One other thing worth mentioning is that the unvaccinated are perfectly well aware that they are no threat to the vaccinated, and this makes them even angrier when politicians claim they are. How do I conclude that they are no threat?
1. The vaccines are very effective at preventing serious illness (much more than a cold) or death, so the vaccinated are at low risk anyway.
2. The vaccines have been shown to be pretty ineffective at preventing infection and transmission - Israel, US and UK data is showing between 30 and 70% efficacy.
3. Many of the unvaccinated have already had Covid, which provides much better immunity against infection and transmission than the vaccines.
4. Many of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who can't be legally vaccinated.
Given that nearly 80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, a vaccinated person's risk of serious illness from Covid is a) very small to begin with, and b) almost entirely coming from people other than the voluntarily unvaccinated - who are the only people directly affected by the mandates.
The claim that vaccine mandates help protect people who are medically unable to be vaccinated is implausible, as the mandates either exclude medical exemptions or circumscribe them so tightly as to effectively exclude them. The claim that mandates protect children is absurd, as we all know that they are at basically zero risk anyway.
That has been my thinking as well, at 80% we've pretty much topped out vax rates and rather than demonising people we should be celebrating this or at least figuring out how to mitigate any risk
How about the fact that many of us are now facing another round of restrictions - masks, surgery restrictions, restaurants and other services closing. It isn't the vaccinated that are taking up hospital beds because they have COVID...
See my reply to Ed D below about hospitals. As for the restrictions, blame the politicians for those, not the unvaccinated - guaranteed the unvaccinated don't agree with the restrictions.
In Alberta, where I live, a few days ago, ICU usage was at 95%. Although ICU capacity has since been expanded, it has meant that all electives surgeries, at least in Calgary, have been postponed. If you go to the linked page,
You can see the percentage breakdown of those who have been vaccinated to those who have not been.
I, like most political leaders, see the unvaccinated as a threat to the health care system. In choosing to ignore this factor, only those who already think as you do will find your stance convincing.
I am pleased that you agree that the unvaccinated are not a threat to the vaccinated. If your concern is health care system usage, then I would think that you would encourage monoclonal antibody therapy and would discourage firing of unvaccinated health care workers - both likely to be more effective at preserving capacity than persecuting the small minority of unvaccinated people in order to force an even smaller group to give in and get the shot. Do you?
So, just to clarify your thinking, injecting a $1250 (US) a pop drug cocktail into your body after a person gets sick is acceptable but injecting a $20 a pop vaccine that will help keep you from getting sick in the first place is persecution. Not quite sure how the reasoning behind that works.
Simple: forcing people to take a vaccine that terrifies them is very bad.
Some vaccinated people still get sick and die - if vaccines are 90% protective and 90% of people are vaccinated, the ratio of patients will be 50/50 - shouldn't the vaccinated who get sick have the option of treatment? Also, quite likely the vaccines, which hijack your cells to make proteins which cause your immune system to make antibodies will have a side effect profile bigger than just intravenous antibodies.
And, since the fraction of the population that a) gets sick and, b) is at high risk, is actually quite small, $1250 for each of these people might well be cheaper than $20 for everyone.
What you are suggesting is that the those with an irrational fear should be catered to by those who have a reasonable understanding of risk and reward.
As a vaccinated person, I can catch Covid and, as you point out, it can kill me. Considering the charts to which I linked earlier, the chance that I will get it from an unvaccinated person are much much higher than from one who is vaccinated. Acknowledging that Covid is a danger to the vaccinated actually undermines your assertion that the unvaccinated do not pose a threat to the vacnninated.
As expensive as it would be, establishing the infrastructure necessary and making use of monoclodal antibody therapy would be wise at this point. But unless a person can show a legitimate health related reason for being unvaccinated, I would suggest that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated be required to cover their costs.
Vaccine mandates aren’t persecution. They are a recognition that Covid is a significant threat that requires a commitment to the public good. A vaccine mandate doesn’t force anyone to take the vaccine – it only makes individuals make choices. If, in fact, individuals believe that not getting a vaccine is more important than some other aspect of their life, that is a choice that they have the freedom to make.
I'm aghast that I will likely vote PPC, solely because they are the only party that released a statement opposing gender ideology. A philosophy based on feelings that is transforming all of society without any evidence-based research.
If only that statement had been dismissive of gays and lesbians, I wailed to myself! Because then it would be so much easier to dispatch them from my voting mind. Heck, they even acknowledged the fact that violent males are currently housed in women's prisons. Meanwhile, the mainstream media will not even cover the protests we stage in front of said prisons. And my MP has ignored 4 emails about the prison issue. Is anyone listening?
I am open to being convinced to vote otherwise (note that name-calling is not an argument).
How many of this very loud bunch will actually get vaccinated when the walls if vaccine mandates are closing in? And will they even admit to it to a pollster?
If many of of them are truly outraged at Trudeau, how many will at the end of the day vote in a way that betters the chances of getting rid of him?
As the election approaches, the journos become more fascinated with fringe stuff.
After a lifetime in Alberta watching the Reform Party, the Western Canada Concept, the Wild Rose Party go by, you realize it's all the same splinter of prairie culture, mostly rural, expressing itself, as it has since "Social Credit", with a radical distributive economic policy mostly described in Robert Heinlein's 1948 SF novel, "Beyond This Horizon". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit The SoCreds weren't very economically right-wing, but they were very populist and socially right-wing (leader was a evangelical radio preacher, sound American enough?) They didn't allow women to enter bars unescorted.
The vaccine-hesitant are emphatically not a voting group; they have nothing else in common.
The anti-vaxxers are indeed about 2 million, about 7% of voters. Just not enough unless some seat were at a tipping point. Are any?
Readers are encouraged to read the last few deep-polling-based books by Michael Adams of Environics. 20 years since his "Fire and Ice" book about how Canada and the US are different cultures at a surprisingly deep level, and have been diverging, not converging. Then his book a few years back about how Trump can't happen here.
Boris Johnson's polls are clarify that it's poor pandemic fighting that costs popularity, not too much pandemic fighting:
...badly at the start of the pandemic, when he proclaimed his "herd immunity" madness, then they went positive when he pulled a 180 on that...and now, very badly again that the big reopening caused a big wave.
As the shades darken from "conservative", to "fascist", you see worse and worse pandemic response: BoJo, Bolsonaro, Modi ... until it's outright suicidal, like Modi losing 4 million people to India's crowded burn pits.
Why did the author put "far-right" in quotes? Why qualify with "at least, further right than the [CPC]". It makes him sound like he's doing a sell-job on them, combined with the very upbeat tone about their prospects.
Articles have authors, to whom questions can be directed, that's their job. (The question about a word-definition would actually be better to direct at a dictionary).
I've decided I must give up on 'conversations' with fellow commentators on the Internet, they're unproductive. Few have actual names, and the conversations immediately drift off the author's original topic, making them not comments any more, just an anonymous discussion forum.
A pity, because I was actually asking a serious question. I don't have much opinion on the politics myself, but your views on whether politicians could increase their standing more by taking dramatic action, effective or not, or by actually delivering results, could be interesting. Obviously both together would be more effective politically than either alone.
If anybody has questions on water infrastructure replacement, asset risk management in general, or geographic information systems for municipal infrastructure (also the Titanic is a hobby) - none of them topics today - I'd be an appropriate one to question, especially if you read my publications on those topics first, all at http://brander.ca
I do have non-expert opinions on the pandemic, all vented into my blog at that same site, but do not recommend them as better than professional journalism. ("About as good", I like to think, but my single-digit readership says otherwise.)
Your questions are good, and deserve answers, but answers better than mine, they are not my area. We'd just be arguing opinions, and I would love to see The Line not "seek engagement" by offering a free discussion site for endless opinion-arguments. The Internet has many such forums, does not need another.
A question about pandemic fighting is how dramatic measures which accomplish nothing useful affect politicians' standing. Is it actually having an effect that matters, or just beating on people?
Interesting piece. I wonder what will happen to PPC support when the pandemic control measures end because of sufficient vaccinations, natural immunity, ennui, or a combination of these. ;)
If that happens, many PPC supporters will be quite happy to return to supporting other parties. I personally expect that this will take years to happen, if it ever does. We have already reached sufficient vaccinations - Covid is clearly endemic - and there is no sign of relaxation of controls.
Ahhhh, but the main point from the article is that PPC support wasn't drawn from the other parties, it is coming mainly from people who didn't vote in the last election(s). If that is the case, the net result remains the same: support for the peoples party drops.
Generally, populism is a term that describes a set of political values just as any other political ideology. Populism can be partly understood as the masses or simply “the people” having the correct moral compass and who are in direct opposition to what can be perceived as a corrupt, unethical, selfish and even globalist ruling elite.
Another aspect of populism is rhat "the people" are far more invested in outcomes than "the experts" / "elites". The abolute worst consequence to a technocrat for being wrong is the remote possibility of job loss, as most work in the public sector. Real people, on the other hand, face far more risk to their jobs, careers, income streams, savings etc. This asymmetric risk unsurprisingly leads to resentment. Populism is about making more decisions about your own life while accepting the consequences.
One other thing worth mentioning is that the unvaccinated are perfectly well aware that they are no threat to the vaccinated, and this makes them even angrier when politicians claim they are. How do I conclude that they are no threat?
1. The vaccines are very effective at preventing serious illness (much more than a cold) or death, so the vaccinated are at low risk anyway.
2. The vaccines have been shown to be pretty ineffective at preventing infection and transmission - Israel, US and UK data is showing between 30 and 70% efficacy.
3. Many of the unvaccinated have already had Covid, which provides much better immunity against infection and transmission than the vaccines.
4. Many of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who can't be legally vaccinated.
Given that nearly 80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, a vaccinated person's risk of serious illness from Covid is a) very small to begin with, and b) almost entirely coming from people other than the voluntarily unvaccinated - who are the only people directly affected by the mandates.
The claim that vaccine mandates help protect people who are medically unable to be vaccinated is implausible, as the mandates either exclude medical exemptions or circumscribe them so tightly as to effectively exclude them. The claim that mandates protect children is absurd, as we all know that they are at basically zero risk anyway.
That has been my thinking as well, at 80% we've pretty much topped out vax rates and rather than demonising people we should be celebrating this or at least figuring out how to mitigate any risk
How about the fact that many of us are now facing another round of restrictions - masks, surgery restrictions, restaurants and other services closing. It isn't the vaccinated that are taking up hospital beds because they have COVID...
See my reply to Ed D below about hospitals. As for the restrictions, blame the politicians for those, not the unvaccinated - guaranteed the unvaccinated don't agree with the restrictions.
In Alberta, where I live, a few days ago, ICU usage was at 95%. Although ICU capacity has since been expanded, it has meant that all electives surgeries, at least in Calgary, have been postponed. If you go to the linked page,
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes
You can see the percentage breakdown of those who have been vaccinated to those who have not been.
I, like most political leaders, see the unvaccinated as a threat to the health care system. In choosing to ignore this factor, only those who already think as you do will find your stance convincing.
I am pleased that you agree that the unvaccinated are not a threat to the vaccinated. If your concern is health care system usage, then I would think that you would encourage monoclonal antibody therapy and would discourage firing of unvaccinated health care workers - both likely to be more effective at preserving capacity than persecuting the small minority of unvaccinated people in order to force an even smaller group to give in and get the shot. Do you?
So, just to clarify your thinking, injecting a $1250 (US) a pop drug cocktail into your body after a person gets sick is acceptable but injecting a $20 a pop vaccine that will help keep you from getting sick in the first place is persecution. Not quite sure how the reasoning behind that works.
Simple: forcing people to take a vaccine that terrifies them is very bad.
Some vaccinated people still get sick and die - if vaccines are 90% protective and 90% of people are vaccinated, the ratio of patients will be 50/50 - shouldn't the vaccinated who get sick have the option of treatment? Also, quite likely the vaccines, which hijack your cells to make proteins which cause your immune system to make antibodies will have a side effect profile bigger than just intravenous antibodies.
And, since the fraction of the population that a) gets sick and, b) is at high risk, is actually quite small, $1250 for each of these people might well be cheaper than $20 for everyone.
What you are suggesting is that the those with an irrational fear should be catered to by those who have a reasonable understanding of risk and reward.
As a vaccinated person, I can catch Covid and, as you point out, it can kill me. Considering the charts to which I linked earlier, the chance that I will get it from an unvaccinated person are much much higher than from one who is vaccinated. Acknowledging that Covid is a danger to the vaccinated actually undermines your assertion that the unvaccinated do not pose a threat to the vacnninated.
As expensive as it would be, establishing the infrastructure necessary and making use of monoclodal antibody therapy would be wise at this point. But unless a person can show a legitimate health related reason for being unvaccinated, I would suggest that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated be required to cover their costs.
Vaccine mandates aren’t persecution. They are a recognition that Covid is a significant threat that requires a commitment to the public good. A vaccine mandate doesn’t force anyone to take the vaccine – it only makes individuals make choices. If, in fact, individuals believe that not getting a vaccine is more important than some other aspect of their life, that is a choice that they have the freedom to make.
I'm aghast that I will likely vote PPC, solely because they are the only party that released a statement opposing gender ideology. A philosophy based on feelings that is transforming all of society without any evidence-based research.
If only that statement had been dismissive of gays and lesbians, I wailed to myself! Because then it would be so much easier to dispatch them from my voting mind. Heck, they even acknowledged the fact that violent males are currently housed in women's prisons. Meanwhile, the mainstream media will not even cover the protests we stage in front of said prisons. And my MP has ignored 4 emails about the prison issue. Is anyone listening?
I am open to being convinced to vote otherwise (note that name-calling is not an argument).
How many of this very loud bunch will actually get vaccinated when the walls if vaccine mandates are closing in? And will they even admit to it to a pollster?
If many of of them are truly outraged at Trudeau, how many will at the end of the day vote in a way that betters the chances of getting rid of him?
Don't believe that these folks are stupid.
As the election approaches, the journos become more fascinated with fringe stuff.
After a lifetime in Alberta watching the Reform Party, the Western Canada Concept, the Wild Rose Party go by, you realize it's all the same splinter of prairie culture, mostly rural, expressing itself, as it has since "Social Credit", with a radical distributive economic policy mostly described in Robert Heinlein's 1948 SF novel, "Beyond This Horizon". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit The SoCreds weren't very economically right-wing, but they were very populist and socially right-wing (leader was a evangelical radio preacher, sound American enough?) They didn't allow women to enter bars unescorted.
The vaccine-hesitant are emphatically not a voting group; they have nothing else in common.
The anti-vaxxers are indeed about 2 million, about 7% of voters. Just not enough unless some seat were at a tipping point. Are any?
Readers are encouraged to read the last few deep-polling-based books by Michael Adams of Environics. 20 years since his "Fire and Ice" book about how Canada and the US are different cultures at a surprisingly deep level, and have been diverging, not converging. Then his book a few years back about how Trump can't happen here.
Boris Johnson's polls are clarify that it's poor pandemic fighting that costs popularity, not too much pandemic fighting:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
...badly at the start of the pandemic, when he proclaimed his "herd immunity" madness, then they went positive when he pulled a 180 on that...and now, very badly again that the big reopening caused a big wave.
As the shades darken from "conservative", to "fascist", you see worse and worse pandemic response: BoJo, Bolsonaro, Modi ... until it's outright suicidal, like Modi losing 4 million people to India's crowded burn pits.
Why did the author put "far-right" in quotes? Why qualify with "at least, further right than the [CPC]". It makes him sound like he's doing a sell-job on them, combined with the very upbeat tone about their prospects.
Articles have authors, to whom questions can be directed, that's their job. (The question about a word-definition would actually be better to direct at a dictionary).
I've decided I must give up on 'conversations' with fellow commentators on the Internet, they're unproductive. Few have actual names, and the conversations immediately drift off the author's original topic, making them not comments any more, just an anonymous discussion forum.
A pity, because I was actually asking a serious question. I don't have much opinion on the politics myself, but your views on whether politicians could increase their standing more by taking dramatic action, effective or not, or by actually delivering results, could be interesting. Obviously both together would be more effective politically than either alone.
OK, one more entry.
If anybody has questions on water infrastructure replacement, asset risk management in general, or geographic information systems for municipal infrastructure (also the Titanic is a hobby) - none of them topics today - I'd be an appropriate one to question, especially if you read my publications on those topics first, all at http://brander.ca
I do have non-expert opinions on the pandemic, all vented into my blog at that same site, but do not recommend them as better than professional journalism. ("About as good", I like to think, but my single-digit readership says otherwise.)
Your questions are good, and deserve answers, but answers better than mine, they are not my area. We'd just be arguing opinions, and I would love to see The Line not "seek engagement" by offering a free discussion site for endless opinion-arguments. The Internet has many such forums, does not need another.
A question about pandemic fighting is how dramatic measures which accomplish nothing useful affect politicians' standing. Is it actually having an effect that matters, or just beating on people?
Interesting piece. I wonder what will happen to PPC support when the pandemic control measures end because of sufficient vaccinations, natural immunity, ennui, or a combination of these. ;)
If that happens, many PPC supporters will be quite happy to return to supporting other parties. I personally expect that this will take years to happen, if it ever does. We have already reached sufficient vaccinations - Covid is clearly endemic - and there is no sign of relaxation of controls.
I suspect the measures will never go away, that is the issue
And I suspect they will. Might take some time, but “never” is unlikely, in my opinion.
Ahhhh, but the main point from the article is that PPC support wasn't drawn from the other parties, it is coming mainly from people who didn't vote in the last election(s). If that is the case, the net result remains the same: support for the peoples party drops.
The PPC facebook page in my riding (former liberal who was booted out for hiring her sister...) went from 2,000 to 16,500 in 5 days last week.
Can you please define populism?. easy to throw the word around, with its negative connotations...
No seems to know how to define it but seems mostly to be anger towards the authorities
That seems to be the common theme....loss of trust in institutions
Generally, populism is a term that describes a set of political values just as any other political ideology. Populism can be partly understood as the masses or simply “the people” having the correct moral compass and who are in direct opposition to what can be perceived as a corrupt, unethical, selfish and even globalist ruling elite.
Another aspect of populism is rhat "the people" are far more invested in outcomes than "the experts" / "elites". The abolute worst consequence to a technocrat for being wrong is the remote possibility of job loss, as most work in the public sector. Real people, on the other hand, face far more risk to their jobs, careers, income streams, savings etc. This asymmetric risk unsurprisingly leads to resentment. Populism is about making more decisions about your own life while accepting the consequences.
Good points. I just think that it is one of those characterizations that somehow has gotten a bad connotation (w/ Trump, Duterte, Bolsonaro etc).
So basically the strategy of every political campaign
Reform? What do you mean? Everyone knows the last FPTP election was in 2015...