) objections, a perfect (visible) agreement. Even if and when the objective reality clearly contradicts the dogma, as long as no one notices perfect success can still be (and has been) claimed. Sure there are well-known tales on this topic. Interestingly, astounding and scary is that the conversation in the society has descended to this level already as any number of examples, like that show or right here can demonstrate. Scary too that few want to pay attention or even notice, no matter how far and deep we descend.

No you don't seem to understand: please, please by all and any means feel free to inject anything you like into you, however and whenever and whatever you like. I'll be perfectly fine with that if you ask my advice or opinion. And then let's just leave it at that. Can we?

That is actually good. An experiment and a clear result, for the science of human societies and psychology. We, so cultured, civilized inclusive and so on, all-around goodness from the great beavertale book could have proven, by the fact and example, that massive propaganda of fear and scapegoating wouldn't work, with us. That it is possible to remain on the position of reason and intelligence and still find effective solutions. But the empirical test, the experiment in the reality is showing otherwise. And that of course, is an objective result, according to science.

OK, makes sense. You always take all vaccines and medicines against all minimal and miniscule risks in life including slipping on ice, being in a traffic accident, getting hit by a lightning or tsunami not to mention flu and common cold and any number of known unlikely diseases. Sure, makes sense. For you. And if you could just limit it at that we could have a perfect agreement.

After the initial chaotic phase of the pandemic, now the numbers indicate quite clearly that other than in specific groups of population with higher risk of severe complications, and in countries with effective public health systems Covid places much closer to flu and common cold than to smallpox. And that fact brings about a question: how does extraordinary, unprecedented restrictions, infringements on individual freedoms, unaccountable and uncheck arbitrary population management as opposed to effective and efficient disease management continue to be justified and prolonged into indefinite future? I don't have an answer, but how as a sound democratic society can we hope to obtain one? Do we have any means and instruments to produce a sound, reasonable answer?

I applaud the journalist who voiced some of the obvious contradictions publicly to which no sound, satisfactory answers were given to my knowledge (I did not watch the whole program). But the topic itself that flashed over the conversation is indicative of the bias. Why would anyone, in any problem begin with "what to do to them" before understanding and confirming that they have much to do with the cause, and solutions? At this time now, we have a perfect opportunity to observe the process of selection, isolation and dehumanization of a particular group, some of us wondering reading about such events in the past how it was possible in a civilized society. Just like that, with restating "the obvious" needing neither explanation nor proof on all possible sensory channels, as often as possible gently first as a "discussion" until it becomes the intended, the only and unquestionable truth and the conditions are ready. In a sane, sound society one look around would cause concerns and serious questions: why, with the highest rates of vaccination in the world, above 90% in some cases, we are achieving, yet again, all time highs in everything and having to resort to more restrictions and lockdowns? Does the strategy promised and promoted by experts actually work? And the easiest way out of inconvenient questions and real, genuine work on finding working solutions is to preempt them with an ideological dogma and an obvious scapegoat. Here, the topic. Let's discuss what to do with "them", not what's going on and are we heading in the right direction. And that's just too bad for us. Not in the least because it makes less and less likely that we'll be finding effective and working solutions. Because they are rarely found in this direction. Only takes one look back.

On TVO right now in Agenda, a program I used to respect a panel discussion "what should we do about unvaccinated". Note, not "why universal vaccination is an essential public good" (is it?) or "what difference trumping individual rights to go from 90% to 98.7% vaccination would make?". Numbers? Cases and transmission among vaccinated, two clicks? Not in the picture. Let's do something to them because we already know the answer. The topic already suggests that something is wrong with them and something could / should be done, to them. The discussion begins with already preset answer. That used to be one of the thinking program where difference of opinions could be presented. Not anymore. Is it the end of independent and critical thinking in the country? Astounding is how little it took.

I have to agree, on this level there's little point in continuing conversation. You clearly have very little idea of how mRNA treatments work and that they have essential differences from what traditional vaccines do and it's not my place to educate you before you could continue a meaningful discussion. On the same level of understanding a human and a platypus are both "mammals" so whatever works for platypuses should work for humans too. We'll just have to agree to go our separate ways.

It would help to learn thinking of what one sees (and hears; and reads). That was the number of cases, not Canadians. In a bad flu year there were some 50,000 estimated fatal complications with the number of reported cases around 10 million in the USA, a very close factor to Covid (not smallpox! with 40%-60%)

As the topic indicates, the gentle move, and push is in the direction of a private "soft" gulag. Like it's not a forced isolation with guards, dogs and guns. But one is still isolated: from jobs, from favorite activities, from beer etc and from fair access to services paid for by their taxes. Wait, did someone mentioned forced labor? We found a soft entirely voluntary version of that too. Of course all that persistent bureaucratic creativity could have been invested into effective management of the system and search for real, working solutions. But nah not so much fun as hand-managing little folk down below.

Thanks for a great illustration of the point. Yes one can look at the diseases, then at the measures used and notice nothing wrong. Nope, can't see anything. Four or how many already now? total shutdowns to prevent spread of a flu-like, in the large majority of population (under 30: practical 0%; under 60: less than 0.1%; flu, all ages: ~ 0.1% reference reference) disease. No, nothing wrong here, all is fine not to worry!

How many PhDs are needed to prove that Covid is just like smallpox? If 100 (selected by hand) PhD told you that they proved it - would you have believe it? The next logical step is, why are the authorities under the guidance of exsperts are acting as though Covid is just like or same as smallpox? This is no exaggeration or stretch, just look around. One can accept blindly whatever someone claiming to be expert says, without questioning or checking if and how it agrees with the reality. Yes we have proud episodes, take Dr. Charles Smith (1982 - 2003), psychiatric torture hospital, residential schools and probably more. Or one can check every statement against common sense, observations and facts. One can do either but I can't see how both can happen at the same time. Pick yours.

No that is wrong obviously. These treatments were barely used experimentally for sufficient long term statistics and you have little to none clue what could be long term effects, in ten, twenty years a generation. Certainly there can be situations and cases where the downside of not knowing is compensated by the positive benefit. And that requires a responsible, competent and transparent analysis. Anybody with a grain of intelligence can see instantly that flu is not a smallpox and covid is not a smallpox either. The very fact that the same rationale and methods are used can tell us that it, the responsible and so on, analysis is not in the picture. What is more likely, bureaucratic zeal and march to achieve percentages, put a checkmark, write a report and get a bonus. And if there's an unexpected longer term effect, we know what to expect too: not to worry, oops, we just thought and a belated apology. If that works for you, so good for you, but it'll be a long and hard look before I let "travel from Wuhan" exsperts shoot something into me on the clock just because they think it something they could try and see what it would do.

OK, lets run some objective numbers here. In the spring of 2020, in the onset of the pandemic Government of Canada has given out over 1 Billion of its (maybe you thought yours?) money for "Rapid Covid-19 response". Six months on, first vaccine trials begin. End of 2020 - early 2021, first vaccines produced and approved. Any traces of "rapid response" for the $$$ invested? A few months forward (early 2021) first effective therapeutic treatments produced and used for emergency cases. "Rapid response"? Nada, vacuum. Another six months on, and a range of new effective therapeutics are approved including paxlovid with close to 90% effectiveness. Have you heard anything rapid here? This is that over $1 Billion invested by a public bureaucracy into itself, dear, will do for you in close to two years. None. Nothing. Use a microscope or telescope with the same result. Sure blame private pharmaceuticals for their greed. Not that I'm a big fun of, but that's an objective, clear picture.

I'm not gainst or for vaccines, this is a meaningless position, in my view. They are good for some and in some situations. And it's far from proven, from any rational point of view that they are unconditionally good for everyone and always. Vaccines as anything, is an instrument, a tool. And the result of application of any tool is determined by who is wielding it and how. Even cosmetic scissors can cause serious injury if mishandled. And we are talking about interfering with the immunity on the population level and indefinitely, according to some exsperts, without as much as giving a thought to possible consequences. What makes me uncomfortable to the point of scared is that no one, nowhere here at least is thinking objectively and rationally, having all factors and considerations in mind and evaluating them thoroughly. From "travel from Wuhan, sure" to let's shoot every body every six no three months and see what happens, decisions are made in a flash and on a dime. If this is not scary what would be?

In a society based on reason and accountability; on the third year of an event; the authorities must explain; justify and prove the necessity of any significant restrictions they intend to impose on the citizens. As well, mechanisms of accountability, measuring objective effectiveness of the measures and progress to the solution; and impartial checks must exist. Is it too much to expect, if, presumably, the society is based on reason? Can such a society agree with unaccountable; arbitrary and chaotic hand management, with no clear limits or indefinitely, without any oversight and accountability, and no explanations of any kind except this is what we happen to think (today)?