myata

And by the way, has anyone noticed ironic parallels between the anti-abortion and forced vaxx mobs? In the absence of strong evidence that q-vaccines prevent infection and transmission (and it doesn't exist, or why the government would make the same quarantine rules regardless of vaccination status?) the argument is purely and ideologically far fetched: "protect our unborn babies" vs. "protect our hospital spaces". And this is of course why the tune suddenly changes to "only hospitalizations matter" like just forgot (honestly! what?) that smoking and any number of other choices are correlated with hospital use too. And that demonstrates quite obviously that it's not the rights, freedoms, equality etc that matters for these crowds, but only imposing their dogma on everybody and not but intelligent argument and voluntary agreement but by force. Talk about the irony here, and I expect is to see more of these examples as we go into this untrodden age. We humans, are, after all unbeaten world champions in justification and rationalization of what we believe and want.

Note that "fully", whatever the meaning of the day. Remember "even one shot provides protection" oh wait, it was yesterday's truth! And I guess in the light of today's truth we will hear that "look you're making XY% of our hospital use so inject this asap or get out asap" more often, now that it's a respected argument repeated by diverse exsperts, shall we not, and why not?

There's at least one easy guess why: what would it take to admit another expensive failure? Is there's a way for a bureaucracy like this to admit that it was wrong all over or it'll have to wait a couple of generations and then, an apology? Sure vaccines can be and were useful in some specific cases, I personally have no doubts about it. But as a general universal solution, a blanket panacea? Well the result is already before us, if it cannot be seen and interpreted as another expensive failure, what can?

Two logical flaws right here: 1. The fact of protection from spreading the infection has never been proven, only alleged by some calling themselves "experts". We need to do much better than that, to justify forcibly shooting something in someone's body against their will. How about an open discussion of the issue where arguments and evidence can be presented by every side, not only hand-picked exsperts with unknown professional achievements by unknown criteria, unless it's willingness to broadcast the truth of the day? 2. Even if a benefit to the society is established it's still not a valid reason to force individuals to comply with prescribed behavior, there are more checks and barriers. In fact there's a well-known word for the state forcing individuals to comply with prescribed behaviors and it isn't "democracy".

Except governments were never able to achieve that sustainably so the question is in order, is it even government's job, or maybe someone else's?

This is a great illustration of this humanity's eternal pantomime to appear something that it's (quite obviously) not. Rule of law, justice yes. Of course, Epstein and now Maxwell. Yes we see that our great democratic justice can go to that level.. and then, what? This is the end of the story, right? Justice has been served right, bad bad epstein and now maxwell too. And then "no victim", yes? Or, some national prerogative, OK. A silent film decades and centuries long.

You go to an online store looking for an $10 thingy and look, all kind of information at your fingertips: here's the warranty, so many millions happy customers and here's their comments, detailed specs, star ratings, quality certificate and sure, the return policy. Now to compare to this, we would like to shoot this into you now, yes again and maybe every three months thereafter (not a hyperbola see quote above) yes it's good for you see these expserts are saying it no they'll have no responsibility if anything goes wrong and no, no further questions, just be happy and no returns. It would be so much easier if going forward at some time around birth we would all sign a release giving full control and ownership of our bodies to our trusted governments (but only and exclusively for the matters of public good.. they would surely know). Oops have I just spilled it, so sorry.

Why could not we know the rate of infection in vaccinated children and boosted adults? Shouldn't one know first and then recommend, or it's a thing of the past and from now on it'll be the other way around?

You may know but do you want to remember and admit? The same kind of experience where you delegate intelligence, critical questioning and responsibility to someone somewhere exspert and then residential schools happen, what can you do.

What is the rate of infection (attention: including mild and non symptomatic) among a) kids 5-18 and b) boosted? Do we know it? This is a critical part of making a serious decision, and how come we don't know it and can't know it on the third year of this story? (how long the oh so new excuse can be claimed?). Would you go to a mechanic who said I've no clue what's going on but let's stick this here and see what happens? Everyone is free to take, ingest, inject and so on anything into their body but at this level of responsibility and evidence, can it remain free, please?

Well now you know it though it took about ten decades to find out. But what if you trusted exsperts of the day back then on their word, despite doubts and concerns? Nothing familiar, no? And by the way who promised that a long-term experiment on the population immunity, should something go sideways, would be as forgiving, with just an apology and compensation? Did anyone promise you that?

Have you had a chance to find out what exsperts are saying about the great, evidence based and very progressive residential school education program now? Do you have an idea what they'll be saying two, three or some decades from now about Covid? Because you know that something has changed, right?

This piece illustrates quite well the mentality in the high circles making these critical decisions (boosters) How much does the booster help? 1. "Probably a lot – against infection" 2. "Laboratory studies have shown that antibodies..." 3. "I think this finding is suggestive that we're inducing..." Ergo, "We definitely need to give this to everyone if we want to prevent.." In my lab I think I'm seeing something with some of my mice so why not shoot it into everybody right now and see what happens, like what could go wrong! A horror movie, right? And then, "Nobody knows how long protection from infection will last" so, "in the middle of a pandemic one can argue that a three-month or four-month booster makes more sense" That's it, we have arrived, hurray! hurray! Does it still sound and walk like science - or something quite / entirely different?

Not necessarily, could be that old traditional cheerful and mindless arrogance if we can do it, why not and we'll find out later if it worked! Not like it hasn't happened and why not try, again?

I stopped taking in so called "advice" seriously when by the second half of 2020 it became apparent that it's coming from the source that is both clueless and misreprsenting (yes, there's a shorter synonym). If it was one or the other, it could still have some use but with both there's no option but to give up. Not once imposed policies and panaceas worked as expected and promised though never explained. Not to worry, there's always the next time. And by the way, you surely know what to expect if this new adventure would end up in some major issues some years or decades down the way? If not (still) why not find out the examples are right there. Sponsorship scandal, Phoenix scandal, SNC scandal oops give it some more years sincere apology OK this was only the money but this time they seem bent on shooting something into you every six months or maybe four and that's where I'd like to say, not so fast, can we give it another thought please.

Like "dogma can be dangerous" when followed blindly and thoughtlessly is a surprise discovery, with all the history before our eyes. Like we're going to discover something new here?

It could be an exciting theme for another X-files style series except here in Canada even a deepest conspiracy would look and feel dead boring, like take a bureaucrat a century back he sent native kids to residential schools with a single scratch of a quill, then Chinese immigrants to forced labor, detention camps, war measures act and now forced vaccinations.... Like where's the thrill, a surprise, here?

We are talking about coerced corrections and social credit in remote places, but here's a thought: is it already here, just by another name? Just off the radio, vaccines offer only 15% protection against the new variant according to Ontario science table. So how are the passports still justified, by what evidence? Are they still there to provide a strong, or critical even given the extent and implication of the restrictions, benefit to the society? Or mostly, only to reward blind compliance and "good behavior" - as defined by anonymous bureaucrats with no explanation and accountability, responsible to nobody? In those remote places it's called something like "politburo" but surely it's so very different... is it, though and how would we know? Talk about the irony... and no one talking about it being only temporary anymore...

Let's take two, three, five years back can we? How many, at any one time, were away from the office for a day, two or a few with temperature and fatigue at the height of a seasonal wave? Who counted, has anybody counted? But we need to know do we? even to compare, because the sky has not fallen back then. Is it the same as "playground effect" where you see a double number of parents to the children playing because a pedofile story was in the news last week in another city? And now hugely fanned out by the government propaganda, at our own expense, like a self-reinforcing positive feedback avalanche loop till we stop hearing anything else and thinking independently in reverberations of our own anxiety and fear reflected and magnified to insanity. Over these months/years we have changed ourselves, allowed and agreed to, and still longing to get back to the normal that was the other, different people's normal. Is it even possible now, forget cheerful ads on TV for a miracle panacea that has not and cannot work.

Just think about it this way. Serious side effects, and more commonly, serious discomfort have been reported for taking this vaccine. Long term effects are unknown. What if Heavens forbid, a decade or two from now some serious long term effects are found and it's not a far stretch, as this is a different type of treatment and it works on the immune system directly? So how then should we call all those exsperts group and solo dancing and singing on TV without even pretending to provide honest and objective information? Should they carry some responsibility also in such an event, or it's all included in the package oops we just thought and not to worry?

Like anybody cared, and they all kept marching on. The ants go marching bum-bum-bum... hurray. You have arrived.

Maybe only the eternal cycle, from enthusiastic democracy-freedoms to well-fed (and bored) bread and circuses to authoritarian-totalitarian old age and so on, and all over again. Wish I could bring to your attention a more exciting story, like something original, new.

We have created, or allowed them to create a situation from which there's no exit. No exit anywhere in sight, not just a good one just think and look. What exit criteria, who needs them from an "out of abundance of caution" lull to the next spike/variant followed by another "defeat it forever" q-vaccination drive? In the first wave of the pandemic, we had no masks in grocery stores and I can't recall any outbreaks linked to them. Then, when in the summer as cases were dropping to nil (no masks, no vaccines) they brought it in my some municipal order, ahead of the province. Why did they bring it? What was the reason, explanation, when factual reasons were nil? Who asked for it, and who answered? Many months on, there were few outbreaks linked to stores, so how did we do? Nil on nil, is it a great improvement? who bothers. But the thing is, you're getting used to it, taking it as a part of normal, the normal itself. No, not the cloth thing of questionable usability in some/many situations like put it on in the washroom. The mental thing, someone making for you random, arbitrary, never explained and needing no explanation daily rules and orders and you roll your sleeve happily and cheerfully, no questions asked (and needed). You know what it's called, surely? And where the exit is?

And maybe this is no exaggeration. The authorities at all levels and orders are moving firmly and confidently on from business, affairs, areas and domains responsibilities etc management to people management. It's more rewarding, and there are no checks and no questions to answer. Like how do you evaluate effectiveness of a policy? Only by the number of them, and that is never a problem. Exit criteria? Targeted vs delivered result? No no, all things of the past. Look there's this new thing so you have to and here's the prescription. Even where there are system, balances, checks and controls if and when citizens go to sleep they rust and grind to a halt. And here we have none, yada. Never thought we would need them. If it works like it did two hundred years back why bother fixing.

Happy holidays everyone and picking up the topic of a) What is the risk of a serious Covid-19 for general healthy population compared to flu/common cold and b) Why there's no consideration/discussion/evidence-based evaluation of alternative approaches focusing on effective management of the problem based on the priority, rather blanket and uniform "shotgun" solutions (that we have yet to see work once, now that all-time highs are reached yet again with all the recommended measures in place). As no information or discussion is forthcoming, here's a few guesses, please add any other that come to mind. By the principle of exclusion of unlikely or impossible alternatives we should be able to get to the bottom of it, at least if this Universe at this time still retains a connection to reason and logic. A. There's a terrible secret that justifies anything and everything that the public just cannot know. If it exists how likely it would be to remain a terrible secret for two years and many a wave in this information age? Highly unlikely to plain impossible. B. The system cannot handle it. We have to agree here, the old system was not designed and certainly could not operate in a situation with a high influx of mostly mild cases where some would develop into more serious courses. It just isn't: a) smart enough b) quick enough c) intelligent d) effective e) efficient f) sufficiently resourced g) capable of quick response and adapting and so on. No, the system as it is is highly unlikely to handle it. So what do we do about it? C. The managing bureaucracy cannot adapt the system to the needs of the day (now exactly two decades after SARS pandemic). Does it look more likely than a terrible, terrible secret? Highly advanced aliens among us spreading it to grab our resources with the planet itself out there; or just good old, slow; lazy; inept; over-expensive and self-satisfied and absorbed in itself bureaucracy? Which one, pick one. D. Because the system cannot be adapted (not in time, and likely, ever) to the needs of the day, there are only two options. E. Oiiii look the models are showing if we all don't do (put it here) right now it will collapse ("crumbling system"), aiiiiii!! F. You have to all do (it) right now under the penalty of (fill) because (never mentioned, p. C), no questions asked, a perfect total consensus of TV exsperts (all involved with the system somehow, step aside, independent opinion impossible) or it will collapse, oi!! G. This is the only way it can work. No, we haven't seen it sorry. First, it has not be shown that it works - and we have not seen that it does, sorry. Secondly, no other approaches were tried so there's no way to tell if they would have worked better. Especially an intelligent and effective targeting of the areas where the problem is most serious. No, by all signs and walks of it, it looks just like a plain old dogma that is the only way it can work, in the eyes and minds of believers. But there's another possibly too (yes, longread apologies, almost there): that we are reaching the end of another age of reason, intelligence, democracy and so on. The society has grown mentally lazy and self-absorbed. It does not want to ask questions and look for intelligent solutions that work. No, it wants only quick and easy answers to all and any problem that comes along to back to the happy routine (yes, "bread and circuses", how new. First, passionate democracy, followed by prosperity bringing about bread and circuses and on to authoritarianism, upheavals and back again, heroically). But are they always assured to exist? And if so, what would we do about it?