myata

It's been close to a year of Delta variant (December 2020, India and UK). We, the society need answers: 1. What is the rate of infection, in any form, non symptomatic, light etc. in vaccinated population vs non vaccinated? 2. How likely is infected vaccinated individual to infect others? Cases won't tell us the full story because there are undetected and not reported cases. Cases and hospitalizations show us the top and tip of the iceberg, not the whole thing. All we hear is how great it is in preventing serious cases, not the same answer. Serious cases are a small minority in the healthy younger population anyways, and this is not just statistics. Based on these answers we need to decide, thoughtfully and responsibly, whether vaccinations need to be targeted to specific groups or applied universally. Why do we not have the answers? Do we not have crowds of experts and managers paid out of public pocket and responsible just for that, for finding answers to important questions and communicating them to the society? What does this situation tell us about, forget the virus, us and our society, when in almost a year we just cannot get answers critical for development of correct policies? Why do we have, yet again, to resort to stretching and assumptions as opposed to knowing the answers? What is wrong with us, over and yet again? Or is it just another case of a blind talking to a deaf, or st...d to common sense? In that case, sure I get it. Little point in a one-way conversation.

If one doesn't know what they are trying to do, how could they think of measuring what they are not doing? For a manager that is not accountable to anybody for anything, absence of information is the easiest and most certain trick to keep it this way. Could it be why there's so much data in statistics but not a lot of information directly relevant to specific issues of importance the society? Such as real income distribution, cost and efficiency of public management system, immigration and so on.

Getting it right from was not that difficult from the get go, only the politics, business and private interests got in the way. "Nation-building" is a fantasy there's barely any examples, without strong caveats, where it worked. The question that needed to be asked is this: what are realistic, viable alternatives for holding the country together, other than Taliban? Do they exist, or not? Because building something entirely new in a society so different with own deeply entrenched traditions from scratch and in a few decades is just outside of possible in this reality.

So here's a simple question, do we have the answer yet? Mandatory vaccination is being introduced as a requirement in different settings and environments, like transport, travel, workplaces. Everyone knows that immunity from vaccines is not permanent. Many and most experts know that for those vaccinated in the spring of this year, the immunity will begin expiring by end of the year. So what is the meaning and implications of the mandatory requirements? Will they apply, silently and by default to any future booster(s)? Will it be checked and / or controlled by something or someone? Or just waved away automatically, no questions asked? How is that that this isn't discussed, in a society that presumably values freedom?

One of the critical factors in the whole vaccination / delta question is, what is the rate of weak to no symptom infection, and transmission in the vaccinated population? What, "too bad there's so much we don't know yet", all over and again? Just when we needed to know it, too bad, again? Nope, excuse me too hard to believe. If and when someone isn't telling you reasonable information, that in itself is information.

Yes there's a place for affirmative programs. No, it's not tantamount to blank and unconditional granting of public resources on the sole merit of correct race. The problem is, we cannot define and tell the difference between the two, where the dividing line is. There's no instruments and mechanisms for approaching, discussing and solving challenging questions and topics in the society. La-la-la, musak and maybe it'll sort itself somehow, if not throw a billion bucks at it and see what happens. I'm curious to see how this strategy from good old time would continue to work in this century.

Listen to your morning radio for the enemy... sorry another story, booster news of the day. Someone said yesterday it was Oceania.

See "Conflict of interest" thread. Everything is defined in such a way that nothing is defined exactly and specifically and everything can be interpreted as wishes the PM of the day. Conflict of interest or only "appearance", sure. Fixed election dates or PM's desire date, but of course. It's not for nothing our distinguished democratic (sorry that was a typo) elites get automatic annual raises to outrageous but fair and equitable compensations.

Well yes. Either the new variant can be just around the corner; or look, it's here! No, no can't be lifted just yet ... ever?

I'm deeply sympathetic. So you are looking for some help, broadcasting your incapacity here?

On the risks of over-immunization (BBC). This time cheerful carelessness could trigger irreversible effects. "Not a problem! .. oops". 1. Vaccines and protection to the vulnerable. 2. Clear, honest information, advice and best treatment to the healthy. 3. Normal life to the society.

Many words can be said as nothing limits egress of words (in contrast to the results) but one cannot simultaneously claim winning a competition while avoiding and suppressing competition. This is not words already but logic and it wouldn't give. To claim that they're best or even worthy one has to compete against equals and on equal terms. Surely, Putin in Russia, Communist party in China and so on are the best possible rulers of their countries, and you already have a serious clue why. Think about book award, where through twists and tricks of the systems only two authors are allowed to compete. We are the greatest authors ever, and only us can write books. But of course, as you say.

Here's how it works if someone has not yet figured out (as seen on a bus today after masks, just stay home and travel from Wuhan): - Dear Citizens! Let's do this (and this, and this, and that) to return to normalcy asap! (happy grandpa, tears in the eyes) - sigh, allright, here, done (where is normalcy? Normalcy, where are you, hello?!) - Dear Citizens! Let's .... What the ...? Was it only a recording?

Nope, oats or porridge dilemma does not prove that these are best and only possible foods in the Universe. Make the competition fair and equal, make it proportional to the number of voters too and then we'll see who the leaders are and how good they are. This is like in a championship, fixing extra weight on other competitors and they saying these two that did not have it were "natural winners".

Ironically, in the light of curfews and lockdowns it can be seen as a story of lighthearted carelessness. Really, in a country hit twice previously by deadly virus epidemics, and should it be mentioned, of the same type, what could be the default answer to a new potentially dangerous virus from the East but "travel from hotspot, not a problem!". It did not stop there, but on the contrary built on on the implicit, justified by neither science, nor experience (common cold; flu) assumption that there will be 1) one; 2) quick; and, necessarily, 3) blank and universal solution, "silver bullet" that would fix the problem. In place of a coordinated set of effective targeted measures that would allow to keep it under control while coexisting with it without restricting life of the society. There were of course some supporting cases - mostly in the movies, though. None of the purported silver bullets have brought the solution any closer so far, but that has not deterred the conviction, if only the contrary. There's no convincing evidence that universal masking does much in reducing the spread in the environments with low level of infection and ample spacing. And yes, there are methods and technologies that could reduce the risk in these environments even further, down from already low. But that would mean letting go of the mind locks and assumptions and get down to real work with results that can be shown and proven. And that appears to be a problem. And so less effective but uniform placebo takes precedentce over intelligence, effectiveness and efficiency. Here we are turning a new page though, and that maybe worth a few words. As every expert should know, the protection effect from these vaccines has expiry time measured in months not years. So what is next, in the stories of mandatory requirements for this and that? What will happen to them in say, six months? And what kind of society does want to, forget talk, even think about that? Coexistence on a large, society-wide scale of the virus with vaccines that do not use natural agent but work directly on immunity system can have serious and easily foreseen, unless in the spirit of everlasting carelessness, effects of springing accelerating production of new variants simply by selection of more resistant mutations. This could turn into accelerating vaccines-variants race with what, anyone cares to predict, consequences? Not a problem! .. Oops.

If the restrictions aren't coming down anytime soon (and by all indications they are not) the case for repeated ongoing revaccinations will be greatly undermined, so the next logical step would be forcing people into it with possibility of instigating even greater backlash. It seems to me that the bureaucracy not just wouldn't but long forgot how to have an intelligent and respectful dialogue with the society rather than trying over and again, to manage and control it unilaterally and high-handedly, and at that at times, with quite dismal if not plain caricature level of knowledge and competence.

Any group of humans either sufficiently large, or scared enough very quickly stops getting it. In any case, I'd like to see comments and reassurances that imposition of mandatory vaccinations, or their practical equivalents could not happen with a simple routine decree of PHO.

What kind of joke is that? It's bad to step on the rake, but really sucks to do it many times. Just watch them if / when cases go over a thousand.

Good that we're clear on this common misconception.

Note that in the perspective of the events so far, a formal legislation may not even be needed. Instead citizens can be faced with prohibitive restrictions like mandatory paid testing before entering stores or gym, restaurant etc. Please, who can reassure me that it isn't possible by a simple edict of an unelected local PHO, mandatory mask to mandatory vaccination record, without any explanations, justifications and possibility to challenge, just-so-because? That's real post-apocalyptic stuff and it's right at hand, another wave or two all it could take. Isn't interesting, and revealing how easy and fast it was to get here?

This by the way, is an astounding admission. You're saying that independent representative legislative branch of power does not exist in this country (dropping du jour references to Canadians while an employee of the executive)? That the laws are made by, and under the dictation of the executive? And that's why checks and oversight is not just weak but literally non-existent, like the infamous fixed date elections? Based on the reality around I'll have to accept that view. The only question that remains is whether this can still be called a democracy? At least in the full, 21st century meaning of the word.

There's that point of view that something (especially not of my liking) does not exist unless it smacks me and squarely on the head. iPhone in the hand but conclusions of science must be wrong because it's not hitting us on the head (yet) and squarely. For this argument, there's only one way to find out: either it's taken all the way to the logical end and something happens, as predicted by science; or nothing happens. And there's no way of knowing for certain, with 100% certainty able to convince everybody, till the end is reached.

Headlines are appearing in both French and English media, though as yet, without word "universal". Nevertheless, developing into one of the defining issues of the fall election campaign, if not the issue, complacency while waiting whatever happens may not be the smartest option. Suppose the party advocating mandatory vaccines in specific areas and environments, that in itself can be quite restrictive for an average citizen, wins the election with a majority. At this point, the situation will be entirely out of the citizen's control; suppose there's another scary wave and experts calling for mandatory boosters. There will be nothing at all in this case to prevent imposition of a mandatory uniform vaccination under the pretext of 1) majority mandate and 2) safety or the populaiton (not sure how federal vs provincial jurisdictions apply in this case). The problem, of course, is not with the practice of vaccination per se that existed for centuries and saved countless lives. The problem is with how these critical decisions for the society in more than one sense are made. 1. All previous vaccination practices were based on decades of development and experience, including wealth of data on efficacy, side effects, etc. Even then, controversies did happen. Covid1-9 are novel with long-term information on effects absent. 2. All previous vaccines in universal use were based on natural virus, dead or weakened and so did not introduce additional factors in the environment where the virus already existed. Novel vaccines instead operate on immune system directly, with possibility of unpredictable results such as emergence of resistant variants, locking the population into permanent and what if accelerating? revaccination cycle. 3. There's no mechanisms for producing objective, competent and responsible decisions in such cases. PHO have chosen the position of high handedness and baby talk to the population, with unverified and unjustified ("travel from Wuhan") pretension for the ultimate knowledge and truth, that is being regularly confounded by the reality, while majority parties exercised the practice of suppressing discussion and dialogue on important issues. 4. Though small but not non-existent, risk of serious complications for some individuals associated with vaccination. All in all, without responsible, competent and trusted by the society mechanism of discussing such issues and forming critical decisions following this path, based on ad hoc, at times poorly understood and formulated considerations of the moment may lead to outcomes that were not desired, are not in the interests of the society and even, potentially dangerous. We may be lazy and non inventive to fix and renew the system, but at least we should be smart enough to know and understand where better to not go. A belated apology with compensation out of taxpayers pocket decade(s) later may not be, and was never guaranteed to be a universal solution to all problems.

When executive branch has reign that is limited by practically nothing, even independent parliamentary inquiry is not possible because it wouldn't be allowed by the majority partisan club, what else would you expect? What else could be possible, logically? Near absolute authority that monitors and controls itself never existed in reality, its a myth and nonsense. Founders of US democracy new it very well 250 years back, with independent checks and balances. We never even bothered to notice.

That concept indeed applies to our natural environment. It's not infinite, and every time we take from it without returning it to the previous, pristine state it diminishes. We can find more oil, but we cannot restore 1/3 of species that are lost. We can have some many more millions, but at the expense of losing more forests. Just because we haven't learned any different. Because never had time, too busy, cut, cut, cut....