Coronavirus Thread v.2

[jingle.boy]

the answer is always harm.

This explains a lot.

[ReaPsTA]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic,

If you're familiar with Pokemon, the history of Twitch Plays Pokemon is enlightening - https://www.reddit.com/r/twitchplayspokemon/wiki/historyoftpp_gen1

A stream was put up that allowed the mob to collectively play Pokemon Red. A reasonably experienced casual player can beat the game in about two days of continuous play. It took the mob two weeks. Over that period:

 - Religion was formed
 - A false prophet was formed
 - Political systems formed based on how the mob should control the game, with arguments about whether Democracy or Anarchy was superior
 - Due partially to mistakes and partially malicious actors, multiple valuable Pokemon were purposefully killed off
 - Some parts of the game were simply intraversable without Democracy mode
 - Multiple boss battles took multiple attempts at beating them hoping to get the right sequence of moves because no way were they going into Democracy mode

EDIT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - There were multiple discussions on Reddit about what strategies they should use to proceed through the game. The suggested strategies had nothing to do with what even a normal, thinking person would think is the best way to progress through the game. Instead, it was trying to compromise a strategy that could possibly work with the adopted religious, political, and iconographic allegiances the player base had adopted.

I am not kidding - You will learn more about how society functions by understanding TPP than reading any social science book.

[Ben_Jamin]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic, and we're really SHITTY at judging relative risk.   I was merely pointing out that this COULD BE the slippery slope in action, that's all.

(But there's no doubt that the slippery slope DOES exist; we see it all the time in a multitude of ways with a corresponding degree of harm.)

This is not a "gotcha" question but a serious question.  Does the "slippery slope" argument always mean "harm"?  Can it be a slippery slope to anything beneficial for society?  Can one person's "harm" be another person's "benefit?"

To the first question, it depends. To the second question yes.

Lastly, to the third, a big yes, and my people are an example of that. The slippery slope being we are not intelligent enough to know what's good for our own people. Hence why those in power went out of their way to instill their authority onto us. They considered my ancestors and many other cultures as lesser than their own culture. 

The Third World countries are another example of one person's harm being another's benefit.

It's the rhetoric of...Doing this will benefit them, creating "jobs" and help them sustain themselves, all they need is to abide by our societal behaviors and mindsets, thus making them beneficial people of society.

We do not know the future, we can not predict what the outcomes will be. We can not expect things of the future, because doing so will guarantee disappointment and resentment when the outcomes of the future do not meet your expectations of it.
An example is the expectations instilled of future technology such as flying cars and hover boards.

We can always try and predict the future to be more aware of a possible outcome, but we must also realize that our expected outcome won't possibly happen as well. We shouldn't always expect our outcome to be what reality determines the outcome to be.

That's what should be expected and has been proven throughout history in many different societal structures.

[Stadler]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic, and we're really SHITTY at judging relative risk.   I was merely pointing out that this COULD BE the slippery slope in action, that's all.

(But there's no doubt that the slippery slope DOES exist; we see it all the time in a multitude of ways with a corresponding degree of harm.)

This is not a "gotcha" question but a serious question.  Does the "slippery slope" argument always mean "harm"?  Can it be a slippery slope to anything beneficial for society?  Can one person's "harm" be another person's "benefit?"

No, yes, and yes.     But that's me; I consider the "slippery slope" to be any time a seemingly innocuous incremental change makes it far more likely for a transitional change to happen than it would have before the incremental change.    Now, we quibble about tax rates all the time, but there's no real serious debate about removing taxes altogether; Abe Lincoln's implementation of a temporary Federal Income Tax - later made permanent by Bill Taft - is the very definition of a "slippery slope" and it both causes harm (to some) and benefits (to some). 

Linguisitically, of course, the metaphor of a "slippery slope" implies falling, implies harm.  But it need not be, IMO.

[Ben_Jamin]

I find it fascinating that questions like "what's next" in these kinds of context expecting the path of "what could / will go wrong?"  How about thinking about it in the context of "what could go right?" 

Maybe what's next is ... nothing.  Bill... just as you said constantly remind us, Kavanaugh's appointment did not literally mean women died.  Like Hef said, envisioning a "slippery slope" doesn't mean there is one.

I've already said that we're humans so we're really SHITTY at being strategic,

If you're familiar with Pokemon, the history of Twitch Plays Pokemon is enlightening - https://www.reddit.com/r/twitchplayspokemon/wiki/historyoftpp_gen1

A stream was put up that allowed the mob to collectively play Pokemon Red. A reasonably experienced casual player can beat the game in about two days of continuous play. It took the mob two weeks. Over that period:

 - Religion was formed
 - A false prophet was formed
 - Political systems formed based on how the mob should control the game, with arguments about whether Democracy or Anarchy was superior
 - Due partially to mistakes and partially malicious actors, multiple valuable Pokemon were purposefully killed off
 - Some parts of the game were simply intraversable without Democracy mode
 - Multiple boss battles took multiple attempts at beating them hoping to get the right sequence of moves because no way were they going into Democracy mode

I am not kidding - You will learn more about how society functions by understanding TPP than reading any social science book.

And yes, that's a great insight into the behaviors and mindsets of humans. Thanks for bringing this up, I need to save this because I feel it really does shed light into human mindsets and behaviors. Also, on the outcomes of reality compared to the expectations of possible outcomes.

[Stadler]

the answer is always harm.

This explains a lot.

But you're a harm guy, aren't you?  Isn't that a variable in most if not all of your equations?   It's not for me, and for others.  Some, yes, but not all.  I don't see "harm" - which is subjective in many cases - as being the be-all and end-all of these discussions.

[cramx3]

I can't recall ever hearing the term "slippery slope" used for anything but going negative.  Considering a slope means going down, I am not immediately aware of a situation where the term makes sense to be used for something positive. 

[ReaPsTA]

I can't recall ever hearing the term "slippery slope" used for anything but going negative.  Considering a slope means going down, I am not immediately aware of a situation where the term makes sense to be used for something positive.

You could argue that the WFH movement was a bit of a slippery slope. A lot of people who "temporarily" were sent home from the office have stayed that way due to simple inertia (me included).

But a lot of places have had to come back. And you can see the middle-manager class try to astroturf public opinion back to going to the office with articles about how lonely working from home is. WFH being a thing into the future is not an inevitability.

[jingle.boy]

the answer is always harm.

This explains a lot.

But you're a harm guy, aren't you?  Isn't that a variable in most if not all of your equations?   It's not for me, and for others.  Some, yes, but not all.  I don't see "harm" - which is subjective in many cases - as being the be-all and end-all of these discussions.

I'm drawing a complete blank by what you mean by "a harm guy"?  Help me understand what you mean.

I can't recall ever hearing the term "slippery slope" used for anything but going negative.  Considering a slope means going down, I am not immediately aware of a situation where the term makes sense to be used for something positive.

True enough... but Harmony raised the good question of need it always be considered a negative thing.  To the point of "one person's harm is another person's benefit"... racial acceptance, sexual orientation/identification, diversity/equity/inclusion, religious acceptance would be good examples.

As for things people may have feared would be a 'slippery slope' to negative consequences ... various industry deregulations might have been feared to be a 'slippery slope' that ended up benefitting society.  Same could be said for certain technology innovations - self-driving vehicles for instance.  AI.  Genetic engineering.  Medical research (for instance, animal organ transplants). 

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

[vtgrad]

I can't recall ever hearing the term "slippery slope" used for anything but going negative.  Considering a slope means going down, I am not immediately aware of a situation where the term makes sense to be used for something positive.

You could argue that the WFH movement was a bit of a slippery slope. A lot of people who "temporarily" were sent home from the office have stayed that way due to simple inertia (me included).

But a lot of places have had to come back. And you can see the middle-manager class try to astroturf public opinion back to going to the office with articles about how lonely working from home is. WFH being a thing into the future is not an inevitability.

Cram... read "The Other Gods" by H P Lovecraft.  Plenty of sliding up slippery slopes in that short story.    How many writers can make geometry, architecture, and art so horrific.

Speaking for our company, WFH began as inertia and has morphed into a way to be more productive.  There's no way we could have pulled through the type of volume we pulled through in 2020 and 2021 working in the office (both years we banner years; 2021 being better than any two previous years combined).  We actually sold my office and have likely decided not to renew the lease in the owner's office in B-burg (we retain our original office)... our bet being that Commercial Real Estate may have peaked and it was time to get out.  The vast majority of our business is online as we are completely paperless and I can conduct client interviews via phone or Zoom.  I'm happy to meet a client if necessary, but I'm way, way more productive at home.

I think WFH is the majority wave of the future for the industries in which it makes sense (I'm a Mortgage Loan Originator).

[ReaPsTA]

CDC coordinating with Facebook on propaganda - https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IR0543-FB-emails-with-OMB-002.pdf

Very trustworthy

[lonestar]

So you want cheese with that nothing burger?

[DTFan0789]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

You prefer to only catch Covid from vaccinated folks.

[hunnus2000]

I can't recall ever hearing the term "slippery slope" used for anything but going negative.  Considering a slope means going down, I am not immediately aware of a situation where the term makes sense to be used for something positive.

You could argue that the WFH movement was a bit of a slippery slope. A lot of people who "temporarily" were sent home from the office have stayed that way due to simple inertia (me included).

But a lot of places have had to come back. And you can see the middle-manager class try to astroturf public opinion back to going to the office with articles about how lonely working from home is. WFH being a thing into the future is not an inevitability.

Cram... read "The Other Gods" by H P Lovecraft.  Plenty of sliding up slippery slopes in that short story.    How many writers can make geometry, architecture, and art so horrific.

Speaking for our company, WFH began as inertia and has morphed into a way to be more productive.  There's no way we could have pulled through the type of volume we pulled through in 2020 and 2021 working in the office (both years we banner years; 2021 being better than any two previous years combined).  We actually sold my office and have likely decided not to renew the lease in the owner's office in B-burg (we retain our original office)... our bet being that Commercial Real Estate may have peaked and it was time to get out.  The vast majority of our business is online as we are completely paperless and I can conduct client interviews via phone or Zoom.  I'm happy to meet a client if necessary, but I'm way, way more productive at home.

I think WFH is the majority wave of the future for the industries in which it makes sense (I'm a Mortgage Loan Originator).

WFH - is now the reality depending on the job. I was talking to a friend of mine recently who was speaking with the building maintenance manager at my old job and their monthly electricity cost for the 3 buildings has dropped significantly. I would love to see that bill.
My own State is seriously looking at vacating the many buildings we occupy as a cost savings measure and they are trying to get us a 5.5% salary increase across the board to go along 2% increase we got in January which means we could have a 7.5% in 2022. This will increase the States ability to recruit and retain talent nationwide. When they recalled employees back in the summer of last year, they saw a massive increase retirements and resignations. Hell, my own State announced in January a minimum $15.00 an hour for all State employees. Our Governor is a dickhead but I credit him for backing this move.
My point is that covid has forced businesses to reconsider their business model and WFH along with making a living wage is part of that.

[hunnus2000]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

You prefer to only catch Covid from vaccinated folks.

HA! 

But at this point, it's more about the disruption of other people's lives by a minority of the unvaccinated. Take the trucker's strike in Canada. They are protesting the disruption in their lives and the disruption of their "personal freedoms" by doing that exact same thing to others but they are too ignorant to understand this.

[DTFan0789]

CDC coordinating with Facebook on propaganda - https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IR0543-FB-emails-with-OMB-002.pdf

Very trustworthy

Stop spreading dangerous right wing misinformation, you bigot.

[DTFan0789]

Again, since I feel I have to keep saying it, I am personally very much FOR masking, distancing and vaccination where it makes sense. Having said that, I feel pretty strongly that we should reserve the types of judgments we're seeing here about "deserving" and "bringing it on".

I wouldn't say that I "judge" people, and never think people deserve it, but at this point, 2 years into it, anyone who chooses not to take the recommended and reasonable precautions - while very much free to make those choices - will get not sympathy from me should those choices and actions lead to unfavorable consequences.  It's not judgement as much as it is lack of sympathy - at least, from my perspective.  Choices have consequences (both good and bad).  Those that own the choice, also own the consequence.

Look, you (royal) go outside in February rain without an umbrella or a coat, then getting wet is something you brought on yourself.  I'm not judging you for it, but I've got no sympathy for your situation.  And please Bill... no need to find the situations (but what if it's because the smoke detector went off at 2am?) where it's quite reasonable.  For once, just go along with the point.    I'm speaking generally.

Your feelings are not uncommon. I have grown weary of the unvaccinated (especially those not doing it for political reasons) and have grown to despise them. Shrugs.....

You prefer to only catch Covid from vaccinated folks.

HA! 

But at this point, it's more about the disruption of other people's lives by a minority of the unvaccinated. Take the trucker's strike in Canada. They are protesting the disruption in their lives and the disruption of their "personal freedoms" by doing that exact same thing to others but they are too ignorant to understand this.

No, the truckers just don't want to live under a social credit system linked to a QR code under the guise of public health, but many people are too ignorant to understand this. 

I would say that not being able to take a train or fly domestically in your own country without being injected with a big pharma product that you don't want or need is a serious infringement on basic human freedoms and worth fighting for.

[King Postwhore]

You have a phone they already have that though.

[Adami]

As far as I know, you can fly within America without being vaccinated. Unless I’m missing the info.

[DTFan0789]

You have a phone they already have that though.

They know our exact location at any given moment, no doubt about that. However, we are inching closer and closer towards having your bank account frozen and all assets seized for having "unacceptable views" (aka committing a thought crime) as the glorious PM of Canada would say. Sorry, that's not a world that I want to live in.

[DTFan0789]

As far as I know, you can fly within America without being vaccinated. Unless I’m missing the info.

I was referring to Canada.

[Adami]

As far as I know, you can fly within America without being vaccinated. Unless I’m missing the info.

I was referring to Canada.

Gotcha!

Well, we all Canada is basically 1930's Germany anyway, so I'm not too shocked.

[ReaPsTA]

But at this point, it's more about the disruption of other people's lives by a minority of the unvaccinated. Take the trucker's strike in Canada. They are protesting the disruption in their lives and the disruption of their "personal freedoms" by doing that exact same thing to others but they are too ignorant to understand this.

In talking about the Canadian trucker protests, it is useful to consider that there are two separate ones that are significant. The first and more prominent in the media is the one in Ottawa. The second and less prominent (but arguably more impactful practically speaking) is the blockade at the US/Canada border. These two protests from what I can tell aren't really actually connected, and in an interview with one of the leaders of the Ottawa protest, he actually distanced himself a bit from the border blockade. The blockade I think is outside the scope of this particular thread and more of a political question.

As pertains to the Ottawa protest, as far as I can tell, every claim about them being violent or blocking roadways is an outright falsehood or an exaggeration of some minor incident. Given that, I would hope no one here is actually going to argue against the right of peaceful protest, even if it is disruptive or uncomfortable. Like in a sense I don't even know what you're trying to say or imply here. They absolutely know they are being disruptive or they wouldn't do it. But in their minds they have a legitimate grievance. In a free society you have the right to protest as a way to generate negotiating leverage.

This is an overall trend I see in this thread. Being mad at parents for using aggressive tactics against school boards when they don't like masking policies. Calling the trucker protest stupid because you think it is disruptive. In free societies these are the tactics available to push your opinion rather than using violence. If you tell people they can't argue vigorously and effectively for what they want, then what option are you leaving them...

[King Postwhore]

You have a phone they already have that though.

They know our exact location at any given moment, no doubt about that. However, we are inching closer and closer towards having your bank account frozen and all assets seized for having "unacceptable views" (aka committing a thought crime) as the glorious PM of Canada would say. Sorry, that's not a world that I want to live in.

That's a bit extreme.   Freewill is still yours. They just squeeze you about going to places.  That happens in major cities but not all places.

[lonestar]

As far as I know, you can fly within America without being vaccinated. Unless I’m missing the info.

I was referring to Canada.

Gotcha!

Well, we all Canada is basically 1930's Germany anyway, so I'm not too shocked.

 

[jingle.boy]

No, the truckers just don't want to live under a social credit system linked to a QR code under the guise of public health, but many people are too ignorant to understand this. 

This post (and your subsequent ones) remind me of the old axiom...



You clearly have no knowledge about what those protests were really about, so pretty please, with a cherry on top, ferme la bouche.

@Reapsta.... the Ottawa event was far from a peaceful protest.  I have many colleagues who work in Ottawa, so I'm not solely relying on media reports when I say with absolute confidence, this was more of an occupation than a protest.  It doesn't take too much hunting to provide proof of the that.  Was there direct physical violence - not exactly.  But that's shouldn't be the only yardstick of "peaceful".

[ReaPsTA]

Was there direct physical violence - not exactly.  But that's shouldn't be the only yardstick of "peaceful".

What other measurements are you including here?

[Harmony]

So have we discussed the cohort study of 12M people who had covid and their massively increased risk factors for cardiovascular diseases yet?

As many of you know, my 52 year old sister died in December from what appeared to be a heart attack.  The diagnosis on her death certificate was pulmonary embolism but an autopsy was never done so the final diagnosis was based on her symptoms prior to her death and the info from the paramedics who were trying to revive her.  As far as we know, she never had Covid.  She had multiple tests - maybe even half a dozen - in the months leading up to her death.  But she could've had Covid in the early days and had been minimally symptomatic or completely asymptomatic.  She was semi-cautious about exposure TBH.  She had kids she let play with other kids in the neighborhood and my brother-in-law continued to work in sales and often was exposed to many people in a day.  At any rate, I'm very sensitive to these findings and will be for some time, I'm sure.  IMO it should be of concern for anyone who has had Covid - maybe even for those of us who have not (could we have had asymptomatic Covid?)  Watch for cardiovascular symptoms.  If you or your loved one has symptoms, don't shrug them off.

Here are the bullet points of the article:

Overall, a COVID-19 infection significantly increased the risks of developing various cardiovascular diseases for 12 months afterward compared to individuals who were not infected.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 had a 63% greater risk of developing any of those 20 cardiovascular diseases over the year after infection compared to the uninfected cohort.

The researchers estimated that there were 45 additional individuals with any of those 20 cardiovascular diseases per 1000 people at the end of the year compared to the uninfected cohort.

For heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death, those infected with COVID-19 had a 55% higher risk compared to the control groups.
There were 23 extra cases of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death per 1000 compared to controls.

Veterans with COVID-19 had a 72% higher risk of developing heart failure in the 12 months following their infection compared to the control cohorts.

Infected veterans also had a range of 53-84% greater risk of developing one of the five arrhythmias compared to the control groups.

Individuals who had COVID-19 had a 71% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation.

Individuals who had COVID-19 had a 52% greater risk of stroke, 63% higher risk of heart attack, 300% higher risk of pulmonary embolism.

And here is something very important — individuals who had COVID-19 had a 500 times higher risk of myocarditis compared to the control group. The researchers did two additional analyses to eliminate any possibility that vaccination status was a confounding variable.

The researchers also divided the study population into subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular disease, in an attempt to rule out other confounding variables. The study authors concluded that the higher risks of cardiovascular outcomes were “evident in all subgroups.”

The researchers also found that the cardiovascular risks “were also evident in people without any cardiovascular disease before exposure to COVID-19, providing evidence that these risks might manifest even in people at low risk of cardiovascular disease.”

The researchers also examined cohorts based on care settings — not hospitalized, hospitalized, and intesive care. They found that although risks increased with the level of care, they found higher risks of cardiovascular disease even in those who never needed hospitalization before being infected.

One concern, addressed by the authors, of this study is that it is a somewhat biased population — Veterans Administration patients tend to be older, male, and white. However, the data did not find any reduction in risk when examining subgroups that elminated these issues.

Link to the summation:  https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/covid-causes-substantial-long-term-cardiovascular-risks-get-the-vaccine/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR1axq8-7xpylDI_tAPFsEcvJ6mfYmvUS_GLK4xZJ5w35OglJINyNoG6z2o

Link to the study:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

[ReaPsTA]

Some weaknesses in that study are addressed in the link below. But unlike the article author I think the study does have some ominous implications and to your point is something personally and societally should be monitored.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/long-term-cardiovascular-complications?utm_source=url

[Harmony]

Some weaknesses in that study are addressed in the link below. But unlike the article author I think the study does have some ominous implications and to your point is something personally and societally should be monitored.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/long-term-cardiovascular-complications?utm_source=url

I am a long term follower of Vinay Prasad and have posted articles authored by him in this thread before.  I respect him a great deal.  I was aware of his views on the study weaknesses.  I am also very much aware of his constant harping (and agree with him) on the need for more and more research.  Your link is in no way a surprise to me.  I appreciate you posting it.  And if you don't already, I highly recommend his podcast with Dr. Zubin Damania "The VPZD show."

[ReaPsTA]

Some weaknesses in that study are addressed in the link below. But unlike the article author I think the study does have some ominous implications and to your point is something personally and societally should be monitored.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/long-term-cardiovascular-complications?utm_source=url

I am a long term follower of Vinay Prasad and have posted articles authored by him in this thread before.  I respect him a great deal.  I was aware of his views on the study weaknesses.  I am also very much aware of his constant harping (and agree with him) on the need for more and more research.  Your link is in no way a surprise to me.  I appreciate you posting it.  And if you don't already, I highly recommend his podcast with Dr. Zubin Damania "The VPZD show."

Interesting I didn't even know that existed. Might do so thank you.

[jingle.boy]

Was there direct physical violence - not exactly.  But that's shouldn't be the only yardstick of "peaceful".

What other measurements are you including here?

Completely choking off the downtown core
Harassing citizens and businesses
Defacing national monuments
Polluting the air
Noise pollution from the truck horns including overnight
Property damage
Threats to politicians and the Prime Minister “catch a bullet” being a phrase the chief organizer used
Concealed weapons
Numerous bylaw infractions (erecting structures, unsafe fuel storage among others)
General lawlessness

Just cuz they say it’s peaceful, while blowing up bouncy castles for all the children they brought with them, doesn’t make it so.

[Ben_Jamin]

Was there direct physical violence - not exactly.  But that's shouldn't be the only yardstick of "peaceful".

What other measurements are you including here?

Completely choking off the downtown core
Harassing citizens and businesses
Defacing national monuments
Polluting the air
Noise pollution from the truck horns including overnight
Property damage
Threats to politicians and the Prime Minister “catch a bullet” being a phrase the chief organizer used
Concealed weapons
Numerous bylaw infractions (erecting structures, unsafe fuel storage among others)
General lawlessness

Just cuz they say it’s peaceful, while blowing up bouncy castles for all the children they brought with them, doesn’t make it so.

Sounds like you're describing the CHAZ occupiers of Portland. Is there a difference between the two occupying protests. And don't forget about Occupy Wall Street.

The point of protests is to get others to notice and take action. It's the outcome of silencing and ignoring people.

There was also the Dakota Access Pipeline protest where the officers sprayed them with water during the cold winter weather.

What this tells me is that the authorities need to get off their high horse and start listening to the people. Unless, they do have an agenda and the outcome is not what we the people are expecting.

Just like people fear the future of possible outcomes from Covid. So too are people fearing the future of the possible outcomes of these mandates and orders, designed to control the populace.

Fear is what drives actions and the defense mechanisms of humans. And that threat is the threat of one's livelihood and sustainability.

[ReaPsTA]

Just cuz they say it’s peaceful, while blowing up bouncy castles for all the children they brought with them, doesn’t make it so.

To go through line by line:

Completely choking off the downtown core - I have mixed opinions on this and have heard contradicting information about levels of access to the protest are (have heard that there are paths for, say, Emergency Vehicles to go through). But that aside, that doesn't mean it isn't peaceful
Harassing citizens and businesses - Want more evidence on this. Harassments has become a meaningless word. Stories? Is this something that happens often? If you have a protest of 20 people and one person there gets into a fight, there's a problem. If you have thousands/hundreds of people somewhere and you hear sporadic stories of bad behavior, you can't let the actions of a few characterize the whole
Defacing national monuments - Very skeptical of this claim. There was some war memorial that the protesters were supposedly defacing then the video comes out and it's fine and they're shoveling snow off of it
Polluting the air - Irrelevant
Noise pollution from the truck horns including overnight - While funny I agree this was obnoxious I think the court was right to tell them to knock it off
Property damage - Need documentary evidence of this or at least some stories I can put into a broader context
Threats to politicians and the Prime Minister “catch a bullet” being a phrase the chief organizer used - Do not agree with this rhetoric but it is rhetoric and not an imminent threat of violence
Concealed weapons - I believe the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. I know concealed weapons are illegal in Canada and personally think weapons at a protest are bad idea, but to me it is not lacking in peacefulness
Numerous bylaw infractions (erecting structures, unsafe fuel storage among others) - I don't know how this is unpeaceful. The unsafe fuel storage might be somewhat of an issue depending on the risks they are creating
General lawlessness - Too vague

To get at some more general points/my own biases:

 - I know you were mentioning the word occupation earlier. I think this usage of wording is very risky. As you can label any peaceful protest an occupation and use the police to clear it. Doing this effectively makes peaceful protest illegal unless the government approves it

 - In general this kind of public... rowdiness doesn't affect me that much on a personal level. For some reason I leave near residences where people either shoot guns or blow up firecrackers late at night. Hasn't happened for a while (I guess Winter) but I just live with it. When Holidays happen that involve fireworks happen around here people pop off and I've never seen it fit to file a noise complaint. Just don't see the need to involve the state in people doing what they do. Perhaps though if it were ongoing for multiple weeks I'd feel different

 - Back in 2011, when the Occupy Wall Street protests were happening, based on what I know, clearing them out was similarly wrong to do. God forbid bank executives be inconvenienced even slightly

 - It's not like anyone is perfectly consistent on this including me. By nature I really hate people protesting on roads, as everyone needs said roads. While I'm not sure the Ottawa protest is quite removing access to public spaces in the way that its detractors claim, on some fundamental level it still bothers me. So then I have to go back and think, well, if I think the police are wrong to break this up, then what else might they be wrong to break up that I agree with less. If we say protesting on the road means it's illegal, that's something a government can very easily selectively enforce

 - To bring this back to the overall point of this thread and less about the abstract politics of protesting in general - Discussions about COVID and how to best manage COVID do not supersede peoples' basic rights. This is one of the reasons I think it's important to be more realistic about the consequences of COVID, not being so trusting of authority, and our lack of ability to control it. Fear, powerful authority, and an over-optimistic idea of what's within our control all lead to doing things that are very bad. What's happening in Canada shows this is not some abstract fear

[ReaPsTA]

The point of protests is to get others to notice and take action. It's the outcome of silencing and ignoring people.

And again, this is how conflicts in society are resolved without violence. You can't ban people from major social media platforms, choke their finances, and ban protesting and then wonder why politics has become increasingly divisive. Implicit in that line of thinking is that there is some group of people who are just irrational, should not be allowed to organize, and need to shut up. This will never happen and should never happen.