Kim Iversen is a hero, a patriot, and a truth-teller

44 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2020-09-12 17:29

Aristotleded24

So during the pandemic, thanks to vidoes like these, I have a new respect for independent YouTuber Kim Iversen. (I also have a personal affinity for this video because one of the experts she lists in the description is Joel Kettner, former Chief Medical Officer of Health for Manitoba.) I've seen many independent commentators on YouTube. While a few have spoken about the political and economic ramifications of the covid response that we aren't hearing about in the MSM, Kim Iversen was the only one who even questioned the basic premise behind what we are doing in the first place. Is the government telling the truth? Are there vested interests in responsing one particular way or another? Are there dissenting views that need to be taken into consideration? Who benefits and who loses in different scenarios? Is there additional context behind the scary stories and headlines that is being missed? All of these are basic questions that we should have asked at the start of the pandemic, but we did not. It's the same thing that happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war. The same basic fear tactics: identify a threat, ratchet up the level of fear, position yourselves as the authorities in charge who will protect the population, and marginalize and vilify anyone who questions what you are doing. I am disappointed to see so many lefties who made this accurate call when it comes to matters of war, crime, and security fail to see these exact tactics play out with the covid resopnse.

This is not to say she is correct in everything she has said. For example, she is a proponent of the idea that cooler weather drives the spread, which the recent surges in cases in the southern US and Europe call into question. When I listen to her, she does come across as authentic and saying what she really thinks (even if it's not what I necessarily thinks). Sometimes when you listen to a commentator, you get the sense that this person is reading from a script. Not Kim. She is very clear in her principles, and those principles have driven her coverage and perspective on this topic.

Sat, 2020-09-12 20:11

cco

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is the government telling the truth? Are there vested interests in responsing one particular way or another? Are there dissenting views that need to be taken into consideration? Who benefits and who loses in different scenarios? Is there additional context behind the scary stories and headlines that is being missed? All of these are basic questions that we should have asked at the start of the pandemic, but we did not. It's the same thing that happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war. The same basic fear tactics: identify a threat, ratchet up the level of fear, position yourselves as the authorities in charge who will protect the population, and marginalize and vilify anyone who questions what you are doing. I am disappointed to see so many lefties who made this accurate call when it comes to matters of war, crime, and security fail to see these exact tactics play out with the covid resopnse.

I've seen you make this argument in other threads, and I think it deserves to at least be addressed. I fall into the category you're describing (caricaturing, I'd say) – a lefty who rejects war and the police state, tries to fight government- and corporate-induced paranoia, and yet supports most measures taken to fight the pandemic. Why?

It's not because I live in Montréal, the epicenter of the pandemic. I've only known one person who contracted COVID, and he survived. None of the 3,474 deaths here were people I was acquainted with. None hit me personally. I don't have friends or family in the nursing homes or subcommunities that were hit the most severely. I'm not glued to the television in terror, one of the sheeple ready-aye-ready to sacrifice everything at Legault's order. I only started wearing a mask when it became legally mandated, and I've returned to using public transit.

So why do I support these measures, if it's not out of irrational panic? Whenever the government does anything that impacts civil liberties – and I'm a very civil-libertarian person – I apply my own calculus to it. Is the threat severe enough? Are the measures targeted enough? Do they overreach? Will they be withdrawn as soon as the threat is? What's the probability this is being done for an ulterior motive? (The latter is complicated by the fact no government policy ever has a single author, and people who are sincere can be exploited by those with nefarious intentions.)

Your answers to each of these questions likely differ from mine. In my opinion, the threat has been established as being severe – and the United States with its much greater body count is an excellent example of what complacency has wrought. The latter four questions all have the same answer, essentially: The economic cost of the pandemic lockdown has been so severe that Canadian governments, all of which (even the BC NDP) are in thrall to Big Capital, would not support it if there were any alternative, and will not support it any longer than is necessary. In fact, I expect them to open up further before it's safe to, and that's been borne out by the fact Ottawa refused to close the border completely – keeping it open for "essential" purposes, i.e. anything that involves making money, but not socialization or education, even in completely isolated border communities like Hyder, Alaska. The only way for a COVID carrier to enter Canada from there would be to charter a boat or seaplane in without being noticed by any of Hyder's 87 people.

There are going to be some people pushing policies they've always wanted using the pandemic as an excuse, of course – I'm particularly worried about the normalization of businesses refusing cash. I don't, however, think the choice is between refusing all public health measures while calling the pandemic a hoax (as several thousand QAnon fans did here today) and slavish obedience to Big Brother. That's simplistic.

Sat, 2020-09-12 20:46

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I agree cco. Luckily, I don't know anyone who has had COVID-19 and I hope to keep it that way. In the scheme of things, our deprivation has mostly been limited to socializing and working in communal office spaces. We have had for the most part no shortages of food or other goods except for some aggressive over purchasing of toilet paper, hand sanitizers and disinfectant wipes at the start of the official March announcement of the pandemic. The government gets an A+ from me for rolling out measures to cover income shortages to people laid off or facing dramatically reduced hours or for helping business owners retain staff.

As for easing into normal business as usual but with a few tweaks, some provinces seem to be opening up too quick for my liking (often because it results in many thinking that everything is back to normal and forgoing any recommended safety protocols (such as grocery stores that decided that having dedicated staff disinfecting carts being no longer required). The school openings are another matter. I definitely see the importance of kids being back in school but I wish more was invested in safety measures such as smaller classes with more full-time teachers. Same thing with buses. Yes it is costly to go for these best practices but it should be considered as high priority rather than risk having to close down schools come October. And I don't like any whiff of this undermining funding and support for public education as many families of means decide to take their kids out of the system for home schooling or private schools.

Sat, 2020-09-12 21:06

Pondering

I'm with Cco and LL.

I don't look both ways before crossing the street out of fear. I do it as a precaution. The same reason I put on a seatbelt. The only people cowering in fear are germaphobes. The rest of us are trying not to get lax because we are not living in fear.

The summer/winter theory never made sense. It isn't summer/winter it is outdoors/indoors.

Sun, 2020-09-13 20:53

(Reply to #4) #5

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
In my opinion, the threat has been established as being severe – and the United States with its much greater body count is an excellent example of what complacency has wrought. The latter four questions all have the same answer, essentially: The economic cost of the pandemic lockdown has been so severe that Canadian governments, all of which (even the BC NDP) are in thrall to Big Capital, would not support it if there were any alternative, and will not support it any longer than is necessary.

The argument has been made that the big business interests don't like the lockdowns, but in her video Kim presented what I believe is a compelling argument that they end up coming out on top from it. Per her analysis, in economic downturns, peolpe take on debt (which benefits banks) and liquidate assets for cash. This causes asset deflation (along with commercial property vacancies from business failings), so things like houses can be bought cheaply with extra cash on hand. As the economy recovers, these rich people are even richer while average people are left with less. Kim does live in a country that has given its people much less means to survive this than we have, but the basic premise I find quite sound. There are even echos of that in this country, as concern has been raised about restaurants closing. Furthermore, apart from really basic public health precautions, there isn't the level of consensus about what needs to be done among experts as the media would have you believe. Additionally, what better excuse to ram through an austerity agenda than the level of public debt that governments are currently taking on right now? It's true that businesses aren't liking having to compete with CERB in terms of paying workers, but overall I think the idea that it's only "the rich" who want us to get back to work so they can make money does not hold up.

cco wrote:
I don't, however, think the choice is between refusing all public health measures while calling the pandemic a hoax (as several thousand QAnon fans did here today) and slavish obedience to Big Brother. That's simplistic.

Why is this comment even here? Can you point to anything I've said that remotely suggests I've been basing my opinions on the musings of QAnon? I find it frustrating this notion that anyone who questions or disagrees with the current public health measures doesn't understand what happens or is somehow downplaying the risk of the pandemic. Fox News is saying that this is just the flu and nothing to be worried about, which is blatantly irresponsible in these times. I also find it irresponsible that other news networks go on about the coronavirus, telling us everything about the coronavirus, and even trying to track down and publish the story of everyone who caught the coronavirus while ignoring other important things that are happening in this world.

Sun, 2020-09-13 21:04

(Reply to #5) #6

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
I agree cco. Luckily, I don't know anyone who has had COVID-19 and I hope to keep it that way. In the scheme of things, our deprivation has mostly been limited to socializing and working in communal office spaces.

Limits to socialization for people who live by themselves and don't have enough close contacts to be part of any bubble can be detrimental to mental health. Many of these people don't have access to technology like cell phones, and others derive happiness from real-world contact that cannot be replicated through a digital device.

laine lowe wrote:
As for easing into normal business as usual but with a few tweaks, some provinces seem to be opening up too quick for my liking (often because it results in many thinking that everything is back to normal and forgoing any recommended safety protocols (such as grocery stores that decided that having dedicated staff disinfecting carts being no longer required).

Why would people think things are back to normal? Entrances and exits to businesses are restricted. The floors are marked with directional arrows and places to stand. Plexi-glass is installed at many customer service terminals. More and more places require you to wear a mask when you enter. As for sanitizing shopping carts, was that ever something that was necessary, or was that a measure put in place so that people wouldn't be scared? Furthermore, how do we know that the chemicals in the sanitizers aren't causing harm to our bodies in other ways? I'll also say that many people (including grocery store staff) are busy enough at work as it is before the task of wiping down every surface was imposed on them.

laine lowe wrote:
The school openings are another matter. I definitely see the importance of kids being back in school but I wish more was invested in safety measures such as smaller classes with more full-time teachers. Same thing with buses.

I'm with you on the idea of more teachers and smaller class sizes. That is obvious to anyone who studies education and understands the impact that levels of staffing have on education. The buses I'm not so sure about. Are you advocating that the number of students on buses should be reduced to the point that more buses are added to move kids to and from school? Loading and unloading children from the school bus is a safety hazard, especially in a school parking lot where they are all cramped together. I'm not convinced that the risks of covid spread warrant that increased hazard of loading and unloading.

laine lowe wrote:
And I don't like any whiff of this undermining funding and support for public education as many families of means decide to take their kids out of the system for home schooling or private schools.

Yes, I agree that the assault on public spaces, including public schools, is a big problem. That is why I have been screaming against the "close-it-all-down-move-everything-online" approach to public health that is being imposed on us and that is dominant in the meida.

Sun, 2020-09-13 23:48

(Reply to #6) #7

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The argument has been made that the big business interests don't like the lockdowns, but in her video Kim presented what I believe is a compelling argument that they end up coming out on top from it. Per her analysis, in economic downturns, peolpe take on debt (which benefits banks) and liquidate assets for cash. This causes asset deflation (along with commercial property vacancies from business failings), so things like houses can be bought cheaply with extra cash on hand. As the economy recovers, these rich people are even richer while average people are left with less.

Of course the wealthy will take advantage to become even wealthier. No matter what happens or doesn't happen they will because the system is rigged. The truly wealthy have money in everything so they can't lose. What makes you assume the economic impact would be lessened if we opened up 100% which is what you are promoting?

It is better for the people not to be involved in a war but if the country is bombed there is no choice in the matter. Covid is a bomb of sort. It is a disruptive event like the Great Depression and wars that can lead to transformative change for the better not just for the worse.

Mon, 2020-09-14 00:21

(Reply to #7) #8

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The argument has been made that the big business interests don't like the lockdowns, but in her video Kim presented what I believe is a compelling argument that they end up coming out on top from it. Per her analysis, in economic downturns, peolpe take on debt (which benefits banks) and liquidate assets for cash. This causes asset deflation (along with commercial property vacancies from business failings), so things like houses can be bought cheaply with extra cash on hand. As the economy recovers, these rich people are even richer while average people are left with less.

Of course the wealthy will take advantage to become even wealthier. No matter what happens or doesn't happen they will because the system is rigged. The truly wealthy have money in everything so they can't lose. What makes you assume the economic impact would be lessened if we opened up 100% which is what you are promoting?

Simple math. Less than 1% of the population has been infected. Of that 1%, the case fatality rate is around 1-2%, mostly concentrated in the elderly as respiratory viruses are. Action taken in the early days on that front would have made a huge difference, allowed fewer restrictions, and cost much less than what the government is spending.

Pondering wrote:
It is better for the people not to be involved in a war but if the country is bombed there is no choice in the matter. Covid is a bomb of sort. It is a disruptive event like the Great Depression and wars that can lead to transformative change for the better not just for the worse.

No, covid was never the hyperbolic, over-the-top apocalyptic scenario (outside of a few areas like Italy and Iran that had their own problems) that the media painted it to be. A disease that infects less than 1% of the population over the time period it has been with us is not the apocalypse. It is a health matter that requires a particular response. We may need more vigilance because this is emerging for the first time, but on the whole it's become clear that we over-reacted, and that reaction was based on exaggerated mathematical models that were never even within the realm of possibility.

Mon, 2020-09-14 01:31

Pondering

Simple math. Less than 1% of the population has been infected. Of that 1%, the case fatality rate is around 1-2%, mostly concentrated in the elderly as respiratory viruses are. Action taken in the early days on that front would have made a huge difference, allowed fewer restrictions, and cost much less than what the government is spending.

Absolutely but we can't turn back the clock or pretend it happened that way.

Yes, we have been successful in radically controlling the spread which has kept the numbers down. Where attempts have been made to open up they have had to shut down again. Insufficient precautions in meat plants and on farms led to outbreaks.

We are opening up and have been for a long time. By mid-October we will know if we successfully reopened schools safely. Notice I am not taking the Quebec school cases as a sign all hell is breaking loose. So far the cases seem isolated and don't meet the definition of an outbreak. We will know mid-October, maybe sooner, if the measures taken are sufficient.

Thu, 2020-09-17 23:17

#10

Aristotleded24

Former Chief Medical Officer Of Health for Manitoba Dr. Joel Kettner said this in the spring:

Quote:
I have to say that I really feel for my colleagues that are in public health practice. it is easy for me to sit in the armchair of my office and look at this and observe it, and be critical and have ideas. But I really feel for them for three reasons.

One is that the data they are getting is incomplete to really make sense of the size of the threat. We are getting very crude numbers of cases and deaths, very little information about testing rates, contagious analysis, severity rates, who is being hospitalised, who is in intensive care, who is dying, what are the definitions to decide if someone died of the coronavirus or just died with the coronavirus.

There is so much important data that is very hard to get to guide the decisions on how serious a threat this is.

The other part is we actually do not have that much good evidence for the social distancing methods. It was just a couple of review in the CDC emerging infectious disease journal, which showed that although some of them might work, we really don’t know to what degree and the evidence is pretty weak.

The third part is the pressure that is being put on public health doctors and public health leaders. And that pressure is coming from various places. The first place it came from was the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when he said “This is a grave threat and a public enemy number one”, I have never heard a Director-General of WHO use terms like that.

Then when he announced the pandemic he said he was doing it “because of a grave alarming quick spread of the disease and an alarming amount of inaction around the world” that puts a huge pressure on public health doctors and leaders and advisors and huge pressure on governments and then you get this what seems like a cascade of decision making that really puts pressure on the countries and governments – provincial, state – to sort of…to keep up with this action that Dr Hoffman [an earlier guest on the programme] said that we are trying to avoid, or should avoid, which is an overreaction. I don’t know what is an appropriate reaction, but I do know that I am having trouble trying to figure this out

Fri, 2020-09-18 15:15

#11

Pondering

Covid is not some strange new condition for which we have no models. We know the various ways that viruses can be transmitted and various ways in which that transmission can be controlled.

We know that it is very infectious and that it is deadly. We know that it attacks various organs including the brain and that some people have either very longterm or permanent damage to their health. We know that it is going to continue to spread until we have a vaccine or it mutates. If we never have a vaccine then treatments will be our only avenue.

We know that primary transmission is occuring through breathing the air of an infected person. At a far second is touching an object then touching your nose or mouth or eyes.

The purpose of every measure we are taking is to slow the transmission to minimize the number of people that get it while they try to create an effective vaccine and effective treatments.

People lived for centuries without seeing more than 50 to 1000 people in their entire lifetimes. Settlers lived far apart. Right now many Inuit that still live up north only see large groups of people if they travel south.

The world is not in desperate need of massive events for fear of mental breakdown if they don't get to go to a mass events.

That you think the world is over-reacting doesn't make it so. You do sound like Qanon with the people you quote and in your refusal to acknowledge reality. Not a single country in the entire world is doing as you suggest yet you post as if everyone is just being pig-headed not to agree with your nonsensical argument that really Covid is no big deal for the general population and we should just open right up.

You completely ignore the rise in cases we are experiencing right now because we are opening up. You persistently downplay the amount of damage the virus can do not just to elders but to healthy active people experiencing longterm effects.

It is irresponsible to push the notion that Covid 19 is not that dangerous and the precautions either unnecessary or ineffective.

So yes, you are coming across as a conspiracy theorist.

Fri, 2020-09-18 16:19

(Reply to #11) #12

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Covid is not some strange new condition for which we have no models. We know the various ways that viruses can be transmitted and various ways in which that transmission can be controlled.

Exactly, and we have not applied any common sense to this virus at all. Berating people for going to the beach on sunny days during the pandemic? Since when is that a major source of transmission for covid? By the way, the vitamin D you get from being out in the sun helps reduce mortality.

Models also have limitations, especially in an area like epidemiology where there are so many unknown parameters or things you can't account for. They are good to see what might happen and what kinds of resources you need. I would never apply broad-based restrictions we've seen across all of society beyond general restrictions in Sweden or targeted actions in Iceland (another country which never locked down or closed primary schools, by the way) based on what a model told me.

Pondering wrote:
We know that it is very infectious and that it is deadly. We know that it attacks various organs including the brain and that some people have either very longterm or permanent damage to their health. We know that it is going to continue to spread until we have a vaccine or it mutates. If we never have a vaccine then treatments will be our only avenue.

So let's deal with that then.

Pondering wrote:
The purpose of every measure we are taking is to slow the transmission to minimize the number of people that get it while they try to create an effective vaccine and effective treatments.

Mission accomplished. Health care systems in Canada were never overwhelmed. Here in Winnipeg it cleared out emergency rooms and cut wait times, something several NDP and PC ministers of health have been struggling to do for decades.

Pondering wrote:
People lived for centuries without seeing more than 50 to 1000 people in their entire lifetimes. Settlers lived far apart. Right now many Inuit that still live up north only see large groups of people if they travel south.

They also lived for centuries without any running water.

Pondering wrote:
You do sound like Qanon with the people you quote and in your refusal to acknowledge reality.

So a doctor and former Chief Medical Officer of Health for Manitoba, who has actually been in a position to evaluate threats to public safety and make decisions, and who has probably thought longer and harder about this than all of us on babble put together is all of a sudden in league with Qanon? Got it.

Pondering wrote:
You completely ignore the rise in cases we are experiencing right now because we are opening up. You persistently downplay the amount of damage the virus can do not just to elders but to healthy active people experiencing longterm effects.

It could be because of reopening. It could also be because of weather as people move more into indoor environments. It could be because some places thought they escaped the virus before but the virus was just waiting, and that it was never a question of if these places would see a spike in covid cases but when.

Pondering wrote:
So yes, you are coming across as a conspiracy theorist.

Along with anyone who questions established narratives. Like people who claim that drug companies are influencing the medical profession to prescribe their products, or that agribusiness lobbies are pushing to have GMOs in our food supply despite the massive risks they pose.

I'll continue to express my views and question something that doesn't want to add up for me. If someone else wants to call me a conspiracy theorist because of that, that's on them. That is an opinion that (s)he is free to hold.

Fri, 2020-09-18 19:03

#13

Pondering

We have applied plenty of common sense to dealing with Covid 19. As we learn more about it we have been able to relax requirements. In some cases rules have been too strict and in others too lax so no the response has not been perfect.

Not getting it perfect is not a reason to stop taking any measures which is what you are proposing. If not tell me what rules you would find reasonable.

The doctor you quoted was speaking on March 17th just a week into the lockdown well before all the deaths and before we knew how serious the lack of PPEs was. To use that quote now and defend it as coming from a respected expert is misleading.

Along with anyone who questions established narratives. Like people who claim that drug companies are influencing the medical profession to prescribe their products, or that agribusiness lobbies are pushing to have GMOs in our food supply despite the massive risks they pose.

No those are not conspiracy theories and never were. The theory that the government is really being motivated by their desire to control us rather than the virus has no basis in fact not that they won't use it to their advantage. The primary motivation remains stopping or slowing Covid-19.

Yes people lived without running water which made hygiene more difficult. The lack of mass events did not drive people mad. Deep isolation is of course harmful and kids need friends etc. but they don't need mass events and neither do adults.

Fri, 2020-09-18 21:32

(Reply to #13) #14

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
The doctor you quoted was speaking on March 17th just a week into the lockdown well before all the deaths and before we knew how serious the lack of PPEs was. To use that quote now and defend it as coming from a respected expert is misleading.

This warning from the World Health Organization on March 3rd of this year:

Quote:
The World Health Organization has warned that severe and mounting disruption to the global supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) – caused by rising demand, panic buying, hoarding and misuse – is putting lives at risk from the new coronavirus and other infectious diseases.

Healthcare workers rely on personal protective equipment to protect themselves and their patients from being infected and infecting others.

But shortages are leaving doctors, nurses and other frontline workers dangerously ill-equipped to care for COVID-19 patients, due to limited access to supplies such as gloves, medical masks, respirators, goggles, face shields, gowns, and aprons.

“Without secure supply chains, the risk to healthcare workers around the world is real. Industry and governments must act quickly to boost supply, ease export restrictions and put measures in place to stop speculation and hoarding. We can’t stop COVID-19 without protecting health workers first,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, prices have surged. Surgical masks have seen a sixfold increase, N95 respirators have trebled and gowns have doubled.

We knew we were going to have a problem in January. That is why health authorities in the US initially told people that masks were not needed because they wanted to protect the supply for health care workers.

Sat, 2020-09-19 13:50

#15

Pondering

We knew we were going to have a problem in January. That is why health authorities in the US initially told people that masks were not needed because they wanted to protect the supply for health care workers.

It wasn't as widely accepted that the pandemic would spread to the extent that it has. The general public certainly wasn't being alerted that it was expected to be a pandemic.

Even if the doctor you cited would say the same today, doctors are not immune from having their own political agenda and beliefs. There are outliers in every field. There are crackpot judges. There are scientists who are climate change deniers. Having advanced to a notable position is no gaurantee or merit or character or even ability.

The broad medical consensus by experts in infection diseases throughout the world is that this one has the potential to devastate in the speed in which it can spread. That it is deadly. That it has the potential to create serious chronic health issues affecting major organs including the brain even for young people.

Tue, 2020-09-22 12:59

(Reply to #15) #16

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Even if the doctor you cited would say the same today, doctors are not immune from having their own political agenda and beliefs.

No kidding. I wonder why the question of "their own political agenda and beliefs" is only ever asked of doctors who question public health measures and not the doctors who advocate for them. The Chief Medical Officers of health work for the government. They are not free to make up their own minds. If the government says to the doctor, "we want to keep folks inside and want to use public health as an excuse to justify that," if that doctor doesn't go along with it, (s)he updates the resume and starts making phone calls.

Pondering wrote:
There are outliers in every field. There are crackpot judges. There are scientists who are climate change deniers. Having advanced to a notable position is no gaurantee or merit or character or even ability.

So you are using a blanket statement about crackpots and outliers to attack a former Chief Medical Officer of Health for my province? Was there some major health scandal that happened under his watch here in Manitoba resulting from his incompetence that I'm not aware of?

Pondering wrote:
The broad medical consensus by experts in infection diseases throughout the world is that this one has the potential to devastate in the speed in which it can spread. That it is deadly. That it has the potential to create serious chronic health issues affecting major organs including the brain even for young people.

That's true, and we need to do what we can to prevent that. But let's take things in perspective. Here in Manitoba, just over 6200 people are projected to be infected by the virus by next March. Tragic, for sure, but overall that is about half a percent of the population. Then it occured to me to look up the issue of diabetes in Manitoba. 136 000 of them as of last year. That's almost three times the population of Manitoba's second major urban centre. Look at the complications: strokes, vision loss, increased likelihood of heart or kidney disease, risks of amputations, and anywhere from a 5 to 15 year reduction in life expectancy. All of which is a massive challenge for our health care system to handle. It also happens to be a co-morbidity associated with covid. Why isn't that the subject of an emergency health declaration? Why has diabetes, which is currently affecting more people than covid, being allowed to ravage the population?

By the way, our health care systems would be much more capable of dealing with surges in illnesses like covid if more people were healthy and fewer of them needed medical interventions to stay alive.

Tue, 2020-09-22 15:12

#17

MegB

Aristotleded24, can you please stop capitalizing every single word in your thread titles? As in headlines, the only words to be capitalized are the first word of the title and such words as given names, place names, etc. Thanks.

Tue, 2020-09-22 19:10

(Reply to #17) #18

Michael Moriarity

MegB wrote:

Aristotleded24, can you please stop capitalizing every single word in your thread titles? As in headlines, the only words to be capitalized are the first word of the title and such words as given names, place names, etc. Thanks.

Is this a subtle joke? I have some things I could criticize A24 about, but capitalization protocol for thread titles isn't in the top 10.

Tue, 2020-09-22 20:40

#19

Misfit

Only on babble, the funnies get serious and the serious gets funny!

Wed, 2020-09-23 00:50

#20

Left Turn

Pondering wrote:
The only people cowering in fear are germaphobes.

I'd include two other groups in this:

A) People with anxiety disorder/OCD (which is somewhat related to germaphobes)

B) Some of the most elderly and people with underlying health conditions, who would be most at risk of a worse outcome from COVID.

Wed, 2020-09-23 01:25

#21

Pondering

There is a difference between being cautious and being fearful. Far from being afraid many elderly feel they could die any day so they would rathr take the risk and see family. Others with serious vulnerabilities probably feel more fearful if they are unable to socially distance. People with all sorts of mental illnesses are more vulnerable to fear. The answer is still not to lift public measures or tell them they don't need to wear masks or socially distance.

Aristotle, you took a quote from early March. The doctor may have changed his mind by now. There is some doctor in Quebec that said recently that it is no worse than the flu. It is being investigated because it endangers public health. It is no different than misconduct in any other profession. It is definitely not proof that their opinion is in any way rooted in fact. There is worldwide evidence that says otherwise.

Even the title of your thread reminds me of a Fox News headline describing an evangelical preacher.

Read the news. Climate change is real.

Thu, 2020-09-24 00:59

(Reply to #21) #22

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotle, you took a quote from early March. The doctor may have changed his mind by now.

Here is the most recent article published by Kettner that I could find:

Quote:

What kind of "new normal" do we want?

Our children attending virtual and part-time school with forced physical distancing? Getting health care remotely — or in person, wearing masks that muffle speech and conceal facial expressions? Discouraging human interaction and mandating the covering of smiles?

Do we want the continuation of restrictions of commerce, travel, recreation, and social gatherings? Should we just accept unremitting unemployment and economic hardship — especially for those most disadvantaged (e.g. single mothers, casual and non-unionized workers), small organizations, and small enterprises?

Should we just tolerate the growing government debts and shrinking expenditures on health care, education, and social services?

These conditions cannot be good for us.

Is it desirable to live in so much fear of one disease that every aspect of our lives is disrupted and other threats to our health are increased?

It is appropriate to be concerned about serious respiratory illness, to stay home when sick, and to cover our coughs or sneezes. But excessive concern and anxiety can make us ill and weaken our immune systems. It can lead to irrational decisions and behaviours, including those by our leaders.

Some fear at the beginning of an outbreak is understandable. But why are we still subjected to relentless daily reports of cases and deaths?

Sun, 2020-09-27 13:28

(Reply to #22) #23

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
So why do I support these measures, if it's not out of irrational panic? Whenever the government does anything that impacts civil liberties – and I'm a very civil-libertarian person – I apply my own calculus to it. Is the threat severe enough? Are the measures targeted enough? Do they overreach? Will they be withdrawn as soon as the threat is?

I highlighted the last portion of this quote because I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things play out. The government never comes out and says they intend for restrictions to be permanent. There is always the carrot dangled that maybe, if we do things right and the threat goes away, we can rescind these measures. Unfortunately the goal posts keep shifting and the carrot keeps being dangled further down the road. Let's use a specific example. My church stopped meeting inside the sanctuary in mid-March because it was unsafe, and we were told at the time that we were aiming to be back in the building before Easter. Here in Manitoba, the first wave of covid crested around that time, yet we were not in person at Easter. Furthermore, it took us a few months after that to arrange outdoor gatherings, and we are hoping to be back inside next month. We also heard this doom-and-gloom scenario that we weren't supposed to visit our friends and family at Easter because it was unsafe. Well, now Trudeau is saying we shouldn't gather with family for Thanksgiving, but maybe we can for Christmas. Given how respiratory viruses behave in cold weather, do you really think that the virus will have gone away by then? See how the carrot of "if things get better then we can meet in person again" keeps being dangled and pushed further down the road? Does anyone honestly believe that Trudeau isn't going to come out again and say we can't gather for Christmas for the same reason he's saying we can't gather for Thanksgiving?

Thu, 2020-09-24 18:28

#24

Pondering

No, I don't expect things to be better by Christmas and likely not next Easter either. I'm hoping for next summer.

All of your arguments rest on the assumptiong that Covid-19 isn't that bad and wouldn't overwhelm our health care system.

As neither of those are true all your arguments are void.

Thu, 2020-09-24 18:44

(Reply to #24) #25

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
No, I don't expect things to be better by Christmas and likely not next Easter either. I'm hoping for next summer.

And watch next summer for the governments to say, "the coronavirus has mutated, all the vaccines we have been working on are useless now, so we need to keep these restrictive measures."

Pondering wrote:
All of your arguments rest on the assumptiong that Covid-19 isn't that bad and wouldn't overwhelm our health care system.

This doom-and-gloom-Chicken-Little-sky-is-falling tactic has been used repeatedly throughout the pandemic to scare us into submission. Nowhere in the country has it happened yet. On the contrary, it actually cleared out hospital emergency rooms here in Winnipeg. If you can produce any actual data (case counts, percentages of people who can expect to end up in the hospitals, hospital bed and ICU occupancy relative to capacity) I'll take a look. Otherwise I'll dismiss that as baseless fearmongering.

Fri, 2020-09-25 17:09

#26

Pondering

The whole point of semi-lockdowns is to keep people home so they won't pass the virus. In April we were still in the early days. Since then people have returned to the emergency.

"Hospital bed and ICU occupancy relative to capacity" is what bureaucrats examine. You are trying to use the success of lockdowns as evidence that they weren't and aren't needed.

All we really need to know for immediate decision-making in Canada is that

The first wave nearly crippled the health care system and another one has the potential to finish the job. Notice I said "potential".
Cases are rising throughout Canada including in longterm care homes since our attempts to reopen schools and businesses. Given the exponential growth and that we have only begun to return indoors this is a worrying sign.
This seems to be a worldwide trend.
We remain unable to ramp up testing capacity with long line-ups beginning again. Results are being delayed. Even when they come in we aren't assured of having enough contact tracers.
Cooler weather is not the problem The problem is that it causes us to stay indoors more.
The government and WHO has been inept since the beginning and are continuing in that vein.
It is up to us as individuals to evaluate what our personal risks are.

I do think Sweden is an excellent model. Here is a good explanation of what they have down.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/which-sweden-do-you-wa...

Fri, 2020-09-25 19:01

(Reply to #26) #27

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
All we really need to know for immediate decision-making in Canada is that

The first wave nearly crippled the health care system and another one has the potential to finish the job. Notice I said "potential".

What is this based on? There must be some data out there that justifies that claim that you can reference to back up your assertion. Even CNN described "empty hospital beds" as a "hallmark of the pandemic."

Pondering wrote:
Cases are rising throughout Canada including in longterm care homes since our attempts to reopen schools and businesses. Given the exponential growth and that we have only begun to return indoors this is a worrying sign.

Where are you seeing exponential growth? I watch numbers closely, and I don't see anything like that. I see days with lower new case numbers, even case numbers, and sometimes a spike as the baseline number of new cases adjusts to a new normal.

Pondering wrote:
This seems to be a worldwide trend.

Several countries are classified as either winning or almost winning the battle against coronavirus. Futhermore, areas that were hit hard in the first wave like New York, Northern Italy and Sweden are so far escaping the second wave. Countries that tried to suppress the virus are seeing their case numbers increase, in some cases even worse than the first wave.

Sat, 2020-09-26 23:16

#28

Pondering

CNN wasn't in Canada. It takes a while to ramp up. What we see today is a picture of a month ago.

In Canada, the evidence of the health care system being overloaded is staff quitting and saying they can't take it anymore due to compulsory overtime and having to call in the army to take care of the eldery and sick and having to train 7,000 new orderlies in a month leaving us still short 3,000. I call that overload.

Maybe it won't ramp up. Maybe we will avert the second wave. It depends on what people do. If they insist on partying all over the place we will see exponential growth. If people take the warning and take precautions we many not see a second way. That will not mean that we don't need to take precautions it will mean that they worked.

Sweden took precautions. Sweden limited gatherings and citizens socially distanced among other things.

These numbers illustrate that it remains a problem world wide. That some outliers haven't been as hard hit does not negate the existence of countries that have done far worse and it certainly doesn't prove that not taking precautions is a more successful strategy.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Sun, 2020-09-27 00:50

(Reply to #28) #29

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
In Canada, the evidence of the health care system being overloaded is staff quitting and saying they can't take it anymore due to compulsory overtime and having to call in the army to take care of the eldery and sick and having to train 7,000 new orderlies in a month leaving us still short 3,000. I call that overload.

I did ask you for data and statistics, so I have to concede you did come through on that point. That does help to put things into perspective about what things were like on the ground in those 2 provinces.

Forced overtime is a big problem in the health care system. That was also an issue here in Manitoba as well recently. We do need a strategy to make sure we have proper staffing of health care professionals. There should be some action by the federal government on this, because you don't want to see provinces trying to hire away each other's health professionals.

Pondering wrote:
These numbers illustrate that it remains a problem world wide. That some outliers haven't been as hard hit does not negate the existence of countries that have done far worse and it certainly doesn't prove that not taking precautions is a more successful strategy.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/[/quote]

Look closely at many of the developed countries, and you don't see nearly as strong a relationship between the rise in cases and the rise in deaths during the current wave as we saw last spring.

Wed, 2020-10-28 12:22

#30

Aristotleded24

Are excess death numbers misleading?

Wed, 2020-10-28 15:54

(Reply to #30) #31

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Are excess death numbers misleading?

She's full of crap. At 9:50 she says the news outlets ARE GOING TO use this to insinuate the excess deaths are all due to Covid.

The CDC always uses the term "excess deaths" every year. There is nothing special about using it this year. No one has made the claim that they are all due to Covid. John Hopkins hasn't adjusted their numbers.

She's like a shock jock looking for reasons to be outraged. She is a conspiracy theorist making shit up. She is a liar not a truth-teller.

Tue, 2020-11-24 14:06

(Reply to #31) #32

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
The economic cost of the pandemic lockdown has been so severe that Canadian governments, all of which (even the BC NDP) are in thrall to Big Capital, would not support it if there were any alternative, and will not support it any longer than is necessary.

The Great Reset, which is being advocated as a covid response by the World Economic Forum, is a topic in this area that is worth researching and having a discussion about.

Sat, 2020-11-28 14:10

#33

Aristotleded24

Here is Kim's interview with Daniel Dumbrill talking about life in China during lockdown

Thu, 2020-12-10 14:24

#34

Aristotleded24

Instead of blaming your fellow citizens who are struggling, blame The Establishment

Tue, 2020-12-29 01:21

#35

Aristotleded24

Kim's assistant producer opens up on the loss of his father to covid

Sat, 2021-05-15 04:21

#36

Aristotleded24

So as I start to like Ron DeSantis for his effective coronavirus response, Kim hits me with a much needed reality check. It turns out that Florida is leading the way in passing draconian anti-protest laws in the United States.

From my observations, it seems that many people on the left and the right lack a clear, internal, moral compass. It's more about tribal identity. I'm on one team, so if that team says something, then it is true, no need to think for myself. They have their visions of society they come up with, but unfortunately they are blind to the carnage these visions leave behind when enacted. Right-wing and left-wing politics have also produced totalitarian governments who have no problem crushing any dissent or opposition. There's also a seemingly inherent belief in the goodness of their public policy programme. In other words, believing in the correct ideology makes me a good person, and that is more important than how I treat people on an individual level. People who disagree with me are lesser, so any mistreatment is justified. She was correct to call out moral fascism on both sides, essentially arguing that it's the same kind of person but the expression differs depending on what part of the country the person is from. See this excellent point about how many feel the boot on their neck just want to wear the boot themselves.

That is why the destructive politics of the left and the right need to be abandoned, and replaced by democratic power structures that truly allow people to determine their own fate.

Sat, 2021-05-15 09:35

#37

Pondering

I think for myself and so do many on the right. If it were not the case the Republican and Conservative parties would be united and the NDP would be united. Clearly not the case.

Rights are bestowed on people by other people. The only "right" we have, and even that is qualified, is to die.

As animals we choose to congregate for mutual protection. As human animals we have chosen to bestow rights on one another. Within a democracy authority is chosen by the people.

Everyone, in a democratic society, has the right to go off and live with like-minded people or alone if they so choose. No one is forcing you to be part of organized society. If you choose to be part of it then you must live by the rules and conventions of the collective.

There is lots and lots and lots of wilderness in Canada but no one wants that much freedom. What some libertarians want is the right to live within organized society, take advantage of what it produces, while doing as they please. That's not on offer.

People who value individual freedoms over collective rights should get together and buy some land and go live virtually lawless. They don't want to do that because they don't want to be that individual. They still want other people providing them with services and protection.

Services and protection comes at a cost no matter what kind of animal you are. Even the most libertarian group would impose rules eventually.

Sat, 2021-05-15 09:56

#38

Pondering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCywEMmVi3Y&ab_channel=KimIversen

For someone who claims to be censored she sure gets to talk a lot. In my opinion she is lying.

Sat, 2021-05-15 12:43

(Reply to #38) #39

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCywEMmVi3Y&ab_channel=KimIversen

For someone who claims to be censored she sure gets to talk a lot. In my opinion she is lying.

The problem is confusing two different problems. One is her right to scream fire on a crowded internet site. The other is who gets to decide when a post is the equivalent of screaming fire in a theater. I think that our current billionaire controlled censorship needs to be replaced with something else but the question is what. I don't believe in the 5Eyes right to run disinformation campaigns to destabilize any opposition to imperialism so I support some type of control. Under our billionaire controlled censorship system that is not the type of content that gets deleted.

Fri, 2021-06-18 11:05

#40

Aristotleded24

Let's move past the phony left-right divide and take on the ruling class

Fri, 2021-06-18 21:27

#41

JKR

The right will always favour capitalism and white supremists.

Sat, 2021-06-19 01:26

(Reply to #41) #42

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
The right will always favour capitalism and white supremists.

And that's a good reason to oppose the right. The left also favours capitalism, and markets itself to a different segment of the working class than the right does. Both sides pay lip service to human rights when it suits the segments of the population they cater to, but neither side has any issue disregarding human rights and civil liberties if it interferes with enacting the broad vision of society they wish to impose.

That's why, as Kim says in her video that I posted, that it is important to oppose both the left and the right in favour of a politics that is for the average person that puts issues of class first and foremost.

Sat, 2021-06-19 04:11

#43

JKR

I think by definition the left supports the working class while the right denies the significance of class as a defining concept. To varying degrees "the centre" balances these divergent outlooks.

The right markets itself to the parts of the working class that see race and religion as defining concepts instead of class. The left markets itself to the working class that sees class as being more important than race and religion.

Many on the right are against Covid restrictions because they have no problem with the working class being decimated by the virus. The right believes capitalism must be fully maintained even during a collective emergency such as a pandemic.

Sat, 2021-06-19 12:15

(Reply to #43) #44

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

That's why, as Kim says in her video that I posted, that it is important to oppose both the left and the right in favour of a politics that is for the average person that puts issues of class first and foremost.

Kim Iverson is a liar because she is an informed intellectual. She knows she is twisting positions on the left to fit her narrative. She is a libertarian shill.

To suggest that the movement against white supremacy in any way compares to right wing communist scare-mongering illustrates that she is constructing a libertarian argument attempting to equate the left and the right.

It is a false equivalency. The left does not regret what we achieve. We do not regret medicare. We do not regret public education. We do not regret blocking pipelines. People on the right might because policies on the right end up hurting people who voted on the right. Policy on the left does not.

Defund the police is poorly named but it means transferring funds to social services and demilitarizing. It does not mean abolishing police. Studies have proven that dollars spent on prevention are more effective at reducing "crime". Homelessness costs more in policing and emergency services than it would cost to house them. Then police would not need to deal with the homeless or mentally ill.

The 70% of republicans that support Trump do not want big money out of politics and don't want to overthrow the ruling class. The majority of Republican voters support gerrymandering and voter suppression if that's what it takes to win and while they may not like tech companies they don't have a problem with Walmart and the Pillow Guy.

Does she not follow the polls? I don't think the left has claimed that white supremacy is the biggest problem we are facing. That would be climate change and income inequality. White supremacy is still a serious threat and is behind the anti-immigrant sentiment as well as institutionalized racism.

Libertarians like her are far closer to the right than the left because she supports minimal government. The right is all about minimal government and free markets which frees the ruling class (oligarchs not puppet politicians) to run roughshot over everyone.

Her dismissive attitude, she was practically sneering, at the notion of white supremacy being a major issue, was very telling.