Daily review 07/10/2021

82 comments on “Daily review 07/10/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anker 1

   7 October 2021 at 5:57 pm

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyzOL2BXTMQ

   A 17 year old school boy makes a submission to the Select Committee on the Conversion Practices Bill. Watch Ginny Andersons response. Its really disgusting she talked to a young man like that who took the trouble to exercise his deomocratic right to voice his opionion.

   BTW I think this young lads intepretation of the legislation is correct and so do the majoirty of submitters.
   • solkta 1.1

     7 October 2021 at 6:15 pm

     That website is so dodgy it doesn't even have an "about" page but if you go to the Family First site it is clear it is theirs. Not surprised at you reading and spreading propaganda for the religeous right though.
     • Nic the NZer 1.1.1

       7 October 2021 at 6:20 pm

       You seem to be implying only some faction of a polity have a right to voice an opinion.
       • McFlock 1.1.1.1

         7 October 2021 at 6:46 pm

         I didn't get that.

         I took the meaning that often the sources we turn to in order to find support for our positions indicate just as much about us as they do the quality of our position.
         • Anker 1.1.1.1.1

           7 October 2021 at 6:53 pm

           I saw this clip on the parliament website. Once viewed it is often hard to get the clip back. So I just googled it. I wasn't even aware that it was Family First, cause I am not assoicated with them.

           But I do belive that everyone has a deomcratic right to express their views, even ones I don't agree with. There was an elderly Christian gent presenting and I didn't agree with his views, but again one of the Labour women was incredibly rude.
           • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 7:56 pm

             You don't need to be associated with someone to see the name of their youtube channel.

             So now youtube is going to suggest more FF videos at anyone who clicks the link. Thanks for that.
     • Anker 1.1.2

       7 October 2021 at 6:35 pm

       It is a recording of a zoom submission from Parliament. But I agree it is dodgy from the point of view of how disgracefully citizens are being treated when exercising their democratic right.

       Ginny Anderson's reponse is patronizig and unacceptable. They are there to hear all views, listen respectfully and ask questions, even challenging ones.

       This was one of the rudest responses to a young man who is still. technically a child exercising his democratic right.
       • solkta 1.1.2.1

         7 October 2021 at 6:44 pm

         So are you happy to promote Family First?

         Yes the response was patronising, but not incorrect.
         • Anker 1.1.2.1.1

           7 October 2021 at 6:54 pm

           I saw this clip on the parliament website. Once viewed it is often hard to get the clip back. So I just googled it. I wasn't even aware that it was Family First, cause I am not assoicated with them.

           But I do belive that everyone has a deomcratic right to express their views, even ones I don't agree with. There was an elderly Christian gent presenting and I didn't agree with his views, but again one of the Labour women was incredibly rude.
           • solkta 1.1.2.1.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 6:58 pm

             You were not aware who the site was because you didn't bother to find out, i guess because you don't care.
             • Anker …

               7 October 2021 at 7:22 pm

               I care about how that young man was treated, but an elected representative.

               I care about the young women who are obtaining and using breast binders which cause harm.

               I care about the kids put on puberty blockers, then cross sex hormones befor they are old enough to truly understand what their decision means . Recent article with two top surgeons in trans gender care, both transgender women. Now having doubts about all this. I care that kids on these drugs can and very often do end up infertile and unable to experience sexual pleasure. I care about all the kids who are detransitioners who have irreversible damage to their young bodies.

               Do I care that you have associated me with Family First and think I should have researched that that was their clip. Not so much
       • solkta 1.1.2.2

         7 October 2021 at 6:49 pm

         Did you check out Leah the "ex-lesbian" on that site? Are you happy to promote the idea that people's sexuality can be "corrected" with "therapy"?
         • Anker 1.1.2.2.1

           7 October 2021 at 6:56 pm

           See my answer to McFlock Solkta. I saw the clip on the Parliament weibsite and googled it. It came up with the Family First thing.

           I have my own views. I think they are clear to most here. I am a gender critical feminist. I disagree with a lot of the gender ideology. That's it.
         • Anker 1.1.2.2.2

           7 October 2021 at 7:24 pm

           If I thought that Solkta I would have said it, ie people sexuallity can be changed with therapy., I am big on a good evidence base for therapy and there is no evidence at all the sexual orientation can be changed.

           for the record I don't know what's on family firsts website
         • left for dead 1.1.2.2.3

           8 October 2021 at 6:45 am

           Solkta ,,,why are you attacking the person and not addressing the message.
       • Nordy 1.1.2.3

         7 October 2021 at 6:50 pm

         What nonsense. She simply disagreed with his assertions and pointed out quite correctly that he misunderstood the bill.
       • Anne 1.1.2.4

         7 October 2021 at 6:50 pm

         Ginny Anderson's reponse is patronizig and unacceptable.

         Wrong. It was polite and respectful. If the young man was "coming at it from the wrong angle" then she had a duty to point it out to him as nicely as possible which she did. Anyway he spoke for too long so there was no time to ask questions and expand on his submission.

         Can't Daily Review at the least be exempted from this gender-wars topic? It is getting very boring. I thought DR was more for topical, in the news items that have arisen during the day.
         • Anker 1.1.2.4.1

           7 October 2021 at 7:03 pm

           I think we must have watched different clips then Anne. I thought it was very rude.

           If this young man has the wrong end of the stick, then so do most of the other submitters. I think the Bill is very unclear. Have you read the RIS?

           I think its intention is that any parent, religious person or professinal counsellor (because they are not accredited under the Health Practitioners Act) potelnitally can have a complaint to the police man about them, which could result in a criminal charge, even prison. I think that people supporting this bill and the possible purpose of this Bill is that unless young people are offered affirmative care, they see it as an attempt to suppress or changed their gender identity. The Counting Ourselves survey reported that around 17% of trans people had experienced a conversion practice from a professional counsellor, Dr Psychologist. I think their definitiion of conversion is not being affirmed. I think I will post a blog piece by a gay male therapist which says in his opinion Rainbow Youth are failing their young people. Its very well writtien and for the record he is not Christian or connected with Family First.
           • Cricklewood 1.1.2.4.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 7:14 pm

             Tend to agree with the patronizing part… we need more young people that are engaged enough in our political system to appear like that. I feel Ginny could have made a far better fist of disagreeing with his interpretation of the bill.

             Came across as Im the grown up and you're wrong silly boy.

             Bit like the response to Rex posted the other day in that it was disrespectful. You can disagree and at least maintain some decorum and treat submitters with respect.
           • mac1 1.1.2.4.1.2

             7 October 2021 at 7:39 pm

             I have to say that I watched the video looking for disrespect. I saw none. I saw a young man reading from a prepared script, at times poorly which made me wonder whether he had written it. When he finished he was told that MP Anderson disagreed with his interpretation, saying he had misunderstood the bill and therefore needed to read the bill again.

             What the actual argument is over I truly have no opinion on, apart from a desire to see fair play for all.

             I have been following the debate in a fashion, but have not gone outside what I have read on The Standard.

             I am still none the wiser. But I have read a lot of mixed feelings from commenters.

             Again I say I have no position on this issue, yet. I would appreciate a dispassionate direction as to the issue here. Can a Standard author write such a post, or direct me to something that explains the issues to a 72 year old, usually tolerant and liberal in opinions?

             But I need more than a direction to a video accusing an MP of behaviour that I could not discover…….
             • Anne …

               7 October 2021 at 8:04 pm

               I saw none. I saw a young man reading from a prepared script, at times poorly which made me wonder whether he had written it.

               They were my thoughts too. And if we are correct mac1 then it would explain his inability to reply to the MP's response because he hadn't written it in the first place. 🙂
             • ianmac …

               7 October 2021 at 10:24 pm

               Agreed Mac1, Anne and others.I thought Ginny was OK. I wouldn't mind being spoken to as Blake was. Time limitations and pleased that Blake was willing to have a go.
         • Brigid 1.1.2.4.2

           7 October 2021 at 8:02 pm

           So scroll right on by
     • SPC 1.1.3

       7 October 2021 at 7:10 pm

       It's a link to a video of a presentation to a SC. Nothing to doubt about it's veracity, so the source is not "fair game" or reason to impugn the poster.
       • solkta 1.1.3.1

         7 October 2021 at 7:17 pm

         She is still sharing a link to a religeous right website and not caring about any fallout. A strange action for a feminist.
         • weka 1.1.3.1.1

           7 October 2021 at 7:21 pm

           and you're running a derail rather than addressing the issues raised /shrug.
         • SPC 1.1.3.1.2

           7 October 2021 at 7:23 pm

           Religious right wing sites are now probably linking to sites of feminists despite their patriarchy promise keeper bent …

           It's not the first time, moral conservatives and feminists – prohibition and pornography.
           • Anker 1.1.3.1.2.1

             7 October 2021 at 7:27 pm

             Oh FFS I think I explained I saw the clip on Parliament website. Its hard to back track and watch a whole lot of presentations to find the one you want to review. I remember the boys name so I googled it. Thats what came up. End of.

             As I said Solkta I don't care to much about that. I care about the other things I listed
             • SPC …

               7 October 2021 at 7:35 pm

               FFS indeed … I hope you considered context better than you did reading my post when looking at the proposed legislation.
           • Anker 1.1.3.1.2.2

             7 October 2021 at 7:34 pm

             spc. where is your evidence/?
             • SPC …

               7 October 2021 at 7:35 pm

               Breathe.
     • Sabine 1.1.4

       7 October 2021 at 7:15 pm

       so the clip with a stamp of House of Representative dodgy, or just the host of the video clip?
     • weka 1.1.5

       7 October 2021 at 7:20 pm

       it's a NZ government SC video on youtube. As Anker points out, it's hard to find the SC videos later, but often other people have put them up independently.

       Is there a connection other than that between FF and the submitter?
       • Anker 1.1.5.1

         7 October 2021 at 7:33 pm

         this young man made it clear he is not a Christian. So doubt their is.
     • Sabine 1.1.6

       7 October 2021 at 7:21 pm

       maybe you like this host better? It is still the same clip, same content, all the stuff you don't want to discuss.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3eInI8r0mw

       and that is the host of the clip from the submission, maybe this person will satisify your purity level?
       https://au.linkedin.com/in/ckarena
       • solkta 1.1.6.1

         7 October 2021 at 7:30 pm

         As i said, the response was patronising, but not incorrect.
   • SPC 1.2

     7 October 2021 at 7:12 pm

     Majority of submitters does not speak to credibility, just to the effectiveness of organised campaigns.
     • Sabine 1.2.1

       7 October 2021 at 7:26 pm

       We must have already forgotten that SUFW actually had to go to court to hold some speeches. OH, but that was un-speak, un-desirable speak, un-consented speak, un-censored speak, and we can't have that.

       It can't be that people really do have some issues with this bill, right? They must be of the far right, mis-informed, phobic of this and that, and just super extremist religious, and coached to the hilt. Right?

       Oh my, the future is going to be so entertaining.
       • SPC 1.2.1.1

         7 October 2021 at 7:41 pm

         What did any of that have to do with my post?
         • Sabine 1.2.1.1.1

           7 October 2021 at 8:15 pm

           Majority of submitters does not speak to credibility, just to the effectiveness of organised campaigns.

           Maybe the majority of submitters do speak very credibly about the overall shittyness of said bill and its potential pitfalls, and that very little of that had anything to do with any organised campaigns, considering that the only group that organised anything had to go to court to be allowed to do tho and was labeled a 'hate group'.

           But then, what was you sayin?
           • SPC 1.2.1.1.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 8:23 pm

             You think only one group organised against the legislation? Look up the DR to see another group mentioned. There will have been others.

             My comments referred to two fallacies occurring in the debate

             1. one that having a majority of submissions makes a position more credible
             2. and the relevance of the source of a link to the issue being discussed (one can note the irony of disparate groups on the same side of an issue but this does not speak to merit).
       • SPC 1.2.1.2

         7 October 2021 at 8:40 pm

         Do you have any idea if SUFW has any position/submission on this issue (after the earlier one on BDMRR)?
     • Craig H 1.2.2

       7 October 2021 at 9:15 pm

       The Public Service Act was a prime example of that – so many anti-Maori submissions…
   • Pete 1.3

     7 October 2021 at 8:44 pm

     She thought he had the wrong end of the stick and she told him that. I guess the best thing would have been for her to have said nothing.
     • Anker 1.3.1

       8 October 2021 at 5:47 pm

       I agree Pete. I think it would have been more appropriate just to thank this lad for taking the time to submit.

       BTW most submitters have similar concerns to Blake
2. Delia 2

   7 October 2021 at 6:24 pm

   This is the Labour Party today, if not rude to women's rights women, now dismissing young people who do not toe the Labour line. As to your comment about FF they published the video, the young man is not a Christian. Labour has treated submitters rudely for days now. Even if Blake were, a god forbid, Christian, he still has the right to. be heard fairly.
   • Nordy 2.1

     7 October 2021 at 6:52 pm

     Again what nonsense. If submitters turn up and argue incorrectly or mistakenly on what a bill is about and why, they need to expect that those people who actually understand the bill will point that out to them.
     • Anker 2.1.1

       7 October 2021 at 7:06 pm

       Well Nordy have you read the Bill? The RIS? because I think you are incorrect. Most of the submitters against the Bill have some very real concerns.

       Someone I know is a counsellor and he realizes he could be criminalized under this bill for offering explortary therapy rather than the affirmative model.
       • McFlock 2.1.1.1

         7 October 2021 at 8:08 pm

         Well, no:

         (2) However, conversion practice does not include—

         • (a) a health service provided by a health practitioner in accordance with the practitioner’s scope of practice; or

         […]

         • (d) providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or
         • (e) facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual; or

         […]

         Your friend has several outs for genuine therapy or even just non-healthcare-based listening.
         • Anker 2.1.1.1.1

           7 October 2021 at 8:36 pm

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyzOL2BXTMQ

           Nordy and McFlock/. I invite you both to read this blog piece by a gay male counsellor about how we are failing our Rainbow Youth. In the blog piece Paul mentions affirmative therapy. This is when a persons gender identity is automatically affirmed.

           As I wrote before a significant number of young people in counting ourselves believed they had received a conversion practice from health professionals.

           Why my friend may have several outs I can assure you that no counsellor wants to face the threat of criminal proceedings. I think it is unfair that counsellors would be covered by this act at all. They have professional bodies who people can make complaints to if they are unhappy with their treatment.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 8:53 pm

             did you mean to link to something else?
           • Molly 2.1.1.1.1.2

             8 October 2021 at 8:44 am

             Link to Paul Letham's post about his experience of being abruptly – and unprofessionally released from his counselling role at Rainbow Youth NZ after a decade of association.
             • Molly …

               8 October 2021 at 9:07 am

               Of interest is the discussion in the comments regarding NZ stats.
         • Anker 2.1.1.1.2

           7 October 2021 at 8:51 pm

           McFlock counsellors are not counted as health practitioners because they are not accredited under the act.
           • McFlock 2.1.1.1.2.1

             7 October 2021 at 10:19 pm

             "Or" is a wonderful word in any legislation.

             As long as they can tick one of the boxes, there isn't a problem.

             If they genuinely haven't kept up with proposed regulatory changes relating to their profession, they're possibly not very good. Or do we expect more of pub bouncers than we do of people entrusted to treat children who have complex emotional or psychological needs?
             • Anker …

               8 October 2021 at 5:41 pm

               McFlock just to clarify, The New Zealand Counsellors Association is an organisation (NZAC) chose not to become acredited under the Health Practitioners Act. They still have rigourous registration process, high ethical standards and on-going professional development requirements to the highest standards. So the organisation choosing not to go through the acreditation process is nothing to do with the quality of their practitioners. You comment about expecting more of pub bouncers, shows a lack of understanding of what acreditation means. It is a little bit of a slur on cournsellors a very valuable and scarce resource with the mental health issues we have. If you want to see the quality read the link that Molly posted by a gay counsellor who works in the Rainbow space and believes we are failing our Rainbow youth. It makes sobering reading.

               Many psychotherapists regret becoming accredited because it is a costly process and adds very little to what they do.
               • McFlock …

                 8 October 2021 at 6:04 pm

                 I made no comment about them as "health practitioners".

                 As an individual, if someone is working with serious and life-altering issues of any type, they need to know the extent of their legal obligations and responsibilities. I was expected to know that on the door.

                 Even as a non-HP, there may be a variety of mandatory reporting and confidentiality issues that make the fairly concise and plain-language aspects of the proposed ban on conversion therapy quite trivial.

                 And beyond any individual awareness of their legal obligations and liabilities, this is the exact sort of thing their professional bodies should be submitting on and providing information to their members about.

                 The fact that your counsellor friend is worried possibly means they haven't bothered reading the bill (and reflecting upon how that might affect their actual practise) or asking their professional body for guidance.

                 Or they have matched the bill against their practise, and discovered that their practise can be reasonably interpreted as "performed with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression", and that they cannot reasonably argue that their practise is

                 • (c) assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or
                 • (d) providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or
                 • (e) facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual;

                 Are they intending to change anyone's sexual orientation? No? No problem then.
         • weka 2.1.1.1.3

           7 October 2021 at 8:51 pm

           thanks for being the first person to link to the Bill, so that we don't have to go round and round in people's reckons and we can reference what the law is actually intended to say.
           • McFlock 2.1.1.1.3.1

             7 October 2021 at 10:19 pm

             gotta practise what I preach, lol
         • SPC 2.1.1.1.4

           7 October 2021 at 9:20 pm

           I am not sure about the reference to Section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

           as to the definition of medical practitioner.

           Section 5(1) was repealed, on 12 April 2019, by section 4 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Act 2019 (2019 No 11).

           https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0011/latest/whole.html#LMS57880
           • SPC 2.1.1.1.4.1

             7 October 2021 at 9:35 pm

             Section 4 of the proposed legislation before the SC.

             In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

             conversion practice has the meaning given to it in section 5

             health practitioner has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

             health service has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

             scope of practice has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

             serious harm, in relation to an individual, means any physical, psychological, or emotional harm that seriously and detrimentally affects the health, safety, or welfare of the individual.

             https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2021/0056/latest/LMS487211.html
           • McFlock 2.1.1.1.4.2

             7 October 2021 at 10:11 pm

             "health practitioner" is still in, "medical practitioner" is out.
             • SPC …

               7 October 2021 at 10:46 pm

               Yeah, this time I found the footnote at the bottom of the 2003 legislation.
       • Nordy 2.1.1.2

         7 October 2021 at 8:09 pm

         Yes, I have.

         Having concerns is not the same as actually knowing or understanding the Bill.

         Finally, if the counsellor you know is actually at risk of being criminalised under the provisions under the bill, then they need to take a long hard look at what they doing, as their actions are clearly not acceptable.
         • Anker 2.1.1.2.1

           7 October 2021 at 8:40 pm

           Do you not realize that some people will think anything other than automatic affirmation is a form of conversion practice?

           Ask yourself this. If you were a counsellor and it was possible you could face the threat of a criminal prosecution when working with a group of people would you still work with them? I wouldn't. I would work with other clients where if Ithere is a complaint made, then it goes to my professional body. Not the police.

           Sometimes people make false complaints.
           • Nordy 2.1.1.2.1.1

             7 October 2021 at 9:21 pm

             Sometimes people make false assertions about proposed legislation. That doesn't change reality.
             • Anker …

               8 October 2021 at 5:42 pm

               Nordy do you mean I have made false assertions about proposed legislation.

               I don't think it is possible to be clear about this legislation because we don't know how it is going to look in the end.
     • miravox 2.1.2

       7 October 2021 at 9:43 pm

       "they need to expect that those people who actually understand the bill will point that out to them"

       Do they? I thought this was an information gathering process. I thought presenting submissions was to be heard, not to be debated or dismissed in the hearing. I imagined that debate about a submission would occur in committee discussions. I would have thought the MPs job (no matter how infuriating or boring) in this process was to listen and take note.

       That's what I would expect, if I was ever courageous enough to make an in-person submission. What a way to put people off oral submissions, to be belittled in public. I've never thought that is how democracy works.

       If submitters don't understand the bill, surely that's something to be noted in terms of wording and content. It's valuable information in terms of getting a bill right.

       Note: I'm not commenting on the content or quality of that submission here, just the process.
       • left for dead 2.1.2.1

         8 October 2021 at 7:12 am

         Good points miravox,sad too see the fragmented left at it again,this is Daily review isn't it as Open mike we can cover what ever,if some are not interested 'just go past it',simple as that.Their are plenty on the right of politics that will slap down the left,lets stop doing it to ourselfs,please.
3. Gezza 3

   7 October 2021 at 6:49 pm

   The thoughts of Chairman Bob…

   “TERRIBLE LYING BY PFIZER
   Sir Bob Jones October 6, 2021

   Pfizer claim they waited six weeks despite their urging, for New Zealand Government officials to actually meet with them and discuss vaccine supplies last year.

   That is a disgraceful slur. Surely they know we were actually at the head of the queue for vaccines, as then Health Minister Hipkins, not once but twice told the nation last year.

   Hipkins should sue the buggers.”
   • Patricia Bremner 3.1

     7 October 2021 at 7:10 pm

     Hipkins explained that they were then at that juncture, looking over 40 different suppliers/vaccines and I think from memory a 56 page proposal from Pfizer…. that would not be an instant decision.
     • Cricklewood 3.1.1

       7 October 2021 at 7:22 pm

       True, given it did take a couple days to clarify as to whether or not you could use a toilet, can understand how it would take a while…
   • Cricklewood 3.2

     7 October 2021 at 7:10 pm

     Not going to lie, I quite enjoy Sir Bobs commentary from time to time…
   • AB 3.3

     7 October 2021 at 7:29 pm

     Pfizer claim they waited six weeks despite their urging, for New Zealand Government officials to actually meet with them and discuss vaccine supplies last year.

     Notice what Sir Bob did there? He indicated that the discussion in around May 2020 was about 'supplies'. It can't have been about supplies because the Pfizer vaccine wasn't in commercial production at that time, probably wasn't approved for use anywhere, and I'd assume was still fairly early in its clinical trials. Any discussion would have been in the realm of technical pre-sales – Pfizer making sure that they stayed on any vaccine candidate shortlist the NZ government might be developing.

     There is only one person being dishonest here – and I think it's the property speculator. Which would not be unexpected.
     • Gezza 3.3.1

       7 October 2021 at 8:25 pm

       I enjoy the occasional read of Sir Bob's blog. Mainly for the sycophantic commenters.

       Sir Bob's not one to worry about letting the facts get in the way of a good satire – or a good story.

       On one of his frequent anti-"Māori wonderfulness" rants he dashed off a bit of Māori history, including that Kupe fished up the North Island. It was Maui who fished up the North Island, not Kupe – hence the Māori name Te-Ika-a-Maui.

       It's hard to tell where he's taking the piss & where he's possibly being serious sometimes.
       • Cricklewood 3.3.1.1

         7 October 2021 at 8:57 pm

         Yeah tbh I think some of thats a deliberate troll… he's alot of things but stupid isnt one of them.
   • weka 3.4

     7 October 2021 at 8:49 pm

     I was going to say to link, always, for context. But turns out there is no context. Jones is being a dick, again.

     https://nopunchespulled.com/2021/10/06/terrible-lying-by-pfizer/

     (but yeah, always link if you are cut and pasting)
4. weka 4

   7 October 2021 at 8:47 pm

   Is anyone interested in a film club? The Social Dilemma is free to view for October. We could set up a timeframe eg a week, for people to watch, and then on the weekend I put up a post and we get to talk about the film.
   • Molly 4.1

     8 October 2021 at 8:47 am

     I am.
5. Cricklewood 5

   7 October 2021 at 8:53 pm

   Interesting study… if correct we've got a very long way to go.

   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
   • weka 5.1

     7 October 2021 at 8:58 pm

     yes. I think there are quite a number of people who are going to be disappointed next year. We really should be teaching people how to manage chronic stress at this point, including fear and uncertainty.
   • Cricklewood 5.2

     7 October 2021 at 9:19 pm

     The summary I think has an important message for everyone… " even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humilty and respect… Stigmatzing populations can do more harm than good…" those aee messages some commenters here would do well to take onboard.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS