Canadian COVID-19 News

[GordMay]

Ontario Outlines Steps to Cautiously and Gradually Ease Public Health Measures
The Ontario government has announced a new phased approach, to ease health restrictions, in the province, beginning on January 31, 2022.
➥ https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1...ealth-measures

The following ‘Step Two’ public health and workplace safety measures are currently in effect.
➥ https://covid-19.ontario.ca/public-health-measures

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's amusing, but as usual, our contrarians miss their understanding of Consent that is Manufactured by half. Perhaps he should re-read Chomsky.

Perhaps you all should.

.........in 1983, fifty giant
firms dominated almost every mass medium; but just seven years later, in
1990, only twenty-three firms occupied the same commanding position.4
Since 1990, a wave of massive deals and rapid globalization have
left the media industries further centralized in nine transnational conglomerates-Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom (owner of CBS), News
Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric (owner of NBC), Sony,
AT&T-Liberty Media, and Vivendi Universal. These giants own all the
world's major film studios, TV networks, and music companies, and a
sizable fraction of the most important cable channels, cable systems,
magazines, major-market TV stations, and book publishers. The largest,
the recently merged AOL Time Warner, has integrated the leading Internet portal into the traditional media system. Another fifteen firms round
out the system, meaning that two dozen firms control nearly the entirety
of media ..........
https://focalizalaatencion.files.wor...ingconsent.pdf

two dozen firms control nearly the entirety
of media That was in 2002, today (even in Canada) how many? three or four?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A Rare Moment of Cross-Partisan Consensus:
Elite and Public Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada
*The Media Ecosystem Observatory recently launched a research project, surveying 2,500 Canadians between March 25 and 31. When they analyzed the data, they found no differences, across partisan lines, in terms of social distancing measures that are being taken. Conservative voters are just as likely to engage in social distancing, as Liberal voters, and NDP voters.

Survey data show that individual-level partisan differences are small, and disappear when controlling for demographics, and left-right ideology. Elite and public response to the COVID-19 pandemic can be characterized as a cross-partisan consensus.
➥ https://osf.io/xas4u/

➥ https://www.mediaecosystemobservatory.com/

This reflects what I've been seeing.

In sharp contrast to what one sees on cable news or social media, which likes to focus on the extreme examples as representative.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's amusing, but as usual, our contrarians miss their understanding of Consent that is Manufactured by half. Perhaps he should re-read Chomsky.

What's really amusing to the point of being laughable is that most likely none of you vaccine cultists commenting on this article have actually taken the time to read it, except for Stu who clearly skipped the whole body of the article and went directly to the conclusion.

This is emblematic of the intellectual laziness on the part of many of you to actually take the time to do some real research and inform yourselves. All of you seem to depend on filtered, processed propaganda handed to you ready to consume. It's as destructive to your critical thinking ability as a steady diet of processed food warmed up in the microwave. Laziness is the core problem in both cases.
.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's not hard to know what Chomsky thinks of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers:

Noam Chomsky says the unvaccinated should just remove themselves from society

His analysis of the spread of mis/disinformation, and the manufacturing of "alternative facts" consent is exactly the point.

Just shows you how irrelevant Noam Chomsky has become. I didn't even know he was still around.

By his logic, why don't the vulnerable remove themselves? They're a smaller percentage of the population.

The reality is that we don't have to remove either of them. Omicron is a fairly definable threat at this point, and folks who want to be vaccinated can be (at least in the first world). People have masks and social distancing.

More and more countries are already coming out with plans that will allow us to co-exist with covid, and this is the realistic path forward.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's not hard to know what Chomsky thinks of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers:

Noam Chomsky says the unvaccinated should just remove themselves from society
He bought into the overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of the vaccines fallacy
His analysis of the spread of mis/disinformation, and the manufacturing of "alternative facts" consent is exactly the point.

A more subtle though highly consequential case is vaccine rejection, persisting in the face of overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of the vaccines and the grave danger of refusal. https://chomsky.info/20210510/

Holding on to the vaccines, refusing to give them to Africa and Asia. It’s not just beyond immoral, especially considering what Europe did to these areas over the centuries, it’s suicidal.https://chomsky.info/20210510/

How did Africa fare without them? Where is the overwhelming evidence that these vaccines could stop the spread? (not in the trials, not in the massaged statistics, and not in any of the posts here on Cruisers Forum)
I hate to say but Chomsky has become a bit of a sell out.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This reflects what I've been seeing.

In sharp contrast to what one sees on cable news or social media, which likes to focus on the extreme examples as representative.

There is a huge divide in our perspective and behaviours. These authors chose to study it along political affiliation lines but a much better/more relevant analysis would have been to divide people by their everyday work lives. Segments could include medical practitioners, retirees, professionals working from home, construction workers, and police.

In my experience you will see contrasts between those able to stay home every day (and get their information from the news media) with one set of beliefs and risk management behaviours from those out in the work world among others.

In my view this is one of the significant reasons for our polarization on these issues. We have very different data being processed by our minds based on where we are getting our information. The physician who spends their days among the sick from Covid will have very different perspectives than the police officer who spends their days handling domestic disturbances and drug overdoses.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by danstanford

There is a huge divide in our perspective and behaviours. These authors chose to study it along political affiliation lines but a much better/more relevant analysis would have been to divide people by their everyday work lives. Segments could include medical practitioners, retirees, professionals working from home, construction workers, and police.

In my experience you will see contrasts between those able to stay home every day (and get their information from the news media) with one set of beliefs and risk management behaviours from those out in the work world among others.

In my view this is one of the significant reasons for our polarization on these issues. We have very different data being processed by our minds based on where we are getting our information. The physician who spends their days among the sick from Covid will have very different perspectives than the police officer who spends their days handling domestic disturbances and drug overdoses.

Sure, if folks can stay home, maybe they will.

But I think you'll find a lot less difference between medical professionals and police officers. They both have to interact with the public, and they're likely to be working under the guidelines and requirements of their organizations. If they're public facing, they're generally masking up and respecting personal distance to the degree they can.

There is more of a difference between different communities, as most people are following the local guidelines.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This reflects what I've been seeing.

In sharp contrast to what one sees on cable news or social media, which likes to focus on the extreme examples as representative.

Well I can tell you aren't in Alberta lol.

I think that polls like this are almost irrelevant these days as the voting political spectrum is increasingly at odds with the social political/policy spectrum. In Canada and the US the right is tearing itself apart worse than the NDP ever did over issues where fiscal policies intersect social policies. Good for us centrist, bad for the state of politics.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

Well I can tell you aren't in Alberta lol.

I think that polls like this are almost irrelevant these days as the voting political spectrum is increasingly at odds with the social political/policy spectrum. In Canada and the US the right is tearing itself apart worse than the NDP ever did over issues where fiscal policies intersect social policies. Good for us centrist, bad for the state of politics.

I'm suggesting that our news sources are intentionally provocative as a business model.

How often do you hear reasoned debate in the media? I don't hear much of that, unless it's from people I know.

Most of the media is dedicated to placating their audience, and keeping them in an ideological bubble.

There are plenty of real differences. But instead of focusing on the two sides as potentially legitimate perspectives, the media has the tendency to highlight extreme examples of "the other side" being unreasonable, or downright crazy.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I'm suggesting that our news sources are intentionally provocative as a business model.

How often do you hear reasoned debate in the media? I don't hear much of that, unless it's from people I know.

Most of the media is dedicated to placating their audience, and keeping them in an ideological bubble.

There are plenty of real differences. But instead of focusing on the two sides as potentially legitimate perspectives, the media has the tendency to highlight extreme examples of "the other side" being unreasonable, or downright crazy.

The Media! The Media! How often do you hear reasoned debate? Period. Not here in the forums, not on social media, not around the family dinner table, not on tv... Honestly the only place I ever encounter reasoned debate anymore is in novels.

The media are no worse or no better than any other commercial enterprise (I will make an exception for extremest outlets like the WSWS or Brietbarts, who are apparently completely driven by a social/political agenda). Half the world wants a government funded media that is free from a profit motive and the other half wants a corporate-owned one that is free from Gov't interference. And the third half apparently believes it doesn't matter because they are all controlled by some sort of conspiracy and people are sheeple and in a global environment we should get our information by talking to Bob and Achmed at the coffee shop.

But this is the part that really kills me:

But instead of focusing on the two sides as potentially legitimate perspectives,

Two sides? TWO sides? What universe are you from where this issue (or any issue for that matter) breaks down to two sides? No two people in my social circle agree on anything to do with Covid... Thankfully those close to me are all polite enough to suck it up and do what's socially acceptable. We could do with lot more of that agenda in the media if you ask me.

—Edmonton Journalé
Suck It UP People
The government in consultation with medical and health authorities announced a new plan today. Citizens are encouraged to suck it up and get this thing over with. Some experts agree the potential that this is all a global farce remain but conclude that if we all get with the program that there is some hope of getting back to some sort of normalcy and we can deal with the controlling b@stards on our own time.

In other news the Journalé is announcing that as of Monday it is expanding Section C by another hundred pages to accommodate the 15 new viewpoints approved by the Editorial Board (who are definitely not in the pockets of the government but do admit to being vulnerable to stockholder influence).

[Stu Jackson]

Superb, Instant Classic!!!

Originally Posted by Macblaze

The Media! The Media! How often do you hear reasoned debate? Period. Not here in the forums, not on social media, not around the family dinner table, not on tv... Honestly the only place I ever encounter reasoned debate anymore is in novels.

The media are no worse or no better than any other commercial enterprise (I will make an exception for extremest outlets like the WSWS or Brietbarts, who are apparently completely driven by a social/political agenda). Have the world wants a government funded media that is free from a profit motive and the other half wants a corporate-owned one that is free from Gov't interference. And the third half apparently believes it doesn't matter because they are all controlled by some sort of conspiracy and people are sheeple and in a global environment we should get our information by talking to Bob and Achmed at the coffee shop.

But this is the part that really kills me:


Two sides? TWO sides? What universe are you from where this issue (or any issue for that matter) breaks down to two sides? No two people in my social circle agree on anything to do with Covid... Thankfully those close to me are all polite enough to suck it up and do what's socially acceptable. We could do with lot more of that agenda in the media if you ask me.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

By [Chomsky's] logic, why don't the vulnerable remove themselves? They're a smaller percentage of the population.

Because vulnerability is a roll of the dice (ignoring for the moment the flaws in society that create and exacerbate some vulnerability), whereas not getting vaccinated is a conscious choice?

More and more countries are already coming out with plans that will allow us to co-exist with covid, and this is the realistic path forward.

Yes it is. Let's plan for that time. It is not yet here.

I'm suggesting that our news sources are intentionally provocative as a business model.
...
Most of the media is dedicated to placating their audience, and keeping them in an ideological bubble.

I can readily see that consumers of exclusively US media might have that perspective (and then assume the same about other countries).

But you've never been quite clear about their "agenda".

..."Ideological bubble"

As before, I can only suggest you cast a wider net, avoid binging on cable news, and apply more real discernment to what you read, and maybe relax your agenda of constantly asserting that all media bend truth to fit some agenda.

How often do you hear reasoned debate in the media? I don't hear much of that, unless it's from people I know.

That sounds like "it's not reasoned debate unless I agree with it"...

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But you've never been quite clear about their "agenda".

..."Ideological bubble"

As before, I can only suggest you cast a wider net, avoid binging on cable news, and apply more real discernment to what you read, and maybe relax your agenda of constantly asserting that all media bend truth to fit some agenda.
That sounds like "it's not reasoned debate unless I agree with it"...

Even if I agree with someone I tend to notice if they have their thumbs on the scale.

It's not really that hard to give different perspectives an honest go.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

The media are no worse or no better than any other commercial enterprise (I will make an exception for extremest outlets like the WSWS or Brietbarts, who are apparently completely driven by a social/political agenda).




Two sides? TWO sides? What universe are you from where this issue (or any issue for that matter) breaks down to two sides? No two people in my social circle agree on anything to do with Covid... Thankfully those close to me are all polite enough to suck it up and do what's socially acceptable. We could do with lot more of that agenda in the media if you ask me.

C'mon, man.

"No better or worse than any other commercial enterprise" isn't much of a standard. And from my perspective, they ALL seem to have a social/political agenda. So they're trying to make money AND push a social narrative.

As for two sides, yes, it's more complex than that. I'm all for airing more opinions, but we're lucky to get two. The media tends to go all in airing the most extreme narratives of the side they're opposed to, while pushing the moderate (reasonable) agenda on their side. Which tend to coincide with the talking points of their favored political party.

I particularly like the roundtable formats, which are invariably composed of 3-4 members of one ideology, and 1 token member of the other. This isn't debate.

Reasoned debate is not unreasonable things to want. Every once in a while you run across some of it.