COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Erik Malmsten
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Democratic Marxism's Platform

    We agree with Pargat about the problem of modern representative democracy. Every 4 years, we create an authoritarian government over ourselves. It then takes on a life of its own, and follows their own (Directed by the Oligarchs) agenda, not that of the elector. And the elector, to object, has to publicly demonstrate, hope for support from mainstream media, owned by Oligarchs, and otherwise is powerless. Going to your MP is of no use anymore, because of government centralization around the Prime Minister. The only ones exercising power are the PM and the Cabinet........ordinary MP's in their petitions get nowhere unless there is central support.

    But we go at this problem differently. We would turn the world into a modern "collection of Villages". We would abolish "nations". Instead would be created "Local Political Units (LPU's")......for example some of these might be existing municipalities. The Marxist Party of Ontario proposes as a first step, downloading to the municipalities all Ontario provincial powers possible. The Provincial Government then becomes the handmaiden of the LPU's. Where an LPU cannot handle a task on its own, then it forms a coalition with like-minded LPU's and gives that coalition body "temporary" power to handle the task, and then the coalition body dissolves if possible.

    This brings the representative within the knowledge and control of the electors, since the basic political unit is very small.

    As to elections within the LPU's, there will be room to look at how new technology may be able to incorporate into democracy, ongoing issue referenda, decided upon by the new "direct democracy".

    What do CT'ers think of this substantial re-thinking of human self-governance?

    Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)
    Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

    P.S. Sorry to hijack a bit, temporarily, the COVID-19 thread, but we felt Pargat's question is a most important one (Outside of COVID) and deserved a good reply. Pargat - do you want to move this discussion to a new separate thread? If so, I would be happy to institute it: The Problem of Human Self-Governance.
    There are 100s of bills argued about every week of seating in the three levels levels of government. The supporting documentation for each bill is massive. Too many, and too complex to allow direct citizen voting who have their own jobs, families and hobbies to occupy their time.

    Well, Bob, now you're switching from communism to eco-anarchism. Communism centralizes power in the capital, dictatorship of the party bureaucrats and military, resources get stolen by the capital and the regions suffer.

    Local power, as advocated in the City of Toronto in the 1970s. Back then I was a member of the Ward Six Community Association who, for example, proposed (to reduce violence) that police officers had to live in the community they worked in (Yet, even today, because of political oversight, police officers prefer to be hired elsewhere). There was a strong voice for poor and working class voters at council and the quick-profit seeking developers could only get their way by appealing to the province's OMB. The province then tried to destroy this base of people's representation by creating the megacity Metro government, with wealthier suburban councillors out numbering the reps from the old city of Toronto. Then the province cut the number of councillors in half.

    The feds get most of their tax income from the big cities. They balanced their budget by cutting payments to the provinces who in turn balanced their budgets by cutting payments to cities. The province downloaded expensive social programs to the municipalities, with few ways of increasing income, creating budget deficits.

    There will always be a need for some provincial/ federal oversight such as regulation of highways, electricity, and international trade.

    If we go to a collection of villages, to what extent will differences be allowed? Gay bars are OK in Toronto, but not Oakville? Blacks immigrants will be encouraged in Rexdale, but not in Forest Hill? No abortions allowed in London? Only Italian restaurants in Vaughan? Only Chinese street signs in Markham? No Maple Leaf fans in Montreal?

    The problem of Human Self-Governance is fairly balancing the interest of different geographical regions, economic industries, and social groupings. Allow for peaceful dissenting voices to be heard and for compromises and changes to be made. People need to be able to vote out corrupt, unlistening dogmatic politicians at all levels. Too many municipal politicians are councillors for life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    It was initially designed for mortality and then changed the primary endpoints when it did not fit their anti IVM narrative. Conveniently they also excluded the
    stats for mechanical ventilation statistics which is the single most important barometer of the progression of the severity of the disease. Some of these Doctors studied scientific fraud better than I :-).
    But as usual, you choose not to critically think about anything. Not possible for a blow bag that pontificates about things he knows nothing about.

    Their initial study primary objective did not mentioned anything about mortality, as you claim. Do you have their draft? :)

    "To assess the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing progression of Covid-19 to severe disease (clinical stage 4 or 5), which is defined as severe pneumonia requiring oxygen supplement or critically ill requiring intensive care."
    https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/h...w#StudyPageTop
    dated June 8/10, 2021 (just when the study began)

    Same objective is in the article.



    I don't see that they excluded anything you mention:

    "There were no significant differences between ivermectin and control groups for all the prespecified secondary outcomes (Table 2). Among patients who progressed to severe disease, the time from study enrollment to the onset of deterioration was similar across ivermectin and control groups (mean [SD], 3.2 [2.4] days vs 2.9 [1.8] days; mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.2; P = .51). Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 patients (1.7%) in the ivermectin group vs 10 (4.0%) in the control group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30; P = .17) and intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.5%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20; P = .79). The 28-day in-hospital mortality rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups (3 [1.2%] vs 10 [4.0%]; RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11; P = .09), as was the length of hospital stay after enrollment (mean [SD], 7.7 [4.4] days vs 7.3 [4.3] days; mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.3; P = .38)."

    What I see, that you try to pull these data to your narrative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

    Just as one example: what % of people who voted for Trudeau in the last election actually knew he would enact a vaccine mandate for truckers? The true number is probably in single digits.
    I did. Not this exact issue of Pandemic-ness but generally speaking I knew he is very capable.

    You forget his great family legacy. As I reminded Jesse Watters of Fox News, Justin comes from a family having had to use very similar 'heavy hand' ... re: FLQ.

    Ironic that these truckers should have taken their fight up with Justin's father's accomplishment ... Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ha!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

    You even cited yourself (bold is yours):





    Seems those doctors studied better statistics and medicine than you - correlation vs causation.
    It was initially designed for mortality and then changed the primary endpoints when it did not fit their anti IVM narrative. Conveniently they also excluded the
    stats for mechanical ventilation statistics which is the single most important barometer of the progression of the severity of the disease. Some of these Doctors studied scientific fraud better than I :-).
    But as usual, you choose not to critically think about anything. Not possible for a blow bag that pontificates about things he knows nothing about.
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 22nd February, 2022, 01:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
    [


    Ok, Egidijus, we are talking about science, that is a good thing!

    Here are the results of this study

    Deaths
    Control 10 Ivermectin 3

    Mech Vent

    Control 10 Ivermectin 4

    Their conclusion, it doesn’t work, What do you think??
    You even cited yourself (bold is yours):

    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
    "our study was not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19."


    Seems those doctors studied better statistics and medicine than you - correlation vs causation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brad Thomson
    replied
    Back in the fabulous 1960s there were lots of Armageddon tunes, but there were also enlightenment tunes as well. Those of us who were children of the 1960s are very fortunate persons, we are old enough to remember those days, but we were too young to fully participate in them... :)

    | ♒︎ - [Extended] - YouTube

    Leave a comment:


  • Brad Thomson
    replied
    I have long been of the opinion that the existence of political Parties is undemocratic and should be done away with. Everyone should run as an Independent. This is actually the way America was intended to be and was in the early beginning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Democratic Marxism's Platform

    We agree with Pargat about the problem of modern representative democracy. Every 4 years, we create an authoritarian government over ourselves. It then takes on a life of its own, and follows their own (Directed by the Oligarchs) agenda, not that of the elector. And the elector, to object, has to publicly demonstrate, hope for support from mainstream media, owned by Oligarchs, and otherwise is powerless. Going to your MP is of no use anymore, because of government centralization around the Prime Minister. The only ones exercising power are the PM and the Cabinet........ordinary MP's in their petitions get nowhere unless there is central support.

    But we go at this problem differently. We would turn the world into a modern "collection of Villages". We would abolish "nations". Instead would be created "Local Political Units (LPU's")......for example some of these might be existing municipalities. The Marxist Party of Ontario proposes as a first step, downloading to the municipalities all Ontario provincial powers possible. The Provincial Government then becomes the handmaiden of the LPU's. Where an LPU cannot handle a task on its own, then it forms a coalition with like-minded LPU's and gives that coalition body "temporary" power to handle the task, and then the coalition body dissolves if possible.

    This brings the representative within the knowledge and control of the electors, since the basic political unit is very small.

    As to elections within the LPU's, there will be room to look at how new technology may be able to incorporate into democracy, ongoing issue referenda, decided upon by the new "direct democracy".

    What do CT'ers think of this substantial re-thinking of human self-governance?

    Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)
    Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

    P.S. Sorry to hijack a bit, temporarily, the COVID-19 thread, but we felt Pargat's question is a most important one (Outside of COVID) and deserved a good reply. Pargat - do you want to move this discussion to a new separate thread? If so, I would be happy to institute it: The Problem of Human Self-Governance.
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 22nd February, 2022, 08:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post

    It depends upon where one draws the line. In Canada we want to give individuals as much freedom as possible, but the collective does have the right/obligation to protect itself from the individual. Thus murder, bank robbery and many other activities are deemed illegal. It is important to note that if everyone were free to murder, then no one would be free to not be murdered. Then there would be no collective rights at all, which would mean that there were also no individual rights at all. Thus freedom can only exist when it restricts itself, restrictions are the very essence and definition of freedom. And so again, the question is where to draw the line. The problem is that this is often a matter of opinion and debate. Everyone who is sane agrees that we should not be free to murder, only the insane would argue that we should be mandated by the state as to what to eat for dinner, or which hockey team to root for. Now, does the collective have the right/obligation to tell individuals that if they are not vaccinated they cannot work, or go into certain stores, gyms, theatres, restaurants and so forth? Once more, it depends upon where one draws the line. And again, reasonable people can disagree on this. So what do we do? We have two choices. We allow these decisions to be made by dictators, or we allow these decisions to be made by democratically elected representatives. Most of us prefer the latter. But what if we disagree with them? Simple, we legally protest and we vote them out of office come the next election. In the meantime, we should obey the laws and respect the decisions of our elected representatives, and we should expect to be stopped by law enforcement agencies if we do not. For if we do not comply with the decisions of legally elected representatives then we will risk descending at least into dictatorship, where we will lose many of our freedoms, or possibly into anarchy, where we will lose all of our freedoms completely. America is very close to this now, and Canada is not too far behind.

    An excellent summary Brad, and it exposes the real weakness of democracy in the 21st century. It is TOO SLOW. It may have worked fine in 18th century, even in 19th century, but now in the 21st century things are happening so fast and furious that we need something better than voting every 4 or 5 years. Perhaps what we really need is for the registered voters to be able to vote on issues directly, as they come up. Do away with elected representatives altogether. It is truly pathetic to be voting a person into office, when no one really knows what that person will do once he or she gets there, because we don't know what biases that person operates under and whether that person will vote for or against when specific issues that come up.

    Just as one example: what % of people who voted for Trudeau in the last election actually knew he would enact a vaccine mandate for truckers? The true number is probably in single digits.

    This modern scheme would require extensive measures against voting fraud, but in this electronic age it is far from impossible.

    We could call it Digital Democracy. Bob Armstrong, what do you think about that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brad Thomson
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
    That was the thing, the priests did not want the masses to have the same knowledge they did of the bible.
    Yes. The invention of the Trinity was also a scam. It is not at all supported by scripture and was concocted so that God was deemed to be completely mysterious, three and yet one at the same time, which is a contradiction in terms, so that only the Priests could "understand", and thereby control the masses and pick their pockets and force them to live in fear of eternal damnation if they did not comply. The French Catholic priest/philosopher, Nicholas Malebranche, denied the Trinity in his metaphysical works and so the Pope banned his books. Today both the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses reject the absurdity of the Trinity, deeming God to be One, and therefore at least logically possible, if not actual.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Thanks Sid, this was good for my morning chuckle. I was picturing myself as a monk in a medieval castle carefully reprinting the Bible by hand. You do realize the Bible was the first major publication for the Gutenberg printing press.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-5W...seumoftheBible

    And now more that 600 years later, we are still fact checking it!

    I suspect we will be fact checking the internet for almost as long.

    Anyhow, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
    If I keep learning long enough, eventually I will know nothing at all.
    Oops, wait a minute.
    More coffee.
    Thanks, Bob,
    That was the thing, the priests did not want the masses to have the same knowledge they did of the bible. I had no idea that 600 years later that is still being fact-checked, touche!
    Best,
    Sid

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post


    Yes Bob, I sincerely hope you do learn how to do that. You remind of the priests who bemoaned the invention of the Guttenberg printing press.
    Thanks Sid, this was good for my morning chuckle. I was picturing myself as a monk in a medieval castle carefully reprinting the Bible by hand. You do realize the Bible was the first major publication for the Gutenberg printing press.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-5W...seumoftheBible

    And now more that 600 years later, we are still fact checking it!

    I suspect we will be fact checking the internet for almost as long.

    Anyhow, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
    If I keep learning long enough, eventually I will know nothing at all.
    Oops, wait a minute.
    More coffee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brad Thomson
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
    The question is: did the truckers have a legitimate argument that they should not be subject to vaccine mandates?
    It depends upon where one draws the line. In Canada we want to give individuals as much freedom as possible, but the collective does have the right/obligation to protect itself from the individual. Thus murder, bank robbery and many other activities are deemed illegal. It is important to note that if everyone were free to murder, then no one would be free to not be murdered. Then there would be no collective rights at all, which would mean that there were also no individual rights at all. Thus freedom can only exist when it restricts itself, restrictions are the very essence and definition of freedom. And so again, the question is where to draw the line. The problem is that this is often a matter of opinion and debate. Everyone who is sane agrees that we should not be free to murder, only the insane would argue that we should be mandated by the state as to what to eat for dinner, or which hockey team to root for. Now, does the collective have the right/obligation to tell individuals that if they are not vaccinated they cannot work, or go into certain stores, gyms, theatres, restaurants and so forth? Once more, it depends upon where one draws the line. And again, reasonable people can disagree on this. So what do we do? We have two choices. We allow these decisions to be made by dictators, or we allow these decisions to be made by democratically elected representatives. Most of us prefer the latter. But what if we disagree with them? Simple, we legally protest and we vote them out of office come the next election. In the meantime, we should obey the laws and respect the decisions of our elected representatives, and we should expect to be stopped by law enforcement agencies if we do not. For if we do not comply with the decisions of legally elected representatives then we will risk descending at least into dictatorship, where we will lose many of our freedoms, or possibly into anarchy, where we will lose all of our freedoms completely. America is very close to this now, and Canada is not too far behind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Here is an interesting article on the recent Bangladesh mask study where the investigators recently made all of the data they collected available on Github. https://gitlab.com/emily-crawford/bd-mask-rct When the data they neglected to disclose is included it actually shows that masks are completely useless in preventing transmission of COVID2. This makes sense as in 40 years of RCTs with masks this is the first one that concluded that masks work in preventing viral transmission when all other RCT studies showed they did not. Here is an article where the author plots the data and shows the Bangladesh study deliberately omitted data that went against the pro mask narrative they were promoting.

    https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/b...utm_source=url

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Sharpe
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
    The question is: did the truckers have a legitimate argument that they should not be subject to vaccine mandates?
    There was no actual mandate. Truckers would simply have to quarantine whenever they crossed the border if they were not fully vaccinated. I worked in the trucking industry at the start of Covid (driver payroll, so I spoke with them a lot) and cannot nobody expressed any concerns about the vaccine to me (and they spoke to me about MANY things!). In fact, the drivers were always asking for more wipes, sanitizer products, and masks every time they came into the office and yes, they all wore masks and never needed to be reminded once.

    In fact, their biggest gripe was that when the delivered to a US customer, the customer would refuse them the use of their bathroom while taking hours to unload sometimes.

    In my experience, truckers seemed to be among the most sensible and responsible of all the folks I have dealt with over the past 2 years,
    Last edited by Sam Sharpe; Monday, 21st February, 2022, 08:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X