News   Nov 22, 2024
 560     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 2.7K     8 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

What’s your game here? MedRXiv isn’t a “respected journal”, it’s a pre-press server. The study hasn’t even been peer reviewed yet.

No game.

I've repeatedly said the data is subject to peer review.

Unlike you I actually read the scientific studies, ALL of them; and assess their citations, caveats and methodology and then draw conclusions as and when appropriate.

That’s not to say it’s not sound science, but don’t conflate things here.

I have conflated nothing.

I have accurately reported the study; linked the study, and fully disclosed its status and the need for peer review which I specifically called for; and which it would of course be subject to in any event.

That’s not what it says, according to one of the primary authors:




Please then, respect the authors’ wishes and don’t push this in an anti-vax way.

I'm double vaxxed which is clearly not anti-vax, duh!

Normally I keep all private conversations, private here, as people ought to be able to assume a measure of confidence.

But I think its important to note here that when you were looking to get a shot, I messaged you offering a link to an appt with my Family Health Team where I got mine.

I don't see how much more pro-vaxx one can be.

I'm tired of your trolling and your repeated efforts to misrepresent what I say, and the facts writ-large.

As a final note, I have only just above said there is no evidence that the vaccine is harmful.........so I'm in total agreement with the author there.

The discussion is not one of harm, but rather one of the demonstrable utility and evidence in support of same, in support of a mandate. (which is not an argument against vaxxing, but specifically about whether to exclude children, who are not vaccinated, likely due to a decision by their parent (so punishing the child for the parent's choice); when the evidence that it makes a material difference in outcome, in that age demographic is less than compelling.

As to effectiveness, I am reading the data as published; the author's supplemental statements are conjecture, or they would have been documented in the study. His conjecture may well be accurate, but there is no documentary evidence at this point. Perhaps that will be forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
No game.

I've repeatedly said the data is subject to peer review.

Unlike you I actually read the scientific studies, ALL of them; and assess their citations, caveats and methodology and then draw conclusions as and when appropriate.
And you have the credentials to make an accurate assessment of medical/scientific studies with authority to inform others of their content? I will certainly admit I don’t, even though I do read them when I can.

I have conflated nothing.

No?

I just posted a published study, from a respected journal,

Neither of these are true. That’s not conflation? You literally set up false authority before then fear-mongering.

In your own words:
Any time one makes a claim which is proven to be untrue/exaggerated its a problem.'
So…? It’s only a problem if it’s not you?

I have accurately reported the study;
Obviously, many people don’t seem to be. Are you in the medical/scientific field?

I'm double vaxxed which is clearly not anti-vax, duh!

Oh, I’ve encountered several people who’ve drawn the line at two and switched sides because they’re fed up and are starting to question it all. One doesn’t need to be all tinfoil hat about it.

Normally I keep all private conversations, private here, as people ought to be able to assume a measure of confidence.

But I think its important to note here that when you were looking to get a shot, I messaged you offering a link to an appt with my Family Health Team where I got mine.
And that means I don’t get to call you out or I owe you something for unsolicited help that you sent —even knowing I already had an appointment—that wasn’t even applicable to my postal code?

While I appreciate the attempt, the point of bringing up information in public we both already know in private serves no purpose but to form a victim narrative. I *really* don’t appreciate *that*.

I'm tired of your trolling and your repeated efforts to misrepresent what I say, and the facts writ-large.

I’m using a lot of direct quotes here. You said something incorrect. I asked why you did that.

As a final note, I have only just above said there is no evidence that the vaccine is harmful.........so I'm in total agreement with the author there.

Are you?

The problem is, while the evidence strongly suggests it is safe, the study I published suggests that its effectiveness is highly questionable (against the omicron variant, specifically)

Meanwhile, the authors wrote:

Our study contributes to emerging evidence that BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 primary vaccine protection against Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection. In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.

So we shouldn’t rollout “highly ineffectual” vaccinations and boosters against Omicron?

You’re using words like “abysmal”, “concerning”and “damning”. Surely you can see the fearmongering there, no?

As to effectiveness, I am reading the data as published; the author's supplemental statements are conjecture, or they would have been documented in the study. His conjecture may well be accurate, but there is no documentary evidence at this point. Perhaps that will be forthcoming.
It’s the writer’s fault you read it incorrectly? Personally speaking, I trust the multi-published accredited scientist to write with the appropriate academic clarity over a layman reader to be able to understand it.

If you aren’t a peer, what gives you the right to say they wrote it without enough clarity? It wasn’t written for you, it was written for other academics.

You’re glomming onto a study in the same way that antivaxxers are, but don’t think it’s fair to say there’s anti-vax sentiment in it?

Maybe you just wrote something incorrectly?
 
And you have the credentials to make an accurate assessment of medical/scientific studies with authority to inform others of their content? I will certainly admit I don’t, even though I do read them when I can.



No?



Neither of these are true. That’s not conflation? You literally set up false authority before then fear-mongering.

In your own words:

So…? It’s only a problem if it’s not you?


Obviously, many people don’t seem to be. Are you in the medical/scientific field?



Oh, I’ve encountered several people who’ve drawn the line at two and switched sides because they’re fed up and are starting to question it all. One doesn’t need to be all tinfoil hat about it.


And that means I don’t get to call you out or I owe you something for unsolicited help that you sent —even knowing I already had an appointment—that wasn’t even applicable to my postal code?

While I appreciate the attempt, the point of bringing up information in public we both already know in private serves no purpose but to form a victim narrative. I *really* don’t appreciate *that*.



I’m using a lot of direct quotes here. You said something incorrect. I asked why you did that.



Are you?



Meanwhile, the authors wrote:



So we shouldn’t rollout “highly ineffectual” vaccinations and boosters against Omicron?

You’re using words like “abysmal”, “concerning”and “damning”. Surely you can see the fearmongering there, no?


It’s the writer’s fault you read it incorrectly? Personally speaking, I trust the multi-published accredited scientist to write with the appropriate academic clarity over a layman reader to be able to understand it.

If you aren’t a peer, what gives you the right to say they wrote it without enough clarity? It wasn’t written for you, it was written for other academics.

You’re glomming onto a study in the same way that antivaxxers are, but don’t think it’s fair to say there’s anti-vax sentiment in it?

Maybe you just wrote something incorrectly?

Enough.

This community deserves more than the flame-war you wish to start; I will ignore you completely on a go-forward basis as a troll.
 

Rod Phillips resigns from Doug Ford’s cabinet, won’t seek re-election June 2

From link.

In a major pre-election setback for Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives, Long-Term Care Minister Rod Phillips is retiring from politics.

Phillips, a key cabinet minister who has represented Ajax since 2018, announced Friday he would not be running in the June 2 election.

“I have spoken with Premier Ford and with Brian Patterson, president of the Ontario PC Party, to inform them of my decision not to seek re-election and to step down next month as the MPP for Ajax,” Phillips, 56, said in a written statement.

“This will allow the premier to appoint a successor to continue the important work of the Ministry of Long-Term Care. It also ensures that the PC Party has the time needed to nominate a candidate in Ajax and prepare for the provincial election,” he said.

“I have always considered public service a privilege and it has been an honour to serve as the MPP for Ajax and in three cabinet portfolios. That said, my professional life has been spent in the business world and I look forward to returning to the private sector.”

His surprise departure is a political blow to Ford, coming just 20 weeks before what public opinion polls suggest could be a close election.

But Phillips praised the premier’s “strong leadership ... through what is undoubtedly the greatest challenge of our lifetimes, the global COVID-19 pandemic.

“He has always put first what is best for the people of Ontario. I remain confident Ontarians will re-elect his government in the upcoming election,” he said.

Since taking over the embattled Ministry of Long-Term Care last June, Phillips has been credited for helping to improve Ontario’s pandemic-ravaged nursing homes, which suffered greatly in the first waves of COVID-19.

Along with joining ministry inspectors on surprise spot-checks of homes, he implemented a mandatory vaccination policy for all staff and ensured hefty increases to operating budgets and infrastructure investments in an area long neglected by successive governments of all political stripes.

“Our work together has been the most meaningful in my time as a minister of the Crown,” Phillips said of the long-term care sector.

“Together we have protected residents with the toughest legislation and best enforcement in the country, moved ahead with the largest long-term care building program ever in Canada and invested in training and hiring tens of thousands of new, front line health care staff. All while continuing to do everything possible to vaccinate and protect residents and staff through this latest wave of the global pandemic.”

Phillips made headlines in December 2020 when he went on vacation to the Caribbean island of St. Barts at a time when the federal government was urging people to avoid non-essential travel.

Even though the premier’s office was aware of the Christmas trip, he resigned as finance minister upon his return to spare Ford any political embarrassment.

But his absence from the executive council coincided with some of the Tories’ most chaotic months of the pandemic, culminating in a marathon two-day cabinet meeting last April when ministers decided to impose police spot checks and close playgrounds to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Those controversial moves were abandoned the next day amid a massive outcry from Ontarians and directly contributed to a displeased Ford shuffling his cabinet weeks later and handing Phillips the challenging long-term care file.

A successful business leader before entering elected politics, Phillips served as chair of Postmedia, parent company of the National Post and the Toronto Sun, and in 2011 was appointed president and CEO of Ontario Lottery and Gaming by Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty.

In 2014, he succeeded Toronto Mayor John Tory as chair of the non-partisan CivicAction urban affairs organization. He also served as mayor Mel Lastman’s chief of staff after the 1998 amalgamation of the old city of Toronto with North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York and East York.

Long mentioned as a potential successor to Ford as Progressive Conservative leader, Phillips’s retirement jolts the political landscape as ministers begin jockeying for positioning in a future leadership contest.
 
You have a long cold wait ahead of you!
7QO1.gif
From link.
 
Still waiting for Doug Ford to resign. Along with others (IE. Christine Elliott, Stephen Lecce, David Piccini)

I'm not sure why they would; they have their pollsters and strategists. It's the voters' job to show them the door if that is the will. If you don't like your barber, find a new barber, don't expect them to fall on their sword on your behalf.
 
On first glance, I said yea! The rats are leaving the sinking ship. On second thought, there will be a whole new nest of rats recruited and new lies and promises, it will give the now disgruntled Conservative voter a new party member to vote for.

A few Liberals deserted when McGuinty was seemingly done..........but Wynne then won a majority.

I'm not predicting that outcome (with Ford likely as leader anyway); rather, I'm suggesting one not over weight such moves.

Some are sincere.......... (politics wasn't such a good idea for me/have better offer)..............some are strategic (I'm not popular w/my constituents, I'm not popular w/the Premier; or the Premier may lose, and I want to be in a good position to run as his replacement).

Irrespective of which is which............the outcome of the next election is unlikely to be materially influenced by any of the departures to date.

Few people voted for any of the departing names.

They disproportionately voted 'for Ford' or 'Against Wynne'

Most of these names are not make it or brake it for the government, particularly if leaving quietly.
 

Back
Top