1) interesting how honking horns and diesel fumes in Ottawa have provoked a backlash against protestors, but burning churches and blockaded rail lines did not. Perhaps inconvenience and disruption out in the "colonies" is less important than when it impacts those at the center
2) fiscal conservatism should unite the factions. The post financial crisis narratives of government spending as the main path to economic growth and borrowed money carrying no cost could be rapidly ending
3) Canada is different. Nationalism won't bring in the votes in a country that lacks a coherent identity
4) appealing to Quebec in an attempt to attract a tsunami of swing voters is too complex, unpredictable, tied to bad economic policy and ultimately unlikely. Ending supply management, reducing bilingualim requirements in the federal civil service in order to attract more diverse employees, opening up the domestrc media, telecom and airline industries to competition (and repealing the Air Canada Act) would be sensible policies that would benefit a sizeable majority of Canadians
5) besides fiscal conservatism, affordability is the issue that Conservatives should be chasing. They hinted at this during the 2019 and 2021 campaigns, but were too easily distracted. This will take some bold policy proposals:
--tougher anti-money laundering measures to ensure Canadian real estate isn't being used as a haven for criminal proceeds. For some unknown reason, no one wants to touch this
--adding contingencies on transfers to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure. Other levels of government need to demonstrate attempts to remove regulatory barriers to housing supply
--reducing immigration quotas until the big cities can demonstrate plans to increase supply of housing and infrastructure
6) oppose Quebec Bill 21. No better way to reach out to communities of new Canadians while still throwing a bone to social conservatives
The fascinating thing about British politics is that it is the exact opposite of Canada, with the Conservative party being the natural governing party while the hapless Labour party seemly struggles to find not just a leader but a message.
Oh and one very important point about the convoy, is the media is focusing almost exclusively on a few nitwhits on the fringe while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. While that is to be expected the more shameful part is how the media, especially the CBC is massively misrepresenting what is happening. Take the “Terry Fox” fiasco, the CBC ran a headshot only claiming it had been vandalised (10 seconds of googling found the real picture) or the piles of garbage neatly piled on the street waiting to be picked up. Embarrassing is a huge understatement
I know two people who went. The mood was friendly and positive, more like a carnival than a protest. It was very patriotic. Since Canada Day isn't worthy of celebrating anymore this was a substitute. The media coverage, especially CTV, was unwatchable. Only FB live feeds showed the real event. I think it's time to go home but that doesn't mean I think the media coverage was a reflection of the protest.
I don't understand this: are you taking the position that as long as one worker remains inconvenienced, then the truckers and other protesters couldn't possibly be representing the working class?
Also, your trucker accusations are literally what our governments are doing: blocking people from going to work, preventing transportation of goods and messing with the supply chain, and forcing lockdowns. This has been the policy of our governments for 2 years, but now that some truckers are fighting against this (though in your mind they're the same culprits), now it's noticeable and intolerable?
It was more than that. It was entirely disrespectful. You looked at the wrong pictures. The CBC is not a good source for anything, but those few went to far.
The core problem is that, like Lucien Bouchard said, Canada isn't a real country. It's a British counter-revolutionary project that is no longer British, whose raison d'etre for 150 years was to be the homeland for English speakers in North America who rejected the American project (with some French speakers more or less unhappily grafted on).
This reality is why Trudeau can without apparent embarrassment say things like "Canada has no mainstream identity," or start every speech with an acknowledgment that, if we're really being honest, someone else should be in charge of the land he's standing on. ("...unceded land of the Algonquin peoples...") We had a 150th Anniversary where we supposedly celebrated Canada but no one in the government could make a compelling case about what's good about it.
There are no parties with a national vision because there's no nation, just nostalgia. The country is held together, to the extent it's held together, by dim memories of Vimy Ridge and the Suez Canal, and the conceit that the healthcare system is run better than the Americans' healthcare system.
Out of these preconditions emerge two parties with a viable claim on power. Neither articulates any actual vision, so they fight over small differences. The Liberal Party wins consistently, so they have a significant advantage in trying to recruit the slightly more talented politically-minded ambitious types, and thus they will continue to win most of the time.
The Conservatives are the Pepsi to the Liberal Party's Coke -- a functionally identical political product that presents the illusion of meaningful choice to the bored political consumer .
This Canadian malaise is why Trudeau is right now hiding somewhere undisclosed rather than making any effort to evict the convoy(s). His father, Pierre Trudeau, had a clear vision for Canada and the backbone to go with it. In the October Crisis, he was able to tell separatists and any other detractors that, right or wrong, he was going to use force to protect the state.
Is that kind of application of power even even imaginable today? Who is going to potentially shoot someone to protect the Canadian government? And what military officer is going to put himself in harm's way to maintain the operation of the government? What even is the Canadian government? A few hundred fat MPs, a picture of the Queen here and there, and a focus grouped high school teacher well out of his depth on the world stage.
Imagine for a second any U.S. president running away and hiding while the capital was occupied by a mob. Read the letter of Sullivan Ballou from the American Civil War and try to imagine any modern Canadian ever voicing any remotely similar sentiment.
But though Conservative partisans think the problem is the liberals, it isn't. The Conservatives don't offer any competing vision. It's all about tweaks at the margins. Instead of a carbon tax you will have a carbon savings account. You get a child tax credit instead of daycare, or something. And private school-educated, Rolex- and bespoke-suit-wearing Jagmeet Singh, who supposedly leads the workers' party, is no better. He doesn't even have the intellectual honesty to say that you can't make housing more affordable without lowering the price of houses! (see the last set of leaders' debates).
Canada is a country without big ideas, and can't have big ideas unless someone can articulate a national vision that's more than "we aren't Americans." So of course the Conservatives are just going flounder around until the Liberals do something ridiculous and the Conservatives luck their way into power. And that seesaw pattern will continue while the country circles the drain until some major world event intervenes and it goes the way of say, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia.
I think Pepsi is second place and Coke is first. And you could live the rest of your life with no negative effects if you chose not to drink either.
Any truly difficult political decision in post-1982 Canada is handled by the Supreme Court. The main difference between a Liberal or Conservative government is which set of cronies and hangers on gets government money. The two parties are in near perfect agreement on domestic policy, e.g. the role of government in healthcare, the welfare state, the appropriate tax burden, supply management, abortion, etc. (and columnists are always advising the Conservatives to move even closer to the Liberals). On foreign policy Canada is a non-entity. The state can't even project power into its literal front yard, let alone e.g. Ukraine.
Yes. I dream of a Federal government with $100B less in budget, 100K fewer employees and the interchanges on the Queenway littered with unemployed ADM's and political strategists holding signs saying "Will do nothing meaningul for food"
Before we go full populist and pick our version of a Trump, since we always seem to follow in the US footsteps, let's get ahead of this and as others have pointed out move the party to a more working-class point of view.
Harper started this, I remember him being the Tim Horton's guy, and the others were uppity Starbucks.
The left in general has gone full identity-politics, embracing the elite class for their funding. This leaves an opening for a more blue-collar party, consistent with being pro-business, pro nuclear, pro buy-Canadian, pro family.
Love it or not, the convoy has shown that there are some principles that will get the entire country together, in freezing cold, standing united. Party leadership could learn from that.
But will any party take that role? Obviously not the Liberals, and the NDP -- despite historically being the working class party -- have become the devil on the Liberal shoulders pushing them deeper into identity politics and leftist academic elitism, a la Tomas Piketty's "Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict": http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf
PPC is too libertarian for mainstream and not exactly a uniting party. That pretty much leaves the Conservatives who are well-situated to do it, but don't appear to have the leadership willing to try. O'Toole was Trudeau-lite. Polievre has more bite to him, but he is more bulldog that shows value only in attack mode than a uniting charismatic leader.
Candice Bergen? I don't know much about her, but in recent days she seems to have been able to be assertive without being overly aggressive, pull punches while showing she's got the capacity to hit hard, and is articulate and diplomatic when needed. But I don't know enough yet.
And, how far off is the next election anyway? I can't seen the NDP siding with Conservatives to non-confidence the Liberals out; not after the NDP has dug themselves in so deep as anti-Conservative, pro-woke. Maybe the trucker showdown will cause something to happen, but I don't see what yet.
"That the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners, has nonsensical and constitutionally-illiterate demands, and are being absolute shits to the people of downtown Ottawa also doesn’t matter. "
1. Please provide your evidence that the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners.
2. What percentage do you believe is funded by foreigners?
3. What does it matter if foreigners contribute?
It appears to me that this is just another attempted smear tactic, as if Canadians don't support this protest when they clearly do just from the numbers of supporters at the sides of roads and online support. They were at over 124,000 donations exceeding $10 million total when it was frozen by GoFundMe.
4. What are the "nonsensical" demands? They are calling for an end of the vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The World Health Organization is also against vaccine mandates and has been against vaccine passports. Many countries and U.S. states have abandoned or barred vaccine mandates and are moving toward an "endemic COVID" model. Are they all "nonsensical"?
It includes statements on December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022 along with their 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination which includes,
- "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio."
You'll also note at the link that they came out against boosters, except for high-risk categories, and against vaccinating children and adolescents. Also, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came out against such mandates.
You'll note that the reasons for all of these also have to do with equity, fairness, reducing negative effects on marginalized communities, limiting harms to personal autonomy, and more effective outcomes.
I'm not aware of them changing policy on this and can't find any reference to a change in policy.
Are these all nonsensical?
5. What are their constitutionally-illiterate demands?
I've been following them since the beginning and the only thing I can see fitting the constitution is the basis for their demands involving respect for human rights to decided what medical procedures to undergo. That's well-documented in Charter precedence. You can read about it here: https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably,
"Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”. "Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged." "This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment"
Most notably, from (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. This is in accordance with the fact . . . that “s. 7 was enacted for the purpose of ensuring human dignity and individual control, so long as it harms no one else”."
The typical response is that being unvaccinated harms somebody else. But, it doesn't. This is the big confusion with those trying to impose mandates; they confuse being unvaccinated with being positive for COVID-19. Being unvaccinated has a relative risk compared to being vaccinated, as well as relative compared to other things in life, and it is a relatively small difference.
That relative risk is a product of risk of exposure, risk of infection given exposure, and risk of transmission given infection. Canada's vaccine brain trust is centred at the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and delivered in Advisory Committee Statements (ACS), the latest which summarizes,
"There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk.
To this point, an unvaccinated remote worker is certainly a significantly less risk to be around than a vaccinated person who as been to a restaurant, bar, or gym in recent days. Being a remote worker means they have limited exposure and being unvaccinated means they can't get into any of the places that even Health Canada says are the high-transmission places. E.g., from here, under "People at greater risk of exposure": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
"Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
"We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants, as well as other settings."
These are all places that only vaccinated people can go right now.
There is fundamentally no basis for claiming that an unvaccinated person is "harming other people", and even if we extend that to suggest the risk of harming other people, that is situational. A rural, remote worker with is not allowed in restaurants or gyms because they are unvaccinated is much less risk of transmitting than an urban worker frequenting such places, and much less risk that the PM is right now, having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
So, again, what is this constitutional illiteracy? It looks to me like the proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated are constitutionally illiterate, and illiterate over how to calculate or compare risk factors, and ignorant of the status of "we don't know" as far as the science on transmission risk, particularly given Omicron.
"Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk."
Nicely said. I can feel my blood pressure rising when people go on about the 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. It's just another tool to keep us divided. Not to mention, a healthy, unvaxxed 30 year old is highly unlikely to end up in ICU (or even hospitalized) compared to an unhealthy, double vaxxed 60 year old. For disclosure, I am double vaxxed and I don't care if anyone else is or isn't.
Same here. Fully vaxxed, family is vaxxed including kids. I don't care if somebody else is vaxxed or not. It's their choice. It's the basis of medical and bioethics. The absolute risk from being around vaxxed or unvaxxed is negligibly different and depending on the situation is even lower risk for unvaxxed, as mentioned.
And, that doesn't account for natural immunity. If it is somebody who has had COVID-19, they are probably safer on average than a vaccinated person.
As noted in the research literature, we also don't know if unvaxxed are less likely to transmit because they are more likely to be symptomatic and therefore isolate whereas vaccination means if you are infected you are more likely to have minimal to no symptoms so you could spread it around, shed it, and not know you ever had it or shed it. We have no way of measuring that directly and can only estimate through random testing.
Most of the transmission literature only looks at sub-components of risk such as risk of infection or viral loading and not actual real-world effects. Population-level shows no difference in spread based on vaccination rate over time or between regions.
The average risk of being around another person is tiny. After 2 years we've had approximately 7% of the population ever infected. If you round to 100 weeks, that is ~0.07% of the population is infected per week on average. I use 1 week because that is about the longest duration of being contagious. So any given person you meet at any average point has a 99.93% change of not having contagious COVID-19, and a 93% chance of never having had it. Or, in other terms, that is ~1 in 1500, meaning you need to be around ~1500 people in order to expect that at least one of them is contagious, and need to be indoors with poor ventilation in order to have much risk of becoming infected.
If we were to ignore risk of exposure and risk of transmission given infection, and ignore natural immunity, and focus only on risk of infection, the literature suggests maybe ~50% reduction in risk from vaccination. So without a full model, an approximation is ~0.035% risk of transmission from a vaccinated person and ~0.07%. So 99.93% safe around unvaccinated vs 99.965% safe around vaccinated.
That's what we're talking about. It's crazy.
If it's about hospitalization, that's more fair. But, like you say, that's almost all elderly or co-morbidities. If we're going to start mandates based on minimizing hospitalization, we should put mandates on proof of exercise and healthy eating. Perhaps BMI passports.
If it is about herd immunity, that's not even feasible now. With Omicron estimates now are above 98% vaccination required, plus there are animal reservoirs, plus that would be required either globally or we wall ourselves off. Herd immunity is not exactly a yes/no; it just means R0<1 (number of average secondary infections per infected person), which varies with waves, waning vaccine efficacy, large enough groups infected by few people, etc. It's not likely possible now. And, the last survey I saw said at least 6% say they will not get vaccinated no matter what. So unless it is literally forced vaccination, there won't be herd vaccination.
Even beyond just basic human rights and the bioethics, and WHO objections against mandates, there's just no real public health case here.
Nicely said. Love the facts. If the gov't had focused these mandates towards the older demographic (which I do fall into), I wouldn't be so pissed. It will be interesting to see what the younger generation does with this information once they see how we came to be ruled under a climate of fear. And considering the John Hopkins University study showing that lockdowns had little to no effect on covid deaths but did have devastating effects on their generation.
Did you see that the CDC is finally admitting that natural immunity is just as effective against hospitalizations as vaccines? It's actually better when you look at their graphs. I expect we'll start seeing some different talking points from the media and our 'leaders' here soon.
I know the study you are talking about. I've read it and critiques of it, and to be fair it is one piece in the collection of studies. Some of the criticisms are just ad hominem ("attack on the person") such as Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/
They note the paper is not endorsed by the university, which is not a thing in science. Science isn't done by endorsement of administrators. It notes they are economists, and have been against lockdowns. Those have nothing to do with whether the content is valid. They do talk about the paper focusing on analysis by economists and not epidemiological studies, which is potentially fair -- but the paper itself explains their selection process in great detail in the first 23 pages, and on this point notes (p.25),
"While it is true that epidemiologists and researchers in natural sciences should, in principle, know much more about COVID-19 and how it spreads than social scientists, social scientists are, in principle, experts in evaluating the effect of various policy interventions."
The paper here is about studying the effects of social policy on targeted outcomes of number of deaths from COVID-19, which they note is the expertise of social science and not epidemiology which is focused on distribution patterns and mechanisms of spread as an input to policy. Overall, I'll put this in the category of ongoing debate.
I agree that done differently, even mandates aren't really that bad. The WHO guidelines are pretty good, including time-limited mandates, focused on specific, constant review, transparency, using persuasion instead of coercion, and use of the ladder of intervention. My concern is more that the the reality of science is that we just don't know the right answers -- as noted well in the Nuffield Council's report on public health ethics, Chapter 3. This is what "sciencing" in real-time looks like. It normally takes the order of a decade to learn anything significant because we start at zero knowledge and bounce back and forth between imperfect, limited studies that point in opposite directions for awhile, before a "signal" starts to emerge from the "noise".
What we have here is politicians and press who have chosen a solution and cherry pick the "noise" that comes out with their solutions and ignore or vilify the science that says otherwise, and cherry pick somebody with credentials who agrees as the mechanism to vilify people on the other side with the same or better credentials. And then use administrative means to silence dissenting views.
None of that has anything to do with how science works, and that is how population-level atrocities happen.
If they were honest instead, saying "We don't know the best means forward, but we're going to try this thing for a limited time, watch what happens, and adjust as we go based on evidence that comes up." That would be great. Then you wouldn't have had the mandates that directly contradict the NACI Advisory Committee Statement regarding lack of knowledge on transmission, or Health Canada's risk mitigation plan on the vaccines, and the opposition to mandates from WHO and ethics orgs. We could have followed them, seen what happened, and pivoted.
Then we wouldn't be in this mess, wouldn't have massive distrust in the press and institutions on this topic, wouldn't have the protests, and would have been doing much better as a country. People can tolerate not knowing what to do and taking best shots. But doubling down on hurting people while claiming to be unequivocally right and dissenters are wrong, fringe, uninformed, and various forms of evil -- that's just unforgivably tyrannical behaviour.
I love that you do the deep dive into these studies. It's quite helpful for those (meaning me) who don't have the science background. So I seek out journalists (Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Breaking Points, Rising, Kim Iversen...) and Dr's (John Campbell, Vinay Prasad) who present the information without bias.
I've also learned to recognize Facebook's 'fact checking' for what it really is. From Matt's latest article, "After the BMJ episode, a “Missing context” flag should be understood for what it is: an intellectual warning label for true but politically troublesome information."
Why do you think so? Can you point to your sources of information? I'm trying to understand where the divide in understanding comes from and I can't see where a claim of "pure nonsense" would come from. I could see a claim of, "We don't know enough yet to make that claim." which would be a fair objection to my statement. I'll even make it against myself since I didn't give context to that statement.
I said "probably" because I don't think we do know for sure yet. But, the evidence is adding up in that direction. For example, the famous Israeli study: "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
The found a 13-fold improvement in resilience against infection via natural immunity over vaccines, among other improvement metrics, and concluded:
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. "
However, I note that study is still a pre-print on medRxiv whose main page (https://www.medrxiv.org/) notes: "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."
It is also only one study, which is not how science works. You need repeatability over many studies and aggregation of information in meta analysis to begin to draw conclusions. For a first pass at that we can draw on the Oct 2021 study, "Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/
It concludes, "While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference."
Translation: Natural immunity from prior vaccination is at least as good as double vaccination and both should be considered medically equivalent. Vaccination after having COVID-19 has negligible benefit so it should be left up to individual preference of the patient on whether to get vaccinated.
Now, this isn't definitive because, like I say, because it will take a lot more study, and will change with variants as well. But, I believe the combination of meta analysis showing "at least" equivalence and the Israeli study pre-print showing 13-fold better immunity from natural immunity is sufficient to tip the odds at least a bit in favour of natural immunity over the average vaccinated person, so I believe my statement is consistent with the available science.
But, I could be wrong. I did say "probably" and that we don't actually know for sure yet. If you can point me to your scientific meta analysis that contradicts what I'm saying, that could help me to improve my thoughts on the matter, and would be greatly appreciated.
Of course a scientist would say that. That's a weird assertion for you to make. It sounds like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
I think you are confusing the process of science with individual scientists. Individual scientists are just people and their opinions range all over the place, including from reasonable and objective to stubborn "believers".
The scientific process itself is based on aggregating individual bits of evidence, peer-reviewed studies, repeatability, and extracting over time the "signal" from the "noise".
I've already explained this. My comment is even hedged with "probably" (not an asserted "definitely"), and "on average" (not "always"), and I repeatedly hedged even that with "We don't know yet".
And, I believe the available evidence -- including the meta analysis, Israeli study, and your link -- still concludes that natural immunity is probably safer on average than vaccination. At a minimum it seems to be at least as good.
As to your assertion that "It turns out more like 'probably not'", what evidence or argument are you basing that on? Are you summarily dismissing the meta analysis I sent? Are you dismissing the Israeli study? Are you dismissing all of the points on the page of your link that contradict that claim? If so, why are you dismissing them? Did you find flaws in those studies? Is it just that you don't like them because they disagree with what you want to be true?
I'm open to any evidence and argument to the contrary. You just need to back up the assertions with a summary of your evidence, reasoning, and problems with the counter-points.
Or, maybe ... just maybe, you are also welcome to change your mind about things. Some people have been known to do that when they see different evidence.
Thanks for the link. Indeed, your link and my links are very similar in their commentary on status along the lines of, "We don't know yet, but here's what the data we have suggests." But, have slightly different leanings as to what to do with the results.
The part you quote indeed suggests higher-titer initial antibody response, which is perfectly valid point -- though it is a proxy measure and has to do with the speed of response, not an indicator of whether the person will become infected or not. See the note on the page saying, "Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection." And right above the line you copied it says, "protective titers at the individual level remain unknown".
To translate all of this, there is very limited data on whether natural immunity or vaccination is "better", but overall they are very similar. There is some data to suggest vaccination has a faster initial response, but it is unknown if that affects overall immunity of the individual or indicates whether they will or won't get infected.
Also noted on the page,
- "Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. "
- "The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%)."
- "There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children."
At the top of your link you'll also note it says, "Although comprehensive, it is neither a formal systematic review nor meta-analysis. New data continue to emerge, and recommendations will be updated periodically, as needed."
So it is essentially listing the collection of findings across different studies. If you read through the whole page and all the different findings, it reinforces these statements that the outcome is still inconclusive as far as which immunity is better. But, it is clear they are very similar.
With respect to the quote you refer to, as I mention above that is merely mentioning one factor that is several steps away from determining effects on actual immunity. It's like comparing car engines and noting that Car A has a slightly higher engine torque in the first few milliseconds after stomping on the gas, indicating Car A *might* be faster than Car B in a race.
The links I sent were real-world outcome comparisons. To continue the analogy, they compared the actual outcome of races. The Israeli study metaphorically compared the outcome of many races at one track and noted Car B won 13 times more than Car A. The meta-analysis paper compared outcomes across 9 tracks (studies) and found that in all of them Car B at least tied or better but they were neck and neck and were only fractional car-lengths in difference across the finish line. ("All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity.")
So, both your link and mine are saying -- as I said in my last post -- that there is insufficient data yet to know one way or the other for sure. The one line you chose is a very weak, hypothetical proxy indicator with unknown value to determining the outcome, compared to the links I sent which directly measure the outcome comparisons.
This is why I said in my last post, "I said "probably" because I don't think we do know for sure yet. But, the evidence is adding up in that direction."
I don't see anything in your link or quote that supports your claim that it is "Pure nonsense". Can you clarify? Do you think the one small proxy factor indicator you pulled out, which is not even yet conclusive itself, nullifies everything else on the page in your link and the multiple studies and meta analysis as being untrue or inaccurate?
I don't understand that mode of thinking. From my side, it looks like you are hanging onto a belief and searching the resources for any quote you can cherry pick that appears to align with your pre-determined belief, but then ignore the context of that quote and the surrounding quotes, data, and studies that say, "We don't know yet." or that measure outcomes that contradict your pre-determined belief.
But, my perception of your position could be wrong. Can you articulate why you think that one quote -- that one factor that is a limited proxy indicator -- renders all of the other information on your own link or mine as "pure nonsense"? I want to understand your thinking on this. Heterodox views are important to debates, especially in such a state of low knowledge.
Thanks.
Edit: I'll also note that the meta-analysis I linked to was published Oct 28, 2021, and your CDC link was published on Oct 29, 2021 and doesn't include the meta-analysis, and as stated in your link, "is neither a formal systematic review nor meta-analysis".
Have you ever heard the saying, "Arguing with an scientist is like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a while you realize you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it." There are various versions of this saying I've seen, but this is good enough.
People like Lyle make good sparring partners. These are the people who hold up the punching target mitts when practicing and improving. If he is basing his claims off of nothing and is just stubbornly incredulous or a troll, then it still gives me a nice workout to question the basis of my own understanding, check my sources, and present them and the arguments for further review.
If, on the other hand, he actually has some good points to make and some good sources and can provide them, then I have an opportunity to improve my own knowledge and make better decisions.
If the sources turn out to be terrible and misleading, then I have a better understanding of the psychology of how he, and probably other similar people, get led down the wrong direction and I can work through an argument process for how to dig them back out. Even if it won't work on a specific person, I can use it to help inoculate others heading down that path when I see the same thing again.
At a minimum, it is always an opportunity to observe the psychology and behaviours of some people in our society and recognize that these people exist and we have to have a means of dealing with them in society that is both compassionate to their limitations but still doesn't allow their limitations to result in harming other people.
Getting vaccinated does not make much of a difference as far as "spreading it". That's the point, you aren't reading the science. You've just picked that up from the media or politicians.
I even pointed you directly to my article where I cited even the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization saying the such evidence is limited. The medical literature still in January is saying that transmission risks are unknown. At the population level there is no correlation with vaccination rate and spread, both temporally within a country or as measured between states. Individually, risk of exposure is dominant and higher with vaccinated people since they can go where it spreads most, and the literature suggest no difference in transmissibility once infected. The only factor in which vaccination seems to reduce the transmission risk is infection if exposed and the literature is all over the place on that factor between vaccines and variants, from 0% to 70%, and Omicron is throwing most of that out the window.
What on Earth makes you think that if we all get vaxxed that we can "put this behind us". There's no science to that. Originally it was hoped that the vaccines were good enough for herd immunity, but between their waning effectiveness, the evolution of the variants, and existence of animal reservoirs in which the virus can hop back-and-forth to humans.
To me, and no offense, but the problem you are running into is that you lack an open mind and ability to question your own assumptions, or to imagine that other people might have different and/or better information than you do on the topic.
Actually read the articles I linked to, and read the source material from Health Canada, the vaccine manufacturers, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the World Health Organization, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Here, I'll put them all in one place:
I am fully vaccinated, as is my family (including kids), and the vaccines do work, as outlined in the articles. But not in the way as being portrayed, as a panacea. There are risks and an existing risk-management plan (that the government is being undermined). They aren't as good as stated. And, vaccines mandates are a harmful, counterproductive, and less effective approach than other means.
Lyle, you really need to keep up with the moving goalposts. It's been proven that vaccines have little to no effect on reducing transmission. The new goalpost is the ICU rates.
And you may be tired of the narcissists, but I am equally tired of the authoritarians.
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
2. Tending to tell other people what to do in a peremptory or arrogant manner. synonym: dictatorial.
3. characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; -- of governments or rulers
You state, "vaccinated people don't transmit it as easily as the unvaccinated". But what are the actual numbers? Is it 5%, is it 30%. Without numbers, it doesn't mean anything.
The same was said about Delta but when you look at an actual study, the differential was only 13%. In my opinion, that is not worth all the fear mongering and hateful division. "The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals."
As an aside, all this focus on targeting the unvaxxed is really a distraction from the bigger issue. Over the last 2 years, we've witnessed the biggest transfer of wealth in modern history. The rich have gotten richer and the poor, even more poor. Not to mention the hit that the middle class has taken.
The grass always appears greener on the other side (in this instance, the other side of the pond). But for all of Boris Johnson's electoral success, he is about to go down in flames, partly because he is a congenital liar and also because he hasn't got a coherent governing vision for the UK Tories. So he's hardly a model template for the Canadian Conservatives, as the post suggests.
One promising area where O'Toole appeared to be making headroads was converting the PC's into a pro-worker party, embracing a kind of "blue collar conservatism". The party tacked Left on pro-worker policies, thereby neutralising a lot of the traditional concerns about voting for them, especially in regard to benefits for gig workers, worker representation on corporate boards, and protecting pensions from corporate bankruptcy has given voters a positive reason to vote Conservative — a stark contrast to the Liberals.
Corporations are so large and dominant that it’s impossible for individual workers to negotiate a fair salary. It has been one of the primary causes of recent wage stagnation. The idea that a single worker could stand a chance in a negotiation with a company like Amazon, which is worth nearly $2 trillion is unrealistic. So embracing strong unions not only deals with a significant barrier to greater equality, but does so in a way that enhances the functioning of a free market economy (and I think Tories still like that, don't they?)
There are likely better approaches as well on climate change (why doesn't the Tory Party become the party of nuclear power?), and fruitful attacks on the "woke capitalism" embraced by the liberals, where symbolic gestures to virtue signallers are deemed more important than structural economic changes that would help working Canadians.
In the end, O'Toole might not have been the best vehicle for this message, but he tried. I'm sure Pierre Poilievre might win the battle on Twitter, but he's probably too polarising to win an election for the party. My guess is that Rona Ambrose would be a more credible leader for the kind of approach that would engender greater electoral success (Brian Mulroney, minus the sleaze factor).
It's pretty hard to build a coherent conservative program to respond to problems when there are so many members of the base who adamantly and vociferously refuse to acknowledge the reality of those problems. Underlying the opposition to a carbon tax is a denial that anthropogenic global warming even exists, let alone a more nuanced rejection of the catastrophism of environmental activists. The opposition to COVID mitigations tends to be driven by a notion that the COVID pandemic is a hoax, not finding better ways of managing the impact on the health care system.
Somewhere between 60 and 85% of the country believe these are problems that must be dealt with. Simply denying the problems and refusing to do anything means they look elsewhere. Conservatives have the opportunity to propose a better solution, or at least something less bad from their perspective. It'd also be possible to change public perception of whether something is a problem, but they have to get a lot more persuasive than the jumble of poorly-informed and badly articulated arguments we tend to get.
I’ll grant you that most people tend to shy away from any cost associated with climate change mitigation, but the fact that close to 90% of eligible Canadians have been vaccinated and follow mitigations like wearing masks indoor public spaces indicates you’re wide off the mark regarding COVID.
Vaccination protects one's self. How many Canadian would support mitigations that impacted their own ability to earn income if it weren't covered by some government compensation?
They’re not finding excuses to avoid a safe, effective vaccine. Vaccines also protect against COVID. They don’t protect against the risk of not getting health care because of a system overwhelmed by unvaccinated people, particularly those who don’t respect other means of risk reduction. Find a better way to solve that problem, and the mandates won’t be necessary. Insisting merely that you don’t like what’s being done or that it’s not really a problem gets you nowhere.
I have never felt more politically homeless in my life. Throughout most of my adult life, I voted between Liberal and NDP. This past Federal election was the first time I voted Conservative. These past few years I've watched the Lib's and NDP move so far Left that I now look like I'm on the right. Leslyn Lewis actually caught my eye. She is the type of Conservative I could get behind (genuine free speech and speaking out against identity politics).
O'Toole turned out to be a huge disappointment, just like this article. I despise these coercive mandates and I fully support the truckers. And, as it turns out, most Canadians are also getting fed up with these mandates and restrictions. The latest Angus Reid poll, https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/, now shows that the majority wants them to end too. It's a 15 point rise since early Jan. Surprisingly enough, Alberta (at 57%) came in behind Quebec at 59%. It's very interesting as the Quebec gov't has been the most authoritarian (the un-vaxxed cannot even shop at Walmart). Looks like the Quebec gov't is actually the fringe at this point.
And what the hell is up with this line, "Believe it or not @CPC_HQ, not many swing voters stroke to Jordan Peterson or other avatars of the iconoclastic right." ?!? Dr Peterson is admired by many on the left, and right but mainly the center. To say that he is an avatar for the right is highly disingenuous.
Between that comment and the biased articles against the truckers, I am very, very close to cancelling my subscription to the Line. And I've been here from the beginning (or close to anyway).
Very good summary of the problems with the Conservative party. I was going to support them but now have to wait to find out what they are actually going to be for. With three Woke parties to the left we need a pragmatic party on the right we can support.
Boris Johnson? Seriously?? The politician who wrote a memo in favour of Brexit and against it and then chose based on polling? The person who asked the United Kingdom to shut down and then partied hard? He got Brexit done, because of Dominic Cummings... subscribe to his Substack and you shall see.
I am sorry, this is not acceptable as a benchmark or anything even if the connection with the first-past-the-post and parliamentary government is there. Canada deserves a Conservative Party modeled on serious, trustworthy and hard working right-of-centre politicians.
Why don't we look at Angela Merkel, or Mark Rutte, heck even Bibi Netanyahu or Scott Morrison if we really want to push the limits of expediency vs dogmatism?
Yes, there is a need for pragmatism in any political party who expects to win elections. It is also more a function of who goes to the polls and who stays home, given how polarized voters are.
Boris Johnson as a model... C'mon The Line that is beyond the pale.
Merkel is easiest the most pragmatic and effective leader so far this century. The two qualities go hand in hand. Unfortunately, pragmatism doesn't generate social media traffic.
Giving a speech on the failures of multiculturalism and then importing 1MM new immigrants to Germany a few years later doesn't scream pragmatism nor effectiveness.
One longs for a Conservative Party alternative to the fatuous incompetence of the current PM, but as long as the Conservatives insist on moving to the conspiracy-theory/culture-war Right-Wing fringe, they leave this many-time Conservative voter where I have always been, in the Political Centre.
Interesting read. I would like to introduce some 'diversity of thought' at the invitation of the author.
BoJo was elected after the atrocious leadership of his predecessors and hardly because of his competence or 'charisma' -- the man has a silly pompous accent (even for a British elite) and a ridiculous hairdo and goes around Britain pretending he is (his idol) Winston Churchill. Alas, he falls slightly short of this mark and will likely go down in UK political history as an enormous failure. Who supports him now? The conservatives who voted for him realized they got a 'controlled opposition' mild Progressive, and the Labour voters who voted for him realize he is no friend of the working class. A dithering flip-flopper with no coherent goals -- sound familiar?
The author, despite denying it, is in fact endorsing 'The Conservatives should be Liberals-Lite'. Unfortunately, this advice is neither new nor particularly original. I think future success depends on how precisely opposite the direction the Conservatives can go in opposition to our Progressive parties.
I think this lack luster advice is borne of projection. 'Modern conservatism is all about attitude these days, not worldview' -- admonishing the Conservatives for not having a worldview makes less sense when you realize that conservatism is not a worldview. Progressivism is a worldview. The Progressives of the world all believe basically the same things. (Vibrant diversity here).
A conservative is the inheritor and protector of traditions. You cannot inherit and protect with a staunch worldview. Unlike Progressives, you couldn't possibly lump together all the conservatives of the world because the traditions and pasts are so diverse and different. Like Thomas Sowell said, 'What we call the Right, are the disparate and various opponents of the Left' -- it's a Leftist projection. The Left is collectivist, centralizing and authoritarian, and whoever doesn't support them is named 'the Right' -- these opposing groups could have almost nothing in common, which is why the ranks of the Alt-Right are swelling precipitously without them having done anything to recruit anyone -- it's simply the Left labeling any dissenters thus.
The above are clues as to the natural difficulty in building conservative coalitions.
I believe that if the Conservatives want to remain a relevant party, they ought to take on the precise opposite position to anything coming from our Progressive parties. Not for immature contrarian reasons; I genuinely believe this is the right path for our country. More communitarian policies for Canadian citizens (and not all the world are Canadian citizens, so distance us from the UN and other corrupt global enterprises. They do nothing for average Canadians.)
1. Climate Change
We could today eliminate 100% of our carbon and ghg emissions and it would change literally nothing in terms of global climate change. But it's important, the author says, to have policies in place reducing emissions and hamstringing our energy industries. Why? Honestly, why? This is ideology. This is faith.
If however you want to talk environmental policy as you mentioned -- strengthening our climate resilience and proofing our lives, our farms, and our shelters for the inevitable, then I'm all ears. Do the opposite of the Libs: scrap all Carbon taxes, stop bludgeoning our energy industry etc.
2. Multiculturalism
I admire the ideals of America and find the average American a decent chap. I do agree that we do not need to become America -- after all Canada should be its own project. There is a current policy that more than any other ensures that we will in fact become America. This is our official policy of Multiculturalism and insanely high levels of immigration (highest per capita in the world). America is tearing itself at the seams because it is a hodge podge collection of so many different identity groups (that used to melt together once upon a time but no longer). In Canada we are doing our best to replicate this ensuring that we will become a little America, and eventually a balkanized Yugoslavia.
Again, the prescription is do the opposite of the Libs: drastically reduce levels of immigration, support integration and make it harder to become a Canadian citizen. Watch real wages rise for the average Canadian as the source of cheap foreign labour dwindles.
Good article, Andrew… the PC party lost me with Harper, and my membership $, too. I’ve seen nothing coming from the right to change that view, but I’d sure welcome changes, or at least adult conversation, about the ideas you’ve tabled with this article.
A few comments:
1) interesting how honking horns and diesel fumes in Ottawa have provoked a backlash against protestors, but burning churches and blockaded rail lines did not. Perhaps inconvenience and disruption out in the "colonies" is less important than when it impacts those at the center
2) fiscal conservatism should unite the factions. The post financial crisis narratives of government spending as the main path to economic growth and borrowed money carrying no cost could be rapidly ending
3) Canada is different. Nationalism won't bring in the votes in a country that lacks a coherent identity
4) appealing to Quebec in an attempt to attract a tsunami of swing voters is too complex, unpredictable, tied to bad economic policy and ultimately unlikely. Ending supply management, reducing bilingualim requirements in the federal civil service in order to attract more diverse employees, opening up the domestrc media, telecom and airline industries to competition (and repealing the Air Canada Act) would be sensible policies that would benefit a sizeable majority of Canadians
5) besides fiscal conservatism, affordability is the issue that Conservatives should be chasing. They hinted at this during the 2019 and 2021 campaigns, but were too easily distracted. This will take some bold policy proposals:
--tougher anti-money laundering measures to ensure Canadian real estate isn't being used as a haven for criminal proceeds. For some unknown reason, no one wants to touch this
--adding contingencies on transfers to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure. Other levels of government need to demonstrate attempts to remove regulatory barriers to housing supply
--reducing immigration quotas until the big cities can demonstrate plans to increase supply of housing and infrastructure
6) oppose Quebec Bill 21. No better way to reach out to communities of new Canadians while still throwing a bone to social conservatives
The fascinating thing about British politics is that it is the exact opposite of Canada, with the Conservative party being the natural governing party while the hapless Labour party seemly struggles to find not just a leader but a message.
Oh and one very important point about the convoy, is the media is focusing almost exclusively on a few nitwhits on the fringe while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. While that is to be expected the more shameful part is how the media, especially the CBC is massively misrepresenting what is happening. Take the “Terry Fox” fiasco, the CBC ran a headshot only claiming it had been vandalised (10 seconds of googling found the real picture) or the piles of garbage neatly piled on the street waiting to be picked up. Embarrassing is a huge understatement
I know two people who went. The mood was friendly and positive, more like a carnival than a protest. It was very patriotic. Since Canada Day isn't worthy of celebrating anymore this was a substitute. The media coverage, especially CTV, was unwatchable. Only FB live feeds showed the real event. I think it's time to go home but that doesn't mean I think the media coverage was a reflection of the protest.
That stench could be the thinly veiled contempt for the dirty working classes.
I don't understand this: are you taking the position that as long as one worker remains inconvenienced, then the truckers and other protesters couldn't possibly be representing the working class?
Also, your trucker accusations are literally what our governments are doing: blocking people from going to work, preventing transportation of goods and messing with the supply chain, and forcing lockdowns. This has been the policy of our governments for 2 years, but now that some truckers are fighting against this (though in your mind they're the same culprits), now it's noticeable and intolerable?
It was more than that. It was entirely disrespectful. You looked at the wrong pictures. The CBC is not a good source for anything, but those few went to far.
The core problem is that, like Lucien Bouchard said, Canada isn't a real country. It's a British counter-revolutionary project that is no longer British, whose raison d'etre for 150 years was to be the homeland for English speakers in North America who rejected the American project (with some French speakers more or less unhappily grafted on).
This reality is why Trudeau can without apparent embarrassment say things like "Canada has no mainstream identity," or start every speech with an acknowledgment that, if we're really being honest, someone else should be in charge of the land he's standing on. ("...unceded land of the Algonquin peoples...") We had a 150th Anniversary where we supposedly celebrated Canada but no one in the government could make a compelling case about what's good about it.
There are no parties with a national vision because there's no nation, just nostalgia. The country is held together, to the extent it's held together, by dim memories of Vimy Ridge and the Suez Canal, and the conceit that the healthcare system is run better than the Americans' healthcare system.
Out of these preconditions emerge two parties with a viable claim on power. Neither articulates any actual vision, so they fight over small differences. The Liberal Party wins consistently, so they have a significant advantage in trying to recruit the slightly more talented politically-minded ambitious types, and thus they will continue to win most of the time.
The Conservatives are the Pepsi to the Liberal Party's Coke -- a functionally identical political product that presents the illusion of meaningful choice to the bored political consumer .
This Canadian malaise is why Trudeau is right now hiding somewhere undisclosed rather than making any effort to evict the convoy(s). His father, Pierre Trudeau, had a clear vision for Canada and the backbone to go with it. In the October Crisis, he was able to tell separatists and any other detractors that, right or wrong, he was going to use force to protect the state.
Is that kind of application of power even even imaginable today? Who is going to potentially shoot someone to protect the Canadian government? And what military officer is going to put himself in harm's way to maintain the operation of the government? What even is the Canadian government? A few hundred fat MPs, a picture of the Queen here and there, and a focus grouped high school teacher well out of his depth on the world stage.
Imagine for a second any U.S. president running away and hiding while the capital was occupied by a mob. Read the letter of Sullivan Ballou from the American Civil War and try to imagine any modern Canadian ever voicing any remotely similar sentiment.
But though Conservative partisans think the problem is the liberals, it isn't. The Conservatives don't offer any competing vision. It's all about tweaks at the margins. Instead of a carbon tax you will have a carbon savings account. You get a child tax credit instead of daycare, or something. And private school-educated, Rolex- and bespoke-suit-wearing Jagmeet Singh, who supposedly leads the workers' party, is no better. He doesn't even have the intellectual honesty to say that you can't make housing more affordable without lowering the price of houses! (see the last set of leaders' debates).
Canada is a country without big ideas, and can't have big ideas unless someone can articulate a national vision that's more than "we aren't Americans." So of course the Conservatives are just going flounder around until the Liberals do something ridiculous and the Conservatives luck their way into power. And that seesaw pattern will continue while the country circles the drain until some major world event intervenes and it goes the way of say, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia.
Isn't Pepsi more urbane and progressive, while Coke is nostalgic and Southern?
I think Pepsi is second place and Coke is first. And you could live the rest of your life with no negative effects if you chose not to drink either.
Any truly difficult political decision in post-1982 Canada is handled by the Supreme Court. The main difference between a Liberal or Conservative government is which set of cronies and hangers on gets government money. The two parties are in near perfect agreement on domestic policy, e.g. the role of government in healthcare, the welfare state, the appropriate tax burden, supply management, abortion, etc. (and columnists are always advising the Conservatives to move even closer to the Liberals). On foreign policy Canada is a non-entity. The state can't even project power into its literal front yard, let alone e.g. Ukraine.
To build on the Liberal:Pepsi analogy, Pepsi is more likely to hire celebrities as spokesmodels
I mostly agree, but hold out hope that a Conservative government would spend less
We can dare to dream.
Yes. I dream of a Federal government with $100B less in budget, 100K fewer employees and the interchanges on the Queenway littered with unemployed ADM's and political strategists holding signs saying "Will do nothing meaningul for food"
Before we go full populist and pick our version of a Trump, since we always seem to follow in the US footsteps, let's get ahead of this and as others have pointed out move the party to a more working-class point of view.
Harper started this, I remember him being the Tim Horton's guy, and the others were uppity Starbucks.
The left in general has gone full identity-politics, embracing the elite class for their funding. This leaves an opening for a more blue-collar party, consistent with being pro-business, pro nuclear, pro buy-Canadian, pro family.
Love it or not, the convoy has shown that there are some principles that will get the entire country together, in freezing cold, standing united. Party leadership could learn from that.
Brilliant!
But will any party take that role? Obviously not the Liberals, and the NDP -- despite historically being the working class party -- have become the devil on the Liberal shoulders pushing them deeper into identity politics and leftist academic elitism, a la Tomas Piketty's "Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict": http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf
PPC is too libertarian for mainstream and not exactly a uniting party. That pretty much leaves the Conservatives who are well-situated to do it, but don't appear to have the leadership willing to try. O'Toole was Trudeau-lite. Polievre has more bite to him, but he is more bulldog that shows value only in attack mode than a uniting charismatic leader.
Candice Bergen? I don't know much about her, but in recent days she seems to have been able to be assertive without being overly aggressive, pull punches while showing she's got the capacity to hit hard, and is articulate and diplomatic when needed. But I don't know enough yet.
And, how far off is the next election anyway? I can't seen the NDP siding with Conservatives to non-confidence the Liberals out; not after the NDP has dug themselves in so deep as anti-Conservative, pro-woke. Maybe the trucker showdown will cause something to happen, but I don't see what yet.
He lost me at catastrophic climate change. There is far too much hyperbole across the political spectrum right now.
"That the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners, has nonsensical and constitutionally-illiterate demands, and are being absolute shits to the people of downtown Ottawa also doesn’t matter. "
1. Please provide your evidence that the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners.
2. What percentage do you believe is funded by foreigners?
3. What does it matter if foreigners contribute?
It appears to me that this is just another attempted smear tactic, as if Canadians don't support this protest when they clearly do just from the numbers of supporters at the sides of roads and online support. They were at over 124,000 donations exceeding $10 million total when it was frozen by GoFundMe.
4. What are the "nonsensical" demands? They are calling for an end of the vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The World Health Organization is also against vaccine mandates and has been against vaccine passports. Many countries and U.S. states have abandoned or barred vaccine mandates and are moving toward an "endemic COVID" model. Are they all "nonsensical"?
You can read all about the WHO position here, with full links and citations: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
It includes statements on December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022 along with their 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination which includes,
- "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio."
You'll also note at the link that they came out against boosters, except for high-risk categories, and against vaccinating children and adolescents. Also, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came out against such mandates.
You'll note that the reasons for all of these also have to do with equity, fairness, reducing negative effects on marginalized communities, limiting harms to personal autonomy, and more effective outcomes.
The WHO also came out against vaccine passports: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-vaccines-idUSKBN2BT158
I'm not aware of them changing policy on this and can't find any reference to a change in policy.
Are these all nonsensical?
5. What are their constitutionally-illiterate demands?
I've been following them since the beginning and the only thing I can see fitting the constitution is the basis for their demands involving respect for human rights to decided what medical procedures to undergo. That's well-documented in Charter precedence. You can read about it here: https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably,
"Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”. "Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged." "This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment"
Most notably, from (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. This is in accordance with the fact . . . that “s. 7 was enacted for the purpose of ensuring human dignity and individual control, so long as it harms no one else”."
The typical response is that being unvaccinated harms somebody else. But, it doesn't. This is the big confusion with those trying to impose mandates; they confuse being unvaccinated with being positive for COVID-19. Being unvaccinated has a relative risk compared to being vaccinated, as well as relative compared to other things in life, and it is a relatively small difference.
That relative risk is a product of risk of exposure, risk of infection given exposure, and risk of transmission given infection. Canada's vaccine brain trust is centred at the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and delivered in Advisory Committee Statements (ACS), the latest which summarizes,
"There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk.
To this point, an unvaccinated remote worker is certainly a significantly less risk to be around than a vaccinated person who as been to a restaurant, bar, or gym in recent days. Being a remote worker means they have limited exposure and being unvaccinated means they can't get into any of the places that even Health Canada says are the high-transmission places. E.g., from here, under "People at greater risk of exposure": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
"Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
Or here, under "Settings with higher risk of transmission": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/main-modes-transmission.html
"We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants, as well as other settings."
These are all places that only vaccinated people can go right now.
There is fundamentally no basis for claiming that an unvaccinated person is "harming other people", and even if we extend that to suggest the risk of harming other people, that is situational. A rural, remote worker with is not allowed in restaurants or gyms because they are unvaccinated is much less risk of transmitting than an urban worker frequenting such places, and much less risk that the PM is right now, having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
So, again, what is this constitutional illiteracy? It looks to me like the proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated are constitutionally illiterate, and illiterate over how to calculate or compare risk factors, and ignorant of the status of "we don't know" as far as the science on transmission risk, particularly given Omicron.
"Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk."
Nicely said. I can feel my blood pressure rising when people go on about the 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. It's just another tool to keep us divided. Not to mention, a healthy, unvaxxed 30 year old is highly unlikely to end up in ICU (or even hospitalized) compared to an unhealthy, double vaxxed 60 year old. For disclosure, I am double vaxxed and I don't care if anyone else is or isn't.
Same here. Fully vaxxed, family is vaxxed including kids. I don't care if somebody else is vaxxed or not. It's their choice. It's the basis of medical and bioethics. The absolute risk from being around vaxxed or unvaxxed is negligibly different and depending on the situation is even lower risk for unvaxxed, as mentioned.
And, that doesn't account for natural immunity. If it is somebody who has had COVID-19, they are probably safer on average than a vaccinated person.
As noted in the research literature, we also don't know if unvaxxed are less likely to transmit because they are more likely to be symptomatic and therefore isolate whereas vaccination means if you are infected you are more likely to have minimal to no symptoms so you could spread it around, shed it, and not know you ever had it or shed it. We have no way of measuring that directly and can only estimate through random testing.
Most of the transmission literature only looks at sub-components of risk such as risk of infection or viral loading and not actual real-world effects. Population-level shows no difference in spread based on vaccination rate over time or between regions.
The average risk of being around another person is tiny. After 2 years we've had approximately 7% of the population ever infected. If you round to 100 weeks, that is ~0.07% of the population is infected per week on average. I use 1 week because that is about the longest duration of being contagious. So any given person you meet at any average point has a 99.93% change of not having contagious COVID-19, and a 93% chance of never having had it. Or, in other terms, that is ~1 in 1500, meaning you need to be around ~1500 people in order to expect that at least one of them is contagious, and need to be indoors with poor ventilation in order to have much risk of becoming infected.
If we were to ignore risk of exposure and risk of transmission given infection, and ignore natural immunity, and focus only on risk of infection, the literature suggests maybe ~50% reduction in risk from vaccination. So without a full model, an approximation is ~0.035% risk of transmission from a vaccinated person and ~0.07%. So 99.93% safe around unvaccinated vs 99.965% safe around vaccinated.
That's what we're talking about. It's crazy.
If it's about hospitalization, that's more fair. But, like you say, that's almost all elderly or co-morbidities. If we're going to start mandates based on minimizing hospitalization, we should put mandates on proof of exercise and healthy eating. Perhaps BMI passports.
If it is about herd immunity, that's not even feasible now. With Omicron estimates now are above 98% vaccination required, plus there are animal reservoirs, plus that would be required either globally or we wall ourselves off. Herd immunity is not exactly a yes/no; it just means R0<1 (number of average secondary infections per infected person), which varies with waves, waning vaccine efficacy, large enough groups infected by few people, etc. It's not likely possible now. And, the last survey I saw said at least 6% say they will not get vaccinated no matter what. So unless it is literally forced vaccination, there won't be herd vaccination.
Even beyond just basic human rights and the bioethics, and WHO objections against mandates, there's just no real public health case here.
Nicely said. Love the facts. If the gov't had focused these mandates towards the older demographic (which I do fall into), I wouldn't be so pissed. It will be interesting to see what the younger generation does with this information once they see how we came to be ruled under a climate of fear. And considering the John Hopkins University study showing that lockdowns had little to no effect on covid deaths but did have devastating effects on their generation.
https://youtu.be/NhWHeTWBSnE
Did you see that the CDC is finally admitting that natural immunity is just as effective against hospitalizations as vaccines? It's actually better when you look at their graphs. I expect we'll start seeing some different talking points from the media and our 'leaders' here soon.
I know the study you are talking about. I've read it and critiques of it, and to be fair it is one piece in the collection of studies. Some of the criticisms are just ad hominem ("attack on the person") such as Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/
They note the paper is not endorsed by the university, which is not a thing in science. Science isn't done by endorsement of administrators. It notes they are economists, and have been against lockdowns. Those have nothing to do with whether the content is valid. They do talk about the paper focusing on analysis by economists and not epidemiological studies, which is potentially fair -- but the paper itself explains their selection process in great detail in the first 23 pages, and on this point notes (p.25),
"While it is true that epidemiologists and researchers in natural sciences should, in principle, know much more about COVID-19 and how it spreads than social scientists, social scientists are, in principle, experts in evaluating the effect of various policy interventions."
The paper here is about studying the effects of social policy on targeted outcomes of number of deaths from COVID-19, which they note is the expertise of social science and not epidemiology which is focused on distribution patterns and mechanisms of spread as an input to policy. Overall, I'll put this in the category of ongoing debate.
I agree that done differently, even mandates aren't really that bad. The WHO guidelines are pretty good, including time-limited mandates, focused on specific, constant review, transparency, using persuasion instead of coercion, and use of the ladder of intervention. My concern is more that the the reality of science is that we just don't know the right answers -- as noted well in the Nuffield Council's report on public health ethics, Chapter 3. This is what "sciencing" in real-time looks like. It normally takes the order of a decade to learn anything significant because we start at zero knowledge and bounce back and forth between imperfect, limited studies that point in opposite directions for awhile, before a "signal" starts to emerge from the "noise".
What we have here is politicians and press who have chosen a solution and cherry pick the "noise" that comes out with their solutions and ignore or vilify the science that says otherwise, and cherry pick somebody with credentials who agrees as the mechanism to vilify people on the other side with the same or better credentials. And then use administrative means to silence dissenting views.
None of that has anything to do with how science works, and that is how population-level atrocities happen.
If they were honest instead, saying "We don't know the best means forward, but we're going to try this thing for a limited time, watch what happens, and adjust as we go based on evidence that comes up." That would be great. Then you wouldn't have had the mandates that directly contradict the NACI Advisory Committee Statement regarding lack of knowledge on transmission, or Health Canada's risk mitigation plan on the vaccines, and the opposition to mandates from WHO and ethics orgs. We could have followed them, seen what happened, and pivoted.
Then we wouldn't be in this mess, wouldn't have massive distrust in the press and institutions on this topic, wouldn't have the protests, and would have been doing much better as a country. People can tolerate not knowing what to do and taking best shots. But doubling down on hurting people while claiming to be unequivocally right and dissenters are wrong, fringe, uninformed, and various forms of evil -- that's just unforgivably tyrannical behaviour.
I love that you do the deep dive into these studies. It's quite helpful for those (meaning me) who don't have the science background. So I seek out journalists (Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Breaking Points, Rising, Kim Iversen...) and Dr's (John Campbell, Vinay Prasad) who present the information without bias.
I've also learned to recognize Facebook's 'fact checking' for what it really is. From Matt's latest article, "After the BMJ episode, a “Missing context” flag should be understood for what it is: an intellectual warning label for true but politically troublesome information."
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-british-medical-journal-story
Why do you think so? Can you point to your sources of information? I'm trying to understand where the divide in understanding comes from and I can't see where a claim of "pure nonsense" would come from. I could see a claim of, "We don't know enough yet to make that claim." which would be a fair objection to my statement. I'll even make it against myself since I didn't give context to that statement.
I said "probably" because I don't think we do know for sure yet. But, the evidence is adding up in that direction. For example, the famous Israeli study: "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
The found a 13-fold improvement in resilience against infection via natural immunity over vaccines, among other improvement metrics, and concluded:
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. "
However, I note that study is still a pre-print on medRxiv whose main page (https://www.medrxiv.org/) notes: "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."
It is also only one study, which is not how science works. You need repeatability over many studies and aggregation of information in meta analysis to begin to draw conclusions. For a first pass at that we can draw on the Oct 2021 study, "Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/
It concludes, "While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference."
Translation: Natural immunity from prior vaccination is at least as good as double vaccination and both should be considered medically equivalent. Vaccination after having COVID-19 has negligible benefit so it should be left up to individual preference of the patient on whether to get vaccinated.
Now, this isn't definitive because, like I say, because it will take a lot more study, and will change with variants as well. But, I believe the combination of meta analysis showing "at least" equivalence and the Israeli study pre-print showing 13-fold better immunity from natural immunity is sufficient to tip the odds at least a bit in favour of natural immunity over the average vaccinated person, so I believe my statement is consistent with the available science.
But, I could be wrong. I did say "probably" and that we don't actually know for sure yet. If you can point me to your scientific meta analysis that contradicts what I'm saying, that could help me to improve my thoughts on the matter, and would be greatly appreciated.
Of course a scientist would say that. That's a weird assertion for you to make. It sounds like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
I think you are confusing the process of science with individual scientists. Individual scientists are just people and their opinions range all over the place, including from reasonable and objective to stubborn "believers".
The scientific process itself is based on aggregating individual bits of evidence, peer-reviewed studies, repeatability, and extracting over time the "signal" from the "noise".
I've already explained this. My comment is even hedged with "probably" (not an asserted "definitely"), and "on average" (not "always"), and I repeatedly hedged even that with "We don't know yet".
And, I believe the available evidence -- including the meta analysis, Israeli study, and your link -- still concludes that natural immunity is probably safer on average than vaccination. At a minimum it seems to be at least as good.
As to your assertion that "It turns out more like 'probably not'", what evidence or argument are you basing that on? Are you summarily dismissing the meta analysis I sent? Are you dismissing the Israeli study? Are you dismissing all of the points on the page of your link that contradict that claim? If so, why are you dismissing them? Did you find flaws in those studies? Is it just that you don't like them because they disagree with what you want to be true?
I'm open to any evidence and argument to the contrary. You just need to back up the assertions with a summary of your evidence, reasoning, and problems with the counter-points.
Or, maybe ... just maybe, you are also welcome to change your mind about things. Some people have been known to do that when they see different evidence.
Thanks for the link. Indeed, your link and my links are very similar in their commentary on status along the lines of, "We don't know yet, but here's what the data we have suggests." But, have slightly different leanings as to what to do with the results.
The part you quote indeed suggests higher-titer initial antibody response, which is perfectly valid point -- though it is a proxy measure and has to do with the speed of response, not an indicator of whether the person will become infected or not. See the note on the page saying, "Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection." And right above the line you copied it says, "protective titers at the individual level remain unknown".
To translate all of this, there is very limited data on whether natural immunity or vaccination is "better", but overall they are very similar. There is some data to suggest vaccination has a faster initial response, but it is unknown if that affects overall immunity of the individual or indicates whether they will or won't get infected.
Also noted on the page,
- "Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. "
- "The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%)."
- "There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children."
At the top of your link you'll also note it says, "Although comprehensive, it is neither a formal systematic review nor meta-analysis. New data continue to emerge, and recommendations will be updated periodically, as needed."
So it is essentially listing the collection of findings across different studies. If you read through the whole page and all the different findings, it reinforces these statements that the outcome is still inconclusive as far as which immunity is better. But, it is clear they are very similar.
With respect to the quote you refer to, as I mention above that is merely mentioning one factor that is several steps away from determining effects on actual immunity. It's like comparing car engines and noting that Car A has a slightly higher engine torque in the first few milliseconds after stomping on the gas, indicating Car A *might* be faster than Car B in a race.
The links I sent were real-world outcome comparisons. To continue the analogy, they compared the actual outcome of races. The Israeli study metaphorically compared the outcome of many races at one track and noted Car B won 13 times more than Car A. The meta-analysis paper compared outcomes across 9 tracks (studies) and found that in all of them Car B at least tied or better but they were neck and neck and were only fractional car-lengths in difference across the finish line. ("All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity.")
So, both your link and mine are saying -- as I said in my last post -- that there is insufficient data yet to know one way or the other for sure. The one line you chose is a very weak, hypothetical proxy indicator with unknown value to determining the outcome, compared to the links I sent which directly measure the outcome comparisons.
This is why I said in my last post, "I said "probably" because I don't think we do know for sure yet. But, the evidence is adding up in that direction."
I don't see anything in your link or quote that supports your claim that it is "Pure nonsense". Can you clarify? Do you think the one small proxy factor indicator you pulled out, which is not even yet conclusive itself, nullifies everything else on the page in your link and the multiple studies and meta analysis as being untrue or inaccurate?
I don't understand that mode of thinking. From my side, it looks like you are hanging onto a belief and searching the resources for any quote you can cherry pick that appears to align with your pre-determined belief, but then ignore the context of that quote and the surrounding quotes, data, and studies that say, "We don't know yet." or that measure outcomes that contradict your pre-determined belief.
But, my perception of your position could be wrong. Can you articulate why you think that one quote -- that one factor that is a limited proxy indicator -- renders all of the other information on your own link or mine as "pure nonsense"? I want to understand your thinking on this. Heterodox views are important to debates, especially in such a state of low knowledge.
Thanks.
Edit: I'll also note that the meta-analysis I linked to was published Oct 28, 2021, and your CDC link was published on Oct 29, 2021 and doesn't include the meta-analysis, and as stated in your link, "is neither a formal systematic review nor meta-analysis".
Have you ever heard the saying, "Arguing with an scientist is like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a while you realize you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it." There are various versions of this saying I've seen, but this is good enough.
People like Lyle make good sparring partners. These are the people who hold up the punching target mitts when practicing and improving. If he is basing his claims off of nothing and is just stubbornly incredulous or a troll, then it still gives me a nice workout to question the basis of my own understanding, check my sources, and present them and the arguments for further review.
If, on the other hand, he actually has some good points to make and some good sources and can provide them, then I have an opportunity to improve my own knowledge and make better decisions.
If the sources turn out to be terrible and misleading, then I have a better understanding of the psychology of how he, and probably other similar people, get led down the wrong direction and I can work through an argument process for how to dig them back out. Even if it won't work on a specific person, I can use it to help inoculate others heading down that path when I see the same thing again.
At a minimum, it is always an opportunity to observe the psychology and behaviours of some people in our society and recognize that these people exist and we have to have a means of dealing with them in society that is both compassionate to their limitations but still doesn't allow their limitations to result in harming other people.
All in all, I'd say I enjoy the wrestle.
Getting vaccinated does not make much of a difference as far as "spreading it". That's the point, you aren't reading the science. You've just picked that up from the media or politicians.
I even pointed you directly to my article where I cited even the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization saying the such evidence is limited. The medical literature still in January is saying that transmission risks are unknown. At the population level there is no correlation with vaccination rate and spread, both temporally within a country or as measured between states. Individually, risk of exposure is dominant and higher with vaccinated people since they can go where it spreads most, and the literature suggest no difference in transmissibility once infected. The only factor in which vaccination seems to reduce the transmission risk is infection if exposed and the literature is all over the place on that factor between vaccines and variants, from 0% to 70%, and Omicron is throwing most of that out the window.
You can read in more detail with citations here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
What on Earth makes you think that if we all get vaxxed that we can "put this behind us". There's no science to that. Originally it was hoped that the vaccines were good enough for herd immunity, but between their waning effectiveness, the evolution of the variants, and existence of animal reservoirs in which the virus can hop back-and-forth to humans.
And, what makes you refer to "CONs", assuming you mean Conservatives? There are more vaccine-hesitant people who vote Liberal than Conservative: https://www.macleans.ca/society/typical-vaccine-hesitant-person-is-a-42-year-old-ontario-woman-who-votes-liberal-abacus-polling/
To me, and no offense, but the problem you are running into is that you lack an open mind and ability to question your own assumptions, or to imagine that other people might have different and/or better information than you do on the topic.
Actually read the articles I linked to, and read the source material from Health Canada, the vaccine manufacturers, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the World Health Organization, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Here, I'll put them all in one place:
"WHO Keeps on Trucking": https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
"The vaccines work. That's a problem.": https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
If inclined to go further back:
"A Canadian Behavioral Study of Obedience on Vaccines": https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-canadian-behavioral-study-of-obedience
and on ethics:
"A COVID Trolley visits the Neighborhood of Make-Believe": https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-covid-trolley-visits-the-neighborhood
I am fully vaccinated, as is my family (including kids), and the vaccines do work, as outlined in the articles. But not in the way as being portrayed, as a panacea. There are risks and an existing risk-management plan (that the government is being undermined). They aren't as good as stated. And, vaccines mandates are a harmful, counterproductive, and less effective approach than other means.
Lyle, you really need to keep up with the moving goalposts. It's been proven that vaccines have little to no effect on reducing transmission. The new goalpost is the ICU rates.
And you may be tired of the narcissists, but I am equally tired of the authoritarians.
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
2. Tending to tell other people what to do in a peremptory or arrogant manner. synonym: dictatorial.
3. characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; -- of governments or rulers
You state, "vaccinated people don't transmit it as easily as the unvaccinated". But what are the actual numbers? Is it 5%, is it 30%. Without numbers, it doesn't mean anything.
The same was said about Delta but when you look at an actual study, the differential was only 13%. In my opinion, that is not worth all the fear mongering and hateful division. "The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext.
Please link to the Danish study, k?
As an aside, all this focus on targeting the unvaxxed is really a distraction from the bigger issue. Over the last 2 years, we've witnessed the biggest transfer of wealth in modern history. The rich have gotten richer and the poor, even more poor. Not to mention the hit that the middle class has taken.
The grass always appears greener on the other side (in this instance, the other side of the pond). But for all of Boris Johnson's electoral success, he is about to go down in flames, partly because he is a congenital liar and also because he hasn't got a coherent governing vision for the UK Tories. So he's hardly a model template for the Canadian Conservatives, as the post suggests.
One promising area where O'Toole appeared to be making headroads was converting the PC's into a pro-worker party, embracing a kind of "blue collar conservatism". The party tacked Left on pro-worker policies, thereby neutralising a lot of the traditional concerns about voting for them, especially in regard to benefits for gig workers, worker representation on corporate boards, and protecting pensions from corporate bankruptcy has given voters a positive reason to vote Conservative — a stark contrast to the Liberals.
Corporations are so large and dominant that it’s impossible for individual workers to negotiate a fair salary. It has been one of the primary causes of recent wage stagnation. The idea that a single worker could stand a chance in a negotiation with a company like Amazon, which is worth nearly $2 trillion is unrealistic. So embracing strong unions not only deals with a significant barrier to greater equality, but does so in a way that enhances the functioning of a free market economy (and I think Tories still like that, don't they?)
There are likely better approaches as well on climate change (why doesn't the Tory Party become the party of nuclear power?), and fruitful attacks on the "woke capitalism" embraced by the liberals, where symbolic gestures to virtue signallers are deemed more important than structural economic changes that would help working Canadians.
In the end, O'Toole might not have been the best vehicle for this message, but he tried. I'm sure Pierre Poilievre might win the battle on Twitter, but he's probably too polarising to win an election for the party. My guess is that Rona Ambrose would be a more credible leader for the kind of approach that would engender greater electoral success (Brian Mulroney, minus the sleaze factor).
It's pretty hard to build a coherent conservative program to respond to problems when there are so many members of the base who adamantly and vociferously refuse to acknowledge the reality of those problems. Underlying the opposition to a carbon tax is a denial that anthropogenic global warming even exists, let alone a more nuanced rejection of the catastrophism of environmental activists. The opposition to COVID mitigations tends to be driven by a notion that the COVID pandemic is a hoax, not finding better ways of managing the impact on the health care system.
Somewhere between 60 and 85% of the country believe these are problems that must be dealt with. Simply denying the problems and refusing to do anything means they look elsewhere. Conservatives have the opportunity to propose a better solution, or at least something less bad from their perspective. It'd also be possible to change public perception of whether something is a problem, but they have to get a lot more persuasive than the jumble of poorly-informed and badly articulated arguments we tend to get.
I could accept that between 60 and 85% of the country believes that someone else should take the hit to address climate change and containing COVID.
I’ll grant you that most people tend to shy away from any cost associated with climate change mitigation, but the fact that close to 90% of eligible Canadians have been vaccinated and follow mitigations like wearing masks indoor public spaces indicates you’re wide off the mark regarding COVID.
Vaccination protects one's self. How many Canadian would support mitigations that impacted their own ability to earn income if it weren't covered by some government compensation?
They’re not finding excuses to avoid a safe, effective vaccine. Vaccines also protect against COVID. They don’t protect against the risk of not getting health care because of a system overwhelmed by unvaccinated people, particularly those who don’t respect other means of risk reduction. Find a better way to solve that problem, and the mandates won’t be necessary. Insisting merely that you don’t like what’s being done or that it’s not really a problem gets you nowhere.
As an aside while vehemently disagree with the author I do appreciate the fact the line is willing to run it!
I have never felt more politically homeless in my life. Throughout most of my adult life, I voted between Liberal and NDP. This past Federal election was the first time I voted Conservative. These past few years I've watched the Lib's and NDP move so far Left that I now look like I'm on the right. Leslyn Lewis actually caught my eye. She is the type of Conservative I could get behind (genuine free speech and speaking out against identity politics).
O'Toole turned out to be a huge disappointment, just like this article. I despise these coercive mandates and I fully support the truckers. And, as it turns out, most Canadians are also getting fed up with these mandates and restrictions. The latest Angus Reid poll, https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/, now shows that the majority wants them to end too. It's a 15 point rise since early Jan. Surprisingly enough, Alberta (at 57%) came in behind Quebec at 59%. It's very interesting as the Quebec gov't has been the most authoritarian (the un-vaxxed cannot even shop at Walmart). Looks like the Quebec gov't is actually the fringe at this point.
And what the hell is up with this line, "Believe it or not @CPC_HQ, not many swing voters stroke to Jordan Peterson or other avatars of the iconoclastic right." ?!? Dr Peterson is admired by many on the left, and right but mainly the center. To say that he is an avatar for the right is highly disingenuous.
Between that comment and the biased articles against the truckers, I am very, very close to cancelling my subscription to the Line. And I've been here from the beginning (or close to anyway).
Very good summary of the problems with the Conservative party. I was going to support them but now have to wait to find out what they are actually going to be for. With three Woke parties to the left we need a pragmatic party on the right we can support.
Boris Johnson? Seriously?? The politician who wrote a memo in favour of Brexit and against it and then chose based on polling? The person who asked the United Kingdom to shut down and then partied hard? He got Brexit done, because of Dominic Cummings... subscribe to his Substack and you shall see.
I am sorry, this is not acceptable as a benchmark or anything even if the connection with the first-past-the-post and parliamentary government is there. Canada deserves a Conservative Party modeled on serious, trustworthy and hard working right-of-centre politicians.
Why don't we look at Angela Merkel, or Mark Rutte, heck even Bibi Netanyahu or Scott Morrison if we really want to push the limits of expediency vs dogmatism?
Yes, there is a need for pragmatism in any political party who expects to win elections. It is also more a function of who goes to the polls and who stays home, given how polarized voters are.
Boris Johnson as a model... C'mon The Line that is beyond the pale.
BoJo is massively entertaining
Especially if you don't live in the UK :-)
Netflix, Amazon Prime and other streaming services are good enough for me, LOL.
Merkel is easiest the most pragmatic and effective leader so far this century. The two qualities go hand in hand. Unfortunately, pragmatism doesn't generate social media traffic.
Giving a speech on the failures of multiculturalism and then importing 1MM new immigrants to Germany a few years later doesn't scream pragmatism nor effectiveness.
I know, I know, but what happened to "peace, order, and good government"? Isn't that at the core of any Conservative party in Canada?
One longs for a Conservative Party alternative to the fatuous incompetence of the current PM, but as long as the Conservatives insist on moving to the conspiracy-theory/culture-war Right-Wing fringe, they leave this many-time Conservative voter where I have always been, in the Political Centre.
Interesting read. I would like to introduce some 'diversity of thought' at the invitation of the author.
BoJo was elected after the atrocious leadership of his predecessors and hardly because of his competence or 'charisma' -- the man has a silly pompous accent (even for a British elite) and a ridiculous hairdo and goes around Britain pretending he is (his idol) Winston Churchill. Alas, he falls slightly short of this mark and will likely go down in UK political history as an enormous failure. Who supports him now? The conservatives who voted for him realized they got a 'controlled opposition' mild Progressive, and the Labour voters who voted for him realize he is no friend of the working class. A dithering flip-flopper with no coherent goals -- sound familiar?
The author, despite denying it, is in fact endorsing 'The Conservatives should be Liberals-Lite'. Unfortunately, this advice is neither new nor particularly original. I think future success depends on how precisely opposite the direction the Conservatives can go in opposition to our Progressive parties.
I think this lack luster advice is borne of projection. 'Modern conservatism is all about attitude these days, not worldview' -- admonishing the Conservatives for not having a worldview makes less sense when you realize that conservatism is not a worldview. Progressivism is a worldview. The Progressives of the world all believe basically the same things. (Vibrant diversity here).
A conservative is the inheritor and protector of traditions. You cannot inherit and protect with a staunch worldview. Unlike Progressives, you couldn't possibly lump together all the conservatives of the world because the traditions and pasts are so diverse and different. Like Thomas Sowell said, 'What we call the Right, are the disparate and various opponents of the Left' -- it's a Leftist projection. The Left is collectivist, centralizing and authoritarian, and whoever doesn't support them is named 'the Right' -- these opposing groups could have almost nothing in common, which is why the ranks of the Alt-Right are swelling precipitously without them having done anything to recruit anyone -- it's simply the Left labeling any dissenters thus.
The above are clues as to the natural difficulty in building conservative coalitions.
I believe that if the Conservatives want to remain a relevant party, they ought to take on the precise opposite position to anything coming from our Progressive parties. Not for immature contrarian reasons; I genuinely believe this is the right path for our country. More communitarian policies for Canadian citizens (and not all the world are Canadian citizens, so distance us from the UN and other corrupt global enterprises. They do nothing for average Canadians.)
1. Climate Change
We could today eliminate 100% of our carbon and ghg emissions and it would change literally nothing in terms of global climate change. But it's important, the author says, to have policies in place reducing emissions and hamstringing our energy industries. Why? Honestly, why? This is ideology. This is faith.
If however you want to talk environmental policy as you mentioned -- strengthening our climate resilience and proofing our lives, our farms, and our shelters for the inevitable, then I'm all ears. Do the opposite of the Libs: scrap all Carbon taxes, stop bludgeoning our energy industry etc.
2. Multiculturalism
I admire the ideals of America and find the average American a decent chap. I do agree that we do not need to become America -- after all Canada should be its own project. There is a current policy that more than any other ensures that we will in fact become America. This is our official policy of Multiculturalism and insanely high levels of immigration (highest per capita in the world). America is tearing itself at the seams because it is a hodge podge collection of so many different identity groups (that used to melt together once upon a time but no longer). In Canada we are doing our best to replicate this ensuring that we will become a little America, and eventually a balkanized Yugoslavia.
Again, the prescription is do the opposite of the Libs: drastically reduce levels of immigration, support integration and make it harder to become a Canadian citizen. Watch real wages rise for the average Canadian as the source of cheap foreign labour dwindles.
Good article, Andrew… the PC party lost me with Harper, and my membership $, too. I’ve seen nothing coming from the right to change that view, but I’d sure welcome changes, or at least adult conversation, about the ideas you’ve tabled with this article.
Nailed it. My fear is that without a credible opposition the Liberals will win by default, and not even have to try.