myata

The democracy in this country is indeed in danger - only from party-corporations, accountable to nobody using pandemic scare to achieve political goals and extend and strengthen grip on the power. And these are very much confirmed facts.

That may very well be true, I saw a published story with 159 overdose cases (July 2021) in just one month in one province (BC).

Summarized for simpler take in and added Covid: Major disease 169,855 Covid-19 15,500 (2020) Accidents 13,746 Flu and pneumonia 8,511 (2018) Overdose 6214 (2020) Alzheimer's 6,166 Suicide 4,012 Everybody can do the math. None of the above, except one, warranted extraordinary population-wide restrictions with no clear end in sight. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem, but clearly the sky is not falling and the correct approach would be not taking marches in random directions but an intelligent balance of risks and mitigation measures to protect vulnerable, offer and provide the best and quickest help to those who need it and normal, as much as possible, functioning of the society.

This is a very informative piece (by University of California, San Francisco) with some good data and explanations on the delta variant. Yes it is significantly more contagious. Yes vaccines are effective in reducing severity of cases, but not clear by how much the transmission and unlikely prevents it completely in vaccinated. No, it has not been confirmed that it's catastrophically more dangerous. And it's clear that we do have a very serious problem on our hands because regardless of the level of vaccination it appears that this is a very contagious virus with transmission that cannot be controlled. And very likely it means that it will be here, and just by the simple law of evolution, the next variant that would come about at some point will me more contagious and possibly, vaccine-resistant. The shotgun approach has been tried and for all it looks like, miracles aside, it did not work. And that means that as a society we need to start thinking what to do next. And it means that we'll need full, accurate and honest information (that we don't have) and the results of different, targeted and specific methods of controlling the problem, besides blank population-wide shotguns and panaceas that, apart from vaccines, have been barely looked at. Either that, finding out, thinking, understanding and finding working solutions; or locking ourselves by default and silent concession, into an indefinite cycle of total dependence on the virus and big pharma. Line up here to get your next mandatory booster, for the next three to six month. Have we already read it somewhere?

Should a party, any one and I don't care about politics, ideology and so on, be able to call an election during a national emergency, for no other reasons than to strengthen and prolong grip on power; and then use the fear of the epidemics as a tool and ploy in the political game? Trudeau proposes mandatory vaccination protections What if this could be just that proverbial moment when Canadians were called to decide their destiny? Think of it, in the coming decades and generations, climate change, extreme weather events, more and different epidemics. Should we embrace this type of politics and campaigning and see what happens? There is a wide and growing by day choice of post-apocalyptic stories that investigated this path to a brave new future. What if we already know something?

I don't have to add much, in this life we already live with a large number of risks. Flu complications, traffic accidents, random accidents, earthquakes hurricanes, lightning strikes meteorite strikes black hole encounter and all the way to the random collapse of the Universe. Yes, and the rising health risks due to global warming. Yes and quite possibly due to confusing and misleading advice ("travel from Wuhan")> So the questions should be addressed not to me but to the authorities, for example: should measures be proportional to the risks, for the majority of population? And if some groups are at significantly higher risk, shouldn't effective targeted measures be developed and implemented to protect them without overreaching and indefinite, by all signs, restrictions on the whole society?

Who is not telling? Where? What universe is this from?

Wow! I counted 7 (seven) instances, in two months, very tragic without doubt every one of them, for the combined population of USA (320 million), United Kingdom (66 million) and Canada (38 million), over 400 million in total. Just to remind, in USA alone there were 300,000 (three hundred - thousands) hospitalizations due to flu complications in just one year. But a very good demonstration what is wrong the media these days. It completely distorts the reality to promote someone's ends. Whose ends? That part of the story is rarely if ever told.

Would anyone recall that movie, V for Vendetta? Remember, vote for me and I'll keep you safe? (now can you please bring it, the heat that is, a bit higher, that should be good thank-you) Now you know who will keep you safe. Trudeau ratches up talk on mandatory vaccinatons.... Don't know why did it come to me, and of cause no parallels with the world's best democracy Canadians making their choice in a pandemic election. Just in case anyone wanted to remember how went the story.

Why all the commotion seems to be about the race for the last 2 percent, while no one seem to be worried about a dramatic jump in ICU admissions, compared to the similar period last year (when if we still remember there was no vaccinations)? Over 100% increase, same number of cases! Almost two thirds of hospitalizations apparently (if the numbers are to be believed) go to ICU. The infection is becoming catastrophically more dangerous (according to the numbers) though there doesn't seem to be much scientific evidence for that. A real mystery. Experts, are you still there? Or does someone know something we don't?

Two serious problems with universal and mandatory or strongly incentivized immunization are, what to do when the protection will begin waning (at it will begin at some and not so distant point) and how it will affect population's immunity in the longer perspective. The initial problem was not that there's a very dangerous, and universally dangerous disease. Rather there's a significant group, up to 20-25% of population for whom it can be very dangerous, and the rest needs to be somewhat careful, consistently and in the right way. And this is, quite clearly, not a king of problem that can be treated successfully with a point blank, one shot, simple and universal solution. Even mass immunization, according to the movies. So ones it became clear that it's not going to remove the problem, as worked for some diseases but not for flu or common cold, the time is to apply reason and intelligence. It needs to be studied and confirmed that vaccines indeed provide strong protection to the vulnerable groups. To them further vaccination can be given as and when needed to continue the protection for as long as needed. Some professions and/or work areas as well, not a bandwagon though. For everyone else, it should be optional. We should stop aiming for continued high level of universal immunization indefinitely, likely it wouldn't work and still can be dangerous due to possible long term immunity effects. The next point of emphasis is the best treatment as and when needed. And the last one, clear and consistent information and additional measures of protection that do not unnecessarily constrain the society. Intelligent approach or blind panacea marching, these are clearly different strategies and rapidly diverging strategies leading to quite different outcomes.

I posted a link to a study (The Lancet or equivalent) of flu complications in the US, should be able to find it still if interested. Cannot promise perfect memory, but I think around 2013 season there were 300,000 hospitalizations due to flu complications with a population of just under 300,000 or 0.1% risk across all age groups. It has to be significantly higher in the risk groups. According to Ontario demographics these groups are about 25% of the population (all ages). Now, the risk of hospitalization by age can be found here. We have one quarter of the population with 95 times higher risk of severe outcomes than the reference group 18-29. What does it tell to an intelligent researcher and policy maker? That if the infection could not be eliminated entirely (and in the second year it does not appear any nearer) the focus has to shift to finding and implementing effective protection for the vulnerable; best treatment for those who need it; providing the society with accurate and honest information; and letting it be as normal as possible otherwise.

With probably over 90% of eligible population with strong protection against Covid by now (remember, a single vaccine doze and having recovered provides strong protection or so we were told) we should be feeling way more confident and hopeful than last fall. Do we? School has not started yet, and the case counts are at multiple of same time, last year. And due to some yet unknown effect experts are busy looking at (or should?) ICU numbers are double of the last fall's. Do you feel more hopeful and confident now, that a great majority of the eligible population have strong protection or should have, if the numbers and stories are to be believed?

The current political model with two monstrous party-corporations in the governing duopoly focused almost exclusively on the power is naturally encouraging authoritarian trends and methods in the governance of public matters. If anyone needs a confirmation of that they wouldn't need to much but to open the eyes and read the news. Is it an adequate style and model for solving modern problems and challenges? Can it work as effectively in the 21st century as it did in the 18th and 19th? Has anybody promised that? How can the change be brought about? We are talking about a society where changing a few lines of text can be a barely surmountable challenge spanning decades, then let go of (Senate reform, elections reform, fixing for a generation). Make your conclusions from here.

Aka the donkey and a carrot stick. Always move on, never think of what was done and what was the result. Apparently, we already have it in public healthcare. Just imagine when the idea and the method will be adopted everywhere. How cool would it be.

We're talking about essentially different models of governance in this century. One is a duopoly of party-corporations whose sole purpose is to govern. They do not have specific issues and / or agendas can change them on the fly ("the election reform") and focus all efforts on gaining the power and keeping it as long as possible. In addition, once in power there's no effective checks on the governing party-corporation, simply none. By voting, citizens pick one of the corporations for the next period and that's it - they have no further say, influence or control of political process. The second model is based on coalitions built based on the issues and agendas of highest importance to the citizens. By voting citizens can choose the issues of importance, build a government that will be focused on these issues rather than its own priorities, and keep it under control via coalition structure, where constituents maintain full independence and not managed by a single Politburo, that is, party office. Which of the models can and will perform better in this century known for rapidly developing complex challenges that need quick and intelligent reaction?

How exactly there's "a lot more of it" than in the early fall of 2020 or this summer when case numbers went practically to zero? Why would one ever stop dumping loads of nonsense if it costs them nothing? What it looks like is yet again they put all bets on one option, it isn't working as expected and nobody has a clue why and what to do. Except one option, maybe: creative propaganda and funny work on the statistics. That always worked, unlike managing the pandemic. Somebody has yet to explain that more than 100% jump in ICU, according to the government's numbers. Can we still hope?

For a private citizen it would be good enough, but for those claiming to be experts in the full knowledge of the situation? I don't think so. Either there's a huge change in the behavior of the epidemics, to think of it, over 100% jump in serious cases, all factors equal; or something interesting is going on with the data itself. And in either case, to leave it just so for the public to guess, can be seen as: unprofessional; misleading; and one could think, not compatible with the duties delegated and expected by the public, whose paycheck they receive.

The mechanism(s) by which a) the same number of cases and b) hospitalizations in last October 2020, links above, produced less than a half of ICU admissions compared to the current numbers for non vaccinated (78 to 160), given that delta variant has not been reported as significantly more severe. What does it mean if almost two thirds of hospitalizations are escalated to ICU if there's no evidence that the illness is extremely dangerous? Only two possibilities come to mind: either a massive fluctuation resulting in higher number of severe cases than expected statistically; or the reporting practice has changed, silently and without notice. The result is of course that on the sight of it, without going into detail, a much higher ICU number is seen by the public daily, reinforcing the outbreak concerns and fear. Some may not notice or not care but looking at such events as cited earlier, it's getting hard to avoid the feeling that either those working with data don't always know what they are doing; or someone for some reason is deliberately withholding accurate and complete information; and I'm not sure which one is better.

This is a curious case of extreme naivite, given our previous, and not not so distant, experiences with contact tracing data (with three "unknown" categories and one irrelevant ("close contact") out of five) and most recently, "vaccination status unknown" all from the same source. Yes, and "travel from Wuhan", too. Has it ever occurred to you that data does not descend on us from the Heavens but is prepared and published by someone, and those someones may not be flawless (honestly or otherwise)? OK, let's assume it's honest and geniune (the naivite not data - in it nothing can be taken on faith and assumed, and everything has to be understood and explained). And so, we have to keep trying to understand, again: how have ICU numbers more than doubled: from 78 to 160, with the same number of cases and hospitalizations, and no significant increase in morbidity that was reported for the delta variant?

Exclamations don't add evidence. There's no scientific evidence that delta variant statistically is more dangerous. There's a less distant and based on the experience much more plausible possibility of another creative information trick in the march to eternal goodness. Like why would be "vaccination status unknown" when health card was required to book vaccination appointments? At that pace it's not hard to predict that soon the actors would be performing mostly or only? to themselves.

The problems with propaganda marching to instant panacea strategy: 1. "Cry wolf" effect. It plays into population's expectations but in case of multiple failures, it can be completely disoriented and wouldn't trust anything. 2. Creates unreasonable expectations and false sense of security. 3. Creates unreasonable expectations for the future instead of focusing on finding working solutions now. 4. Distracts from looking for and developing working solutions now to propaganda drumming and meaningless rituals.

Why ICU numbers doubled compared to the last year, with similar number of cases and hospitalizations? If one number cannot be trusted, why any one should?

What if the strategy" of fanfare drumming and propaganda marching has at last met its match? Like was it ever promised that it would not? And do we have any backup plans?

It hinges on the presence of active and involved citizens. If the only thing the population needs from the politics is to replace one face they've grown bored of with another, or look for consolation in uncertain times, then we got the best possible and nothing more could and will happen here. Every organism, social and political including, would adapt to its environment, and do only as much as it requires from it.