myata

As seen right now around you? Rights that can be curbed for any "safety" pretext, without convincing evidence, due process, oversight and impartial arbiter?

And how would you know that though? After two or three cycles of mandatory boosting and not around cities but only non vaccinated holdouts aka scapegoats (in the absence of evidence)? What, cannot happen here? "War measures act"? Arbitrary internment of hostile aliens? Residential schools? I would be careful wishing on Chinese practices what if they could come true.

That's it, thank you, you nailed it. At issue is not certain act, and the multitude of points and arguments around it but the choice itself, the right to choose, until and unless there is a strong, discussed, proven and accepted by a consensus need to limit it. And that is exactly what's missing from this picture. We get appeals and directions, but few explanations, evidence, justifications and meaningful review from all perspective. It's not about to do or not, it's about the choice. And it makes all the difference.

Great, now we're getting to the point and why being shy about it? Another thing they did by the way is keeping the news of the dangerous epidemics from the world and their own population for months. And guess what, we can do something like that too! And they have concentration camps too, if by another name, by the way. And the question is now, what can't we and wouldn't do, from what Chinese did and put? Surprisingly, no?

One glance in any city tells instantly that there's no problem with elite condo housing, it's booming. The problem is that the market is distorted, under current incentives it pays more to build top market condos for speculation than regular and low income housing. And the bureaucracy had all the authority and tools for decades to create right incentives the problem is, it doesn't know what to do, in simple words, clueless. And so the regular adage, give us more powers, quick panacea, easy scapegoats. See how well it worked already, "fixed for a generation"!

Depends on the perspective. If any meaningful conversation begins with "just give me some more of unaccountable power" then something is not only ridiculous but troublesome and some may say, dangerous.

Remember what happened to the "contact tracing app" that was drummed and sung and pushed like by a noisy door-to-door seller never explaining how it could even work with so many glaring problems? The bottom line is, it's not the Man, it's us. Whatever we'll make of the mandates and passports that is what we (and our posterity, why not and where would be the guarantees) will live with. Fair is fair.

There are more effective, more democratic and less totalitarian methods to achieve the same, such as regulations, oversight, fines and other financial incentives and disincentives. But someone wants a quick fix and if not working in reality then at least to show on paper at election time and has a lot of unchecked and unaccountable power. And that is a bad combination (for the society) that way more often led to authoritarianism than to effective solutions of complex problems.

And so it's here: vaccine passports went live in Quebec. For the background, vaccinations in Quebec, mostly voluntary till now, are at 86% of above 12 population. To that can be added up to 10% recovered from Covid (equivalent to fully vaccinated, including unreported cases) plus medical exceptions, with the remaining non vaccinated minority of only a few percent. This is not mandatory vaccinations as passport applies to "non-essential activities" at least for now, however some interpreted it as a coercion. Questions: 1. Will the policy require the return to the full normal for those with the passport, as claimed and promised, or only to the previous quasi-normal, i.e. a moving reward? 2. What is the term and conditions of prolongation and mechanisms of independent, non-partisan oversight? Are there any? 3. How will the effectiveness of the policy be monitored and evaluated? The danger for the society's freedoms related to p.3 is that any shortfalls of the policy such as increases in cases would be immediately and automatically blamed on non vaccinated, whether it can be substantiated or not by the evidence, leading into a spiral of tightening restrictions on the entire society. This could open the path, depending on the virus that nobody can predict at this time, all the way to indefinite in time and measures medically-justified authoritarianism. And before we head on, by default and without much reflection into the funnel of self-escalating mandates and restrictions, can we spend a minute on the answer: what was wrong with the voluntary compliance in the first place? (as in the beginning)? Why can't we spend that minute? Who or what is making us run, run, run somewhere, right where you're told, to constant and incessant drumming?

Yet the data seem to indicate that vaccinated transmit almost as much as non vaccinated. Otherwise the incidence of cases in that group could be expected to be lower than in the non vaccinated one. That's a bit of tension with the story we're hearing here, but it's more in line with the patterns of cases what can be seen. Again, why is it so hard just to know what's going on? Isn't like a small army of experts etc just turn on any channel in this country, are paid generous and some can say outrageous compensations by the public just for that?

In reality it is actually replacing hospitalizations due to many of the respiratory causes, including flu and common cold, also a common cause of complications in elderly and immuno-compromised. And why should we believe blindly, just on word anybody? How was this unconditional trust earned and when, if I'm allowed to ask? And what would be the problem with reporting it clearly, accurately and honestly, just like the description says and what is the money paid for by the public, not creative gimmicks with statistics?

Right. And it makes all the difference if the total capacity is 110 or 11,000 and whether the peak occupancy in a flu season was 30 or 300. But sure, so much easier shout aiii! it's coming! And of course, some of us are even paid for it.

Sure, as already mentioned, I accept commissions. Not looking for anything much, just reasonable compensation for real work comparable to paid for its absence or imitation. And by the way, the number itself, without context is meaningless. What is 125, in length? Look it just went from 3 to 11! What is the total ICU capacity in the province? What was the average occupation, before the pandemic? And what was the peak occupation in flu seasons? When Joe from the street is clueless in some remote to him issue that's no problem. But what if professionals and experts' show clear signs of that in their direct area of responsibility? Should we, I mean broader society, be concerned and pay attention?

Are effective early treatments available everywhere and used appropriately when needed? Or is it pray to holy vaccine (and do nothing) or ICU? Is there an evidence for "five times more transmissible"? We already seen from the Lancet study that the rate of hospitalizations has barely changed and other studies confirmed that. A rise in severe cases in itself is not the cause for panic. But it needs to be understood what is happening and that is done with a honest and diligent investigation. Where are the cases coming from? Were all of them treated timely and correctly? Propaganda drumming does not offer any answers and that's one of the reasons it can go on indefinitely.

Another brilliant achievement of the Covid-scare: US issues travel advisory for Canada. Several European countries have Canada in the orange category with mandatory quarantines. What you get for all the vaccination effort. What, all those scary news, pumping-drumming coming, scary wave is coming, yes it's coming! and someone at last noticed? No, no sorry, it was meant only for Joe, he and her always listens to the drumming but look here, the numbers! Too bad that there are still some who read the news for information. Quickly, turn on same experts' only with a different muzak, all is nice and safe in Canada! Just like cry wolf in the fairy tale, sure, sounds like a strategy.

Because naive imitations of democracy with party-corporations and party employees aka part-time maybe representatives could not work and were not made to work in this century? Two centuries back it was created as a thin veil over a colonial bureaucracy run by hand and hasn't changed much in essence or in function since.

Ahha, but if you're very busy writing (mostly useless, like masks outdoors) recommendations and mandatory policies in a very busy home office, so easy to miss the reality right behind the window!

OK, let's try to see it on the level of Grade 3 math. If there were 0 (zero) cases in July and 3 in August, that is three cases difference, but up to infinity (and beyond, depending on the propaganda budget), relatively. A huge new wave is coming, aiiiii!, run and hide!! But in reality, there appears to be a strong seasonal suppression effect as seen last summer, with no vaccines. Combined with vaccinations that by early summer were reaching significant levels, it brought cases almost to zero level. Now the seasonal part is waning, just like the last year, and we're here to see how the vaccines would live up to the promise. If the numbers are to be believed, we have little to worry about: the risk of complications for the vaccinated is less than that of a flu, and non vaccinated are such a tiny minority that our ICUs should be very safe.

Well, there are two different directions: hard work, in the actual high risk environments coming up with, testing and rapidly implementing effective solutions that save real lives; or sitting on a bum in a comfy office, salaries, Covid-19 trainings, working from home bonuses, pension plans etc yada all rolling in as nothing happened and writing policies on masking and dancing protocols maybe something would work or if not the propaganda will make it look as though they do (all time records in waves 2 and 3, with full masking in place). Which one would you choose? And not a tiniest stretch by any logic, when you walk in a restaurant, mask on, make the order, ditto, then take it off for two, three hours, etc but!!! put it back on! for 5 min going to a restroom. There you go, all protected. What is it if not a performance, std and useless Covid-dance? Who was paid for creating, it instead of something that's actually useful and works? Who has checked whether it's doing anything? And the entire strategy" may be like that, along the same lines of logic and effectiveness.

I reflected some more on this question and two considerations let me to the decision that I'm comfortable with. First, if vaccination amounted to return to full or almost full normal (I could accept some reduction of capacity and mandatory masks in really constrained spaces, like ER - maybe not a bad idea at all times) I could see it as a possible deal. Safety for normality, OK at least there's a ground for conversation. That is not what is happening here. There's no return to normal normality only to last year's quasi normal in exchange for this new thing, the code. Last year you had the mask in a restaurant; this year show the code plus the mask in a restaurant. Aka, sliding scale and moving ladder. Donkey and a carrot stick. OK, got it. And what would you be asked to do next year, for today's normal? Good question but nobody's talking. And the next is, what are the terms and conditions, the small print? Where can see I it and where to take it in case of issues? What, sign up now, without time limits and conditions and will figure it out in the next while... indefinitely... forever? Sorry I wouldn't buy a vacuum clear like that. And no it cannot be a matter of trust. See, trust has to be earned and kept, not claimed for granted and yes by anybody including whatever office, no automatically assumed and taken for granted trust. And the time for the trust is past in this case.

Oh, that may not be so hard to understand if recall that cases went down to virtual zero in the summer of 2020 and without any vaccines, none at all. Some would claim that the great policies worked but why wouldn't same policies do the same trick six month later? No, there's a simpler explanation: a seasonal effect. Cases went down again. stayed low and now beginning to pick up again. Nothing out of normal.

We're opening the door to the brave new dawn without a slightest reflection or hesitation. It's one thing to not understand and quite another to not care and bother even trying understanding. Yes, we are ready!

The problem is not with the population: we got to 90% of the eligible population vaccinated mostly, until very recently, through voluntary compliance. The problem is not the infection, there are examples of effective management that do not involve hand control and management of the society. What is it, then? Let's guess and maybe start with notions like responsibility; accountability; efficiency; competence; inventiveness; creativity. If the bureaucracy is not made to work for the people it will work for itself, really only two possibilities.

Patently not true . Ontario reports close to 70% of vaccinated (total population). Further 15% are children under 12. Another group is recovered from Covid, that is equivalent to full vaccination, 5-8% estimated by Ontario numbers. Plus those with medical exemptions. That is already way over 90% of population with very strong protection against severe cases. And of the remaining small fraction, large part, because vulnerable population has very high levels of vaccination, has to be the younger groups, again with a small risk of severe complications if judged by objective numbers rather than scary anecdotes in the news. What remains is several hundred thousands, and there's no chance this group could fill the ICU in this reality at least. This is stretching the unlikely to the point of obvious manipulation. I haven't looked at the numbers in BC but I would accept commissions should anyone be needing an analysis. But now, that it was mentioned, why don't we look closer at ICUs and what's going on there? It's been well over a year since first days of the pandemic and effective treatments have been found and tested and approved, including monoclonal therapy, self-allergic suppressing agents and others. So are they available when needed and used correctly and timely to avoid those scary ICU statistics? How can we be certain of that? Can we, with all what we can see or hear being either vaccinations, or ICU?

And if we were to believe that, in two decades of "fixing it for a generation" and upon spending uncounted public billions we're finding that the system could not cope with an epidemics in under 10% of the population? Wouldn't it be like, yet again, covering ineptitude with blank, indiscriminate and unproven measures? Why would one use a patent failure as a justification, and why should anyone take it seriously? The money were given for the system that works, not marches and clueless propaganda.