Daily review 05/01/2022

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, January 5th, 2022 - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily review 05/01/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • roy cartland 1.1
      5 January 2022 at 10:43 pm

      Genuine question, just trying to understand the issue.

      Does the gendering argument apply to animals? Not those fish that can change sex if they need to, maybe just mammals…?

      Can I have a cat that is 'female' but male physiologically?

      • weka 1.1.1
        6 January 2022 at 10:59 am

        depends on what you mean by gendering. If you mean personality traits that we associate with women and men or female and male, then I think we are projecting.

        Seeing the difference a male cat before and after it is neutered tells us a lot about how biology influences behaviour in mammals. Humans have big brains and culture that add complexity and give us a much wider range of choice. The gender/sex war is an argument over who gets to define choice and biological reality. That last one should be raising alarm bells on the pro-science left.

        • roy cartland 1.1.1.1
          6 January 2022 at 2:35 pm

          Ok, so would it be fair to say that the argument is that 'gender' is psychological, i.e. how one feels about oneself in the context of expected/accepted behaviour (societal or otherwise), regardless of physiology?

          And is the argument that the terms 'man' and 'woman' are gender-psychological terms, not biological terms?

          • weka 1.1.1.1.1
            6 January 2022 at 2:52 pm

            some people (people who believe in gender identity) say that gender is an internal sense (a psychological experience if you like) related to stereotypes. They also often argue that gender is separate from biology.

            others (gender critical and radical feminists, and it used to be lots of liberal feminists) say that gender is roles that are forced onto people by the dominant system that is organising society.

            My own view is that gender is a social dynamic that arises naturally from both biology and how humans organise in tribes, and that under a patriarchal society this goes particularly badly for women.

            eg women give birth and the patriarchal society needs to control them so that it knows who fathered the children. But I don't see gender as inherently bad. In a non-patriarchal situation, women being child bearers naturally gives rise to culture that values children and nurturing as much as other aspects of society, women are respected within that, and women's culture becomes an actual thing that is positive and good for society. In a non-patriarchal society women would not be structural disadvantaged by being childbearers, and would have choice in the matter.

            This idea about gender is true of men too, but I do think it's more obvious in women because of biology. Conception, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and rearing are all both social and deeply, deeply biological experiences. There are whole sets of biological processes that happen in giving birth and breastfeeding that lead to bonding and impact on the baby's wellbeing over time and the adult it grows into.

            This can't be replaced at the species or cultural level by eg men bottle feeding babies. This doesn't mean that men should never be involved, and it doesn't mean that women who can't breastfeed raise deficient children, it just means that at the species level there is something quite specific going on that is important in our evolution and wellbeing. Imo gender arises from biology as much as anything else, but it's not destiny (just because women can give birth doesn't mean they should have to). It is for this reason that I support women's culture as much as I do women's spaces etc

            And is the argument that the terms 'man' and 'woman' are gender-psychological terms, not biological terms?

            Yep. Gender critical and radical feminists have put a stake in the ground and said fuck off, woman = biologically female. One of the reasons for this is that if you say that woman = anyone who identifies as a woman, you literally remove the word that women can use to describe our own sex based class. That has huge political implications.

            • roy cartland 1.1.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2022 at 4:15 pm

              Thanks, that's most helpful. Not to be reductive, but the conclusion I came to watching the video below (2.1.2) is that they seem to be arguing over the definition of the word 'woman' as much as the ideology/physiology.

              I particularly liked Kelly Jay's comment that you have men and women, biologically so, and they can act however they feel while remaining bio men/women (i.e. not just have to change the word because societal expectations of behaviour). If there weren't these complex expectations, there wouldn't be so much pressure on the definition, right?

              If the definition gets too wide, I dunno how I can find an argument to spurious claims like say, David Seymour deciding that he'd like to present as Indian on 7-Days for the night, or some white kid who decides they're Korean now because they like K-Pop. When does inclusion become appropriation?

    • Pete 2.1
      5 January 2022 at 8:20 pm

      Some mentioned the importance of female only spaces:

      "I don’t think the only reason women and girls should have female only spaces is for safety. Though it’s the most serious reason I think we need those spaces because sometimes we need the very particular joy of being all together, too, and the great respite that offers us."

      Specific spaces, not necessarily for physical safety, but for a spiritual reasons. Could the same thinking have been applied to the historical places like gentlemen's clubs?

      • alwyn 2.1.1
        5 January 2022 at 9:25 pm

        "the historical places like gentlemen's clubs?"

        Sigh.. Can we please have clubs like that back? Wouldn't the Auckland Gentry like to have the Northern Club back as it used to be?

      • weka 2.1.2
        5 January 2022 at 9:28 pm

        Indeed. Or men's sheds.

        Check this 30 second explanation out. Starts at 10mins. There are reasons why men's clubs were a problem. Solve that problem and there's no problem with men's clubs.

        (Kelly Jay aka Posie Parker is a controversial figure, but she nails it here).

        • roy cartland 2.1.2.1
          6 January 2022 at 2:56 pm

          This is the argument I'm trying to understand. One of them is arguing that man/woman = physiology, the other that their brain/mind/behaviour = man/woman (regardless of physiology).

          Doesn't that just make it a terminology thing?

        • alwyn 2.1.2.2
          6 January 2022 at 4:07 pm

          I would have to agree that is a great 30 second expositon. But oh dear, did that phrase "The corridors of power" make me feel old. I can remember when C P Snow coined it back in the mid-1950's.

          Perhaps I'll settle for a men's shed. I doubt if any woman would be missing out on important matters if she didn't go there.

          My father belonged to a male only members club when he was working. I believe it remained with only male members until just a couple of years ago. He went there for lunch only when he had a business visitor he had to look after. His visits, about half a dozen times a year, were the only times he went inside the place. In those days, 40's, 50's and early 60's there simply weren't places in the town we lived in to get a decent, quick lunch.

          • roy cartland 2.1.2.2.1
            6 January 2022 at 4:32 pm

            Yes, anyone can have any kind of club and exclude whomever they want. That's what a club is.

            My ma joined the Wellesley club when it opened its doors to women; not that they wanted to include women, but they needed more paying members! God knows why she joined, it was fusty as all hell, I think she was making some kind of statement. It's all gone now.

  3. weka 3
    5 January 2022 at 8:04 pm

    Long detailed thread on the good, the bad and the ugly of covid in the UK

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1478339769646166019?s=21

  5. Bill 5
    5 January 2022 at 8:10 pm

    Oh dear.

    By tracking the evolutionary trajectories of vaccine-resistant mutations in more than 2.2 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes, we reveal that the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America.

    Put another way, Marek's virus.

    Which is to say, as observed and studied in relation to Marek's, m-RNA injections, alongside the other leaky vaccines we've stupidly distributed on a universal basis drive the evolutionary path of the virus, such that (obviously) it 'moves away' from whatever biological defenses we've injected across swathes of the word's population. (And it can and will because "leaky" medical products)

    That we got a highly infectious and less virulent mutation with Omicron is absolutely down to dumber than dumb luck. But what are 'the experts' going to do? That's right – throw another x million vials of leaky product into the viral environment and just maybe gift ourselves a more virulent strain of Covid.

    I want to get a hold of the public health bureaucrats – ie, the government advisors who sit at the nexus between health and politics and visit "eye for eye" evil on them.

    They know damned fine well that leaky vaccines are never distributed on a universal basis. And they know why. They also know, in spite of throwing their hands in the air and claiming new strains were the fault of unmedicated people, that they were never driving the evolution of the virus.

    What chance the fucking madness stops and people just get treated for illness? That's rhetorical. It's not going to happen. There will be double down after double down until either we find ourselves on the wrong side of the gates of hell or, if we are supremely lucky, in the clear, because Omicron does not mutate into something more virulent and the drivers of this madness have to "give it up" because they’ll have no fear which they can play frightened people off against.

    Regardless, expect a steady drip of news stories about possible Variants of Concern …just enough to keep already frightened people on edge and compliant.

    'Interesting' times.

    • Robert Guyton 5.1
      5 January 2022 at 8:15 pm

      I don't think "people" are frightened – I think they're watchful.

    • RedLogix 5.2
      5 January 2022 at 8:30 pm

      That we got a highly infectious and less virulent mutation with Omicron is absolutely down to dumber than dumb luck.

      Maybe.

      • Bill 5.2.1
        5 January 2022 at 8:48 pm

        🙂 That would be terrible timing on their part. Another couple of months needed to lock in boosters and under 12s before sitting back and waiting for the "glue to dry" on those passports.

        As an aside. There are at least 5 dead babies (0 – 2 y.o.) catalogued in VAERS. Go figure…

        Fact #2: 5 babies have died in temporal proximity of the COVID-19 products – 4 in association with Pfizer and 1 in association with Moderna.

        1. 958443 (within 2 days – Pfizer)
        2. 1166062 (within 1 day – Pfizer)
        3. 1261766 (within 2 days – Moderna)
        4. 1659812 (within 0 days- Pfizer)
        5. 1720648 (within 7 days – Pfizer)
        • McFlock 5.2.1.1
          5 January 2022 at 10:11 pm

          Pretty sure suicide by gunshot wouldn't happen to a newborn infant, so the age is probably a typo in the top one.
          look it up. It's an open database.

          The others do actually involve the deaths of newborns or miscarriages. But we have 4 reports out of how many millions? How many would we expect out of pure statistical odds that a woman does X and a child dies a few days later, in a country of ~300million?

          And, as always, VAERS has the caveat that anyone can submit a report and say what they like. So at least one individual was abducted by aliens in temporal proximity to receiving the MMR vaccine.

          • Bill 5.2.1.1.1
            5 January 2022 at 10:42 pm

            The others do actually involve the deaths of newborns or miscarriages

            1166062 was a 5 month old baby boy. (breast milk following injection)

            VAERS is an early warning system, not a raw numbers game (under-reporting) . Proximity to injection, in line with other criteria being satisfied, are meant to act as red flags.

            • McFlock 5.2.1.1.1.1
              5 January 2022 at 11:03 pm

              Unusual or unexpected patterns, not individual events.

              From the VAERS search page, which you have no doubt read thoroughly:

              VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals."

              Hate to break it to you, but whether patterns are "unusual or unexpected" is a numbers game.

              • Bill …
                5 January 2022 at 11:38 pm

                This is the point when I gently suggest you might want to quit with the bad faith and tiresome interactions. k?

                • McFlock …
                  5 January 2022 at 11:48 pm

                  Are you speaking as a commenter tired of having their factually incorrect statements corrected, or as a moderator?

      • Graeme 5.2.2
        5 January 2022 at 9:30 pm

        Maybe… I've been wondering that since I first read how it's mutated and from what.

        If that is the case I hope like hell Rossana Segreto's third wish is true,

        "3. that Omicron will act a live attenuated vaccine"

        Otherwise things could get a tad messy.

        Or was a live attenuated vaccine the objective?

  6. Just Saying 6
    5 January 2022 at 9:09 pm

    Leaky vaccines are known to increase mutations because they reduce but don't prevent transmission.

    This is a possible answer to the question of should we let a less dangerous version 'rip'.

    If omicron proves to be relatively benign, should we finally choose our poison? Choose which variation we are prepared to live with?

    It's worth remembering that large parts of the developing world have had no vaccination choice. A more dangerous strain could be devastating if such a variation was able to bypass both natural and vaccinated protection.

    We, in the rich world, could wait out a new vaccination. Such a vaccination would be costly and again, rationed according to both money and might.

    • weka 6.1
      5 January 2022 at 9:31 pm

      Leaky vaccines are known to increase mutations because they reduce but don't prevent transmission.

      Increase mutations compared to what? Letting covid run free in the community with no vaccination? I thought covid running free also increased mutations.

  7. Just Saying 7
    5 January 2022 at 9:37 pm

    ‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses (healthline.com)

    Just one of thousands of such articles. Explains how it works.

    • weka 7.1
      5 January 2022 at 9:58 pm

      Ok. And not using vaccines and letting covid run free can produce stronger versions of viruses too. Do we know if a worse variant can emerge after omicron?

      NZ has the privilege of making decisions relatively independent of what other countries are doing.

      • Just Saying 7.1.1
        5 January 2022 at 10:11 pm

        I don't know, Weka.

        But I think it is time to stop the one 'party line' and allow discussion, particularly amongst scientists wanting to discuss the science underpinning that line.

        • weka 7.1.1.1
          5 January 2022 at 10:17 pm

          What's the one part line? Are scientists not free to discuss covid? I hadn't notice this.

      • Bill 7.1.2
        5 January 2022 at 10:13 pm

        People could have been/could be treated for their illness. Existing drugs, used 'off label' absolutely work. But there has been a very concerted effort to smear and de-platform anyone pointing to their efficacy, and to make the drugs unavailable.

        An actual vaccine could, perhaps have been developed. But that takes several years, not 18 months or whatever it took to fast track m-RNA, which Big Pharma still hasn't completed the trials for. I think trials pull to a close in 2023 – which says 'not a lot' for informed consent.

        Universal distribution of leaky vaccines is an 'arms race' with a virus that opens up potential pathways to degrees of virulence that a neutral environment could never support.

        I'm curious what the 'relative independence' you believe NZ enjoys looks like.

        Across the entire world, there is a horizontal integration of Big Pharma, major Media, governments and Big Tech – which is why (maybe you've not noticed?) governments are singing from the same hymn sheet.

        • weka 7.1.2.1
          5 January 2022 at 10:21 pm

          I'm curious what the 'relative independence' you believe NZ enjoys looks like.

          Our geographical isolation makes managing the border easy compared to say Europe. We have very low rates of community transmission, which means we have both low levels of illness and death, and low levels of lockdowns. We have no healthcare overrun. All those things give us a greater degree of flexibility, including timing of decisions.

  8. Just Saying 8
    6 January 2022 at 7:44 am

    Last night I couldn't get a cursor on the page.

    It seems specific to the 'reply' pages, so at least I have narrowed it a little.

    I'm still a bit flabbergasted at the suggestion that there hasn't been widespread censorship in the "news" media and amongst many highly credentialed scientists and medical specialists.

    I started calling our local journalism 'Pravda' but came to see our own version as going beyond the medium that was for so long the butt of jokes. Some family members thought I was crazy until I started sending them to look at the footage of major uncovered stories, to read the scientists for themselves, often on alternative outlets, after being kicked off the more controllable ones. Some of them have been able to return with major caveats, laughably sometimes the very scientific specialty they have spent decades working in. It is a little less crazy now. Don't know that the MSM is though.

    There is so much now, the thought of collecting links, particularly of checking if they have avowed and proven left wing status (whatever that means these days) to make them halfway acceptable on this site. It exhausts me to even think about it. But if you are open to it, I'm willing to spend a couple of hours dragging out some assorted highlights, Weka.