uncontrolled obliteration in the context of the entire planet from nuclear holocausts, germ warfare run amok, etc. — Outlander

That would be a "reset" button. The end of life as we know it, but hardly the end of life. Who is to say that it has not happened before? We could be the result of microbes that were brought back and then nuked long ago. Likely over a coffee dispute.

I would be horrified to have it confirmed that this is the only planet with life, that no where out there is someone doing it better. Just depressing as hell.

If consciousness isn't in the brain:

- why do changes to the brain change consciousness?

- how do thoughts/ideas cause our arms to lift, punch a guy we hate, etc — GLEN willows

I will support consciousness as outside the brain.

To answer your first question, brain changes resulting in consciousness changes, I propose the following for consideration: the brain is the medium through which we are able to directly control our bodies, and therefore, our ability to communicate our consciousness. It stands therefore that changes to the medium of control will result in perceived changes to consciousness. Perhaps consciousness does not, in truth, change due to changes in the brain, however, if, as a result of a brain change, one is no longer able to communicate at their previous level of consciousness, then, to an observer, consciousness has changed, when in truth, the ability to demonstrate said consciousness has changed.

To address your second question, subconscious learning is responsible for thought/desire leading to action. Your body learned to react to thoughts and desires before the brain learned formal language, effectively removing these "basic" processes from the formal though pathways which we have grown accustomed to. We plan our movements along a pathway, consciously, when there are choices available to us regarding those pathways. For example, I want to go get a coffee (desire) should I take the stairs (pathway A) or the elevator (pathway B) to the coffee shop? The path is optional, however, walking is required on either path and the control of my legs and balance is not part of my formal consciousness, however is part of my subconsciousness; as otherwise I would continue to walk on you chosen path even if I lost consciousness, similarly to how we continue to breath and have a heart beat even when unconscious. Our formal consciousness operates much too slowly to process all of the requirements of movement otherwise. This is why martial artists practice their moves so much, so that the body remembers what to do in response to a perceived threat subconsciously and reaction time does not rely on the very slow formal consciousness processing. Think about how fast you move your hand if you think about pulling it away as quickly as you can. Then recall the last time you spilled boiling water on it, and the reaction time associated with that. Subconscious reaction is much faster than formal consciousness reaction. Bruce Lee did not stop to consider all the implications of the possibilities of the actions of his opponents, his body reacted to their movements faster than formal consciousness could process the movement. Practice and conditioning in harmony.

I have not looked over the link provided. I did not see the link as I read through, likely just missed it. If it is a new perspective on it I may look it over, if it is the same tired rhetoric, I will pass. People seem to have forgotten about all the horrible stuff that has happened to poor white people, usually done by other white people, so the concept of white privilege rings hollow to me. The horror of Church run residential schools have gotten lots of press in recent years, rightly so, however very little has been said about the equally horribly Church run orphanages. The only appreciable difference in the residents of both is race, so I find it disturbing that no one wants to discuss the orphanages. I guess those didn't happen. I am a product of one, and not the other, so between me and the kid beside me, one of us doesn't matter in the current climate, which I consider fundamentally wrong. If it's wrong for Bob then it's wrong for me. One set of rules for everyone. Not race or gender (or whatever flavour of the week may be) dependent treatment or laws, THAT is the definition of discrimination. Free speech for everyone, listening is optional. Disagree with me if you will, be don't silence me because of it.

I did not call you racist. I said white privilege, as it is used 95% of the time, is bullshit. I stand by that. No idea if you are racist, I don't know you well enough to make any claim of the sort.

Karma for being white apparently, I have no idea. I hear the same crap all the time, and it's garbage. I guess poor white people don't feel hunger or cold or loneliness or anything else that would demoralize anyone. We also don't bleed or feel pain because....white privilege I guess.

Yes. It's called "being civilized". — baker

No. It's called being silenced by a mob.

The unstated reality of it is that one may voice and pursue any opinion, as long as no one gets offended. Apparently the right to never be offended is of far more value than freedom of speech, or of inquiry. I was, too say the least, very disappointed in the reality of higher education here. It was astoundingly rigid and conformist, not what I had expected at all. Live and learn eh.

Everyone that had evidence was silenced and then expelled...

I am not seeing a question...However, while I cannot speak to higher education in the UK, having never visited there, I can speak to higher education in Canada.

Short version: freedom of speech is allowed within the accepted views of the current political narrative. So students are free to speak as along as they support the mainstream views. However free that is. Speak against it and the speaker will be labeled as the closest fitting "ist" that can be applied to them. Depending on how loud, or how off narrative the speech is, one could be looking at academic probation, having funding removed, for students who are attending on grants, or being removed from the school. The last time I attended university I was advised to "Go to class, shut up, and keep your head down. If you speak up you paint a target on your chest; then you're done." I learned a great deal in university about covering my ass, how to assess weaknesses, and that every encounter must be documented accurately for when (not if) an instructor or student decides to take you down. None of that was in the official academic program, but was required learning in order to make it through.

If the government has decided that universities need a "free speech champion" then free speech has been being stifled for a long time. When was the last time a government did anything quickly? That isn't really what they are known for.

My disagreeing with the current narrative will have no difference on the number of people that die. ZERO impact. if the vaccine works, great. If it doesn't but has no other issues, just is ineffective, fair enough. However, if it works, but somehow has other far reaching issues that we, at this time don't know about, that could end up being much worse. Everyone thought thalidomide was the best thing ever, until kids were born missing limbs, then, not so great. I am thinking people would have rather waited on that medication a little longer, maybe get better information to make a decision from.

The urgency of the situation is relative. Give the current number of Covid infected people Ebola. That is an urgent situation. Covid...not so much. It is increasing normal death rates by about 7%. It's an increase, but not worth all fuss.

my main point of concern is that the sales pitch of the new vaccines is very nearly what we use to describe an autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease: your immune system sees something that your body produces as an "other" and begins to attack it, resulting in systemic inflammation and pain, etc.

Vaccine: The mRNA goes into your cell, which produces a spike that your body recognizes as an "other" and mounts an immune response to it, thereby protecting you from the vaccine when/if it shows up.

So both ways, your body produces something, which is recognized as an "other" and triggers an immune response...only one is bad for you, and potentially life long and life altering or ending, and the other is, we don't know how long for, but good for you, and life saving. Seems a little...screwy.

I just want data. Real data that I can interpret myself. The sales pitch is too much like "it works because it's good for you and it's good for you because it works!" There isn't much behind it.

Good discussion, but we are way off topic eh!

The coronavirus vaccine is nothing like the flu vaccine. If it were I would have no issue with it. The previous attempt to make a corona virus vaccine, 2012, ended with a series of vaccines (3 to be specific) that appeared to create protection initially, however, 2 months after vaccine administration the test subjects (mice and monkeys) were exposed to sars covid 1 (original SARS virus) The control group (no vaccine given) has less initial immune response, day 1, however by the end of day two the control group was fairing better than any of the vaccinated groups. At which point, being an experiment, all subjects were killed and studied to see what was happening at the cellular level. The control group had infected (inflamed) lung tissue. The vaccinated groups had a greater degree of lung inflammation, smaller airways, more fluid, and area of necrosis (dead/rotting tissue) within the lungs and bronchi. The end result of the experiment was the finding that all three vaccines initially presented as being protective, however greatly increased the inflammatory response within the test subjects leading to substantially increased morbidity and mortality in all test subjects. The vaccines were deemed to be a failure and it was recommended to never pursue a coronavirus vaccine in humans. Human trials were never done. The scientists felt that having the vaccine setup the host to have an early hyperimmune response, initially thought to be a good thing, lead to the excessive and lethal response within the lungs. Interestingly, the subjects that had been exposed to the virus previously and survived had very little immune response to the second exposure and were essentially unaffected by the secondary exposure, having had a natural immunity.

Yes, I am nervous about the vaccine. Very much so.

Also, in early January (or late December, I can not recall the date) there was an article on CBC (Canadian news eh) about a long term care home in Montreal and the vaccine up take at the care home. The article claimed that 95% of the elderly residents had been vaccinated at that time and that 32% of the staff "were open" to being vaccinated. Meaning 68% of the healthcare staff gave a hard "NO". when asked if they would get the vaccine. That is a fairly accurate representation I believe. Some people where I work want it, some adamantly refuse to consider it, most say "Ask me again in ten years when we know more about the response."

My father got his first dose 2 weeks ago and gets his second dose on the 18th. He is excited about it. I am hoping it doesn't kill him in a few months when the spring wave arrives, but really, I have no idea.

No worries, I piss a lot of people off by asking questions. I appreciate your comment withdrawal. I am going against the majority of the voiced medical opinion and government position, to be sure.

I would suggest that, at least where I work, and among my colleagues at different hospitals, my opinion is the majority, however, if we speak up publicly, we will lose our jobs. I have never been in this position before. My licensing body now requires, as part of continued licensure, that I promote the current public health position. Prior to Covid I was to support and promote what was best practice and best for my patients, not a political position. This is a dramatic change and I am in no way supportive of it. I am voicing, not that the government is absolutely wrong, but that there is no data to support the claims they are making, and I believe that lying to your patient population, be it one patient, or one billion, is ethically wrong. The reality of it is that, most likely the vaccine will help, but since I have no idea about the long term effects of having had it, and I do know (as much as anyone else) that the vast majority of Covid cases will be fine, I find it very unethical to push something I am unsure of, have no data available to me, and am being told not to ask questions about.

Much of what I am asked to do for "covid prevention" at work is more about the appearance of doing something, not about the efficacy of the intervention. Again, unethical. So which is more ethical? Keep working, do the best I can for the patient in front of me, provide the best information I can at the time, knowing that, eventually I could get fired for maintaining the level of professionalism and ethics I had been trained to maintain and doing the best I can for my patients? Or walk away, because my employer is unethical and that I should not be working for them, while knowing that the patients won't know the difference, they won't question what is coming down from above?

I welcome my patients' doing their own research and asking me questions, it means they are involved in their care. Awesome! It also keeps me on my toes, and having to stay on my game, which is great too. Otherwise I might get complacent, which is one step closer to doing what I am told, rather than doing it right.

Mostly because they don't actually KNOW. At least, not by an acceptable standard. I cannot use their level of so called knowledge in my practice or I would lose my license. I need to actually KNOW what I am doing, WHY I am doing it, What I expect to change by doing it, What side effects I expect to see, and what side effects are enough of a concern to stop the treatment. The guidance here is filled with a lot of "should help..." "might reduce..." "feel strongly..." and my personal favorite "think how bad it would have been..." None of those suggest knowledge. All of them suggest...uncertainty. I cannot practice with uncertainty.

For example: if John arrives in the ER with chest pain, I will ask him if he is allergic to ASA. If he isn't he will get either 160mg chewable or 320mg chewable (depends on the school of thought of the ER doctor treating him, or the protocol of the facility, regardless he gets ASA unless he is allergic or has a bleeding ulcer problem, or is already on anticoagulants). Then he gets an IV, preferably an 18 gauge with Normal Saline running, in case he needs more advanced cardiac meds (atropine, amiodarone, epinephrine, etc) We will do an ECG, to see what part of the heart is affected by the potential blood clot, and order a bunch of blood tests to confirm cardiac muscle involvement. Specifically looking for elevated troponin levels, which if present confirm cardiac damage. We will look at chemistry, to see if his calcium, sodium or potassium are off, and will adjust those according to what we find. IF his troponin is elevated we will do another troponin 6 hours later, rising levels means more damage, dropping levels means the peak of the event is over. SO he gets ASA, which is an antiplatelet aggregate, meaning any clot won't get bigger. IF there is no clot (angina, or panic attack, etc) then the ASA we gave him will do no damage. If he has a clot, confirmed via ecg changes, elevated troponin, etc, then we either give Tenecteplase IV ( highend clot buster) based on his weight, or even better, if we have access to a Cath lab, we send him for an angiogram and likely angioplasty (they open the affected artery with a balloon). The point here is this, the initial intervention of ASA, unless contra indicated, WILL help with a blood clot in the heart. IF there is no clot, the ASA will do no harm. We do not open with the Tenecteplase, because if there is no clot to breakup John has a much higher chance of having a hemorrhagic stroke now that we gave him the clotbuster. We don't open with an angiogram/angioplasty until we KNOW it is needed. At no point in this situation do I give John anything based on my "feeling strongly that it might help" "should help" "might reduce" or any of that uncertain crap. I need to own my practice, so I research the shit out of what I may encounter and might be required to do. So that when my patient asks what to expect, I KNOW the answer, and the statistics about likely outcomes. No part of my practice is based on guess work and someone else's research.


Yes the vaccine might help, it probably will. It might also cause an autoimmune disease in five years or less, or more. It might be 97% effective against all coronavirus diseases for the life of those vaccinated. Great! It might also result in a hyperinflammatory response to the next coronavirus they are exposed to and kill them in under 3 days. I do not know any of those answers. Neither do the manufacturers frankly. There is no data on the vaccine older than six months. Everything else is theory, and theory sometimes bites you in the ass, Hard. I consider this a global experiment, longitudinal study yet to come. I can not ask my patients to accept a vaccine that I will not take and that I know nothing about, other than that the trials were rushed, it has been approved under "emergency situation", not regular approval, and that, two days before it was available my government suddenly passed a "vaccine compensation" bill to compensate anyone who suffered as a result of vaccine administration. Again, not reassuring stuff.

Roger, look around at the world. Seriously, would extinction really be that bad a thing? For us, sure. For everything else, hell no.

The rhetoric is clear. The science, not so much. I have studies that show my non-medical grade mask (required to be worn by hospital staff) doubles the chances of catching respiratory viruses. I also have studies that show wearing a cloth mask increases the chances of catching a respiratory virus by a factor of 13. Peer reviewed, robust studies.

Besides which; it's not your job to decide how to fight this virus. This is a situation where the patriotic thing to do, the sensible and capitalist thing to do, is wear the mask, wash your hands, keep your distance from people, and get vaccinated asap. — counterpunch

It kind of is my job to decide how to fight this virus, I am supposed to sell the public health pitch to my patients so it is more than slightly helpful if I believe it at all.
No idea how wearing a mask is patriotic, feel free to explain that one.
Capitalist, sure, if you are selling masks.
Wash your hands and keep your distance. Absolutely, but that isn't new, so no changes there.
Get vaccinated asap. Not a bloody chance. I won't stop anyone from getting it if they want to as I believe in personal autonomy, but I also believe in informed consent, and at this point, I have nowhere near enough information to consider myself informed. I have a sales pitch, skewed math, and a pronounced "don't ask too many questions" party line. In my experience those strongly suggest a lack of knowledge.

They are still in the air, mask or no mask. The air I exhale moves around and through the mask, hence the fogging of my safety glasses. As for it preventing me from infecting others...only if I have the virus, which currently, I do not, so again, useless.

Since I am unconcerned about catching this virus I am equally concerned about passing it around. I believe that healthy immune systems should be used and am not a huge supporter of protecting the vulnerable. We have a lot of vulnerable around, protecting them all the time only means we end up with more, that need more protecting, etc. The ever expanding circle of protecting everyone from, everything, eventually. Just seems silly.

Equality does not work as a political ideal — counterpunch

Treating everyone like garbage is equality, but I don't really want to live there eh.

Because it kills people at an incredible rate. — Valentinus

what rate is that exactly? Last I checked it was about 1%. Hardly impressive, much less incredible. Ebola is around 70% fatal. Way more impressive. Not incredible, but impressive. 99.8% fatal would be incredible. When does that happen? Because THAT would be a cool little beastie!

My mask is designed to stop over 95% of bacteria, dust and pollen down to 20 microns. The virus is 1.25 microns. My mask is as effective at stopping the virus as using a volley ball net to stop paintballs. Wearing it is a job requirement so only has value in continuing to be employed. Stopping the virus is laughable. Same thing with the safety glasses I am required to wear. Only helpful if someone spits in my eye, the virus can go over, under around, etc. Since no one has spit in my eye in the previous 14 years, why would they suddenly start now?
Telling us to stop sharing water bottles, that would have an impact on viral spread. Not that I shared water bottles, but you understand my point.

I did some math when they first mandated these ridiculous things: if my mask were made to stop three foot diameter beach balls, the virus is the size of a golf ball. That is to scale. How helpful is my mask going to be?

I hate wearing a mask! Mostly because I think it's useless.

For a number of years I ran my business on the "pay what it is worth to you plus material costs" model. It worked very well, the exceedingly few people that paid nothing were likely never planning on paying anything anyway. I am considering going into private practice now and will once more resume the "pay what you think it's worth" model. I find it is more appropriate than time for money models. If I am terrible at my job then I will make less money and need to get better at it.

As for the pizza example, if I ordered the pizza and then said I want the pizza for free, that makes me a dick. However, If I called and said I will pay you what I think it's worth, I would have a pizza delivered to me by a number of pizzerias.

Also I did not say that money is unimportant. We need it to acquire necessities. I said that outside of that requirement, it holds little value in and of itself. If my needs were taken care of I could easily give my entire wage to people who have more use for it than I. There would be no reason to hold on to it.

Do people trust their leaders? I do not believe I ever have. I have seen very little which would demonstrate competence, let alone inspire trust. My theory is that the government is terrified of admitting that they are clueless about what to do. Which is unfortunate because when I admit that I do not know what is going on with a patient, to that patient, but that I am going to work and find out, and then we will figure out how to get the best result possible, I have never had a patient get angry with me. They relax as they realize that I will not lie to them as I admit I do not have an answer, and then are understanding as we move forward with their care. Admitting ignorance is rarely a bad thing. Accepting ignorance is entirely different. We should never stop looking for an answer.

Many of the facts don't add up. If there was some secret plan by the ruling elite to create massive change through the instrument of the virus I would find it heartening, even if I did not support the change, as at least it would demonstrate a level of foresight and leadership that I have never seen in our elected leaders. I suspect the response is a case of "We need to do something because the people expect us to! Quick, what did that other country do last week? Let's do that!" And now no one will step back and admit the initial response, and therefore everything built upon it, was a mistake. Our prime minister can't say "Oops, our bad. We shouldn't have locked anything down. Crumping the economy was a mistake and it had no impact on viral spread. Take off your masks and go back to work everyone, nothing to see here!" He will be torn apart by people who have lost theirs homes and businesses to the lockdowns. They (governments) have to carry on and sell what they started, eventually saying the Vaccine "saved us" and will allow us to go back to normal (ish) in a year or three. Even if the vaccine doesn't work, no one will admit it, it will all be "just think how much worse it would have been without it". Really hard to prove how bad something that never happened would have been.

What people work for is money. Why people work where they do is often not money related, more satisfaction related than monetary gain. Volunteers make no money and yet find that work exceedingly rewarding. Clearly in a non-monetary way.

I put it to you: if tomorrow you woke with a substantial amount in the bank, enough to live comfortably for the rest of your life (whatever amount that would be), would you cease working entirely, stay where you are, or change your employment for something more satisfying? I would change to something more satisfying and would continue as I have been. Work, increase my education, and so forth.

What about people just born poor who didn't have the option of Harvard or Oxford? — Kenosha Kid

Born poor does not equate to useless. If you want something bad enough you find a way to get it. Being born poor means you likely have to work harder to get it, that's all. Harvard, Oxford, or whatever school is not out of reach, although the time frame to get there maybe longer.

Not enough. It cannot be taught in schools or through government programs. It comes from within, if one is willing to honestly look at one's actions and reactions, and assess the why of them. Willing to accept being wrong and truly wanting to improve oneself. Those are rare traits, especially in the young.

In a word: No.

One should never chose someone romantically with the idea that they will care for you throughout your single life time and take care of you in sickness, because they will ultimately fail when you die. Also, unless it is reciprocal you are doing a terrible disservice to whoever you are with, so what happens if they die first? Have they also failed you, since they are no longer around to care for you?

Romance does not require devotion. Love requires devotion, because romance can fade or be temporarily expunged by a bad disagreement, and it is in those moments, when the romance is missing, that irreparable damage can be done to a relationship. Devotion is the light that gets you through the dark patches of a relationship.

I did not mean Value as in monetary value. I meant value from the personal perspective of importance to the observer. What is the value of a beautiful sunrise or kissing my wife in the evening? I hold those things to be highly valuable, but others wouldn't. I need money to continue to live in the fashion I am used to, but outside of requiring it for maintenance reasons, money is quite valueless to me, in and of itself.

I do believe that overcoming prejudice is important, and is an ethical ideal, so I am asking to what extent can we reach this ideal, in order for people to live more harmoniously with all others? — Jack Cummins

That isn't really what people do Jack. We don't live harmoniously with others, not even our families. For any disagreements we may have we seek a reason, outside of simply having different values, because that would mean we could both be right, and hold on just a damned minute, YOU can't be right because I am right. So we look for any excuse to explain our differences, other than values, so I blame your disagreeing with me on your gender, or race or whatever, because otherwise I might have to come to terms with the concept that there are other, equally valid, world views, which my fragile condition cannot abide.

My thoughts on overcoming prejudice are simple enough: treat the person in front of you as they deserve to be treated based on that individual. See them for who they are and respond to that.

I do not have a problem with any race or gender. I have a problem with assholes, but first they have to demonstrate that they fall into that category, until then, everyone gets treated equally. I have found that nasty people are not limited to any race, gender, or age.

I was not aware that Nazism and Fascism were based on resentment. I had thought they were based on the concept that one identifiable group believed it was superior to others; the "I am better than you" theory. Which is not "I resent you therefore you suck" theory. Granted, I have not read much on Nazism of Fascism, so I could be way off.

I have frequently singled out Christianity for attack, not based on resentment, but because there are so many flaws that it is fairly easy to shine a light on them and ask for an explanation.

OK, let's better take an example with rats. If we don't kill them, they will eventually attack our children. — SolarWind

Also, this is a bold assumption. Rats will eat people, but not as an opener, more of a last resort.

What should we do? — SolarWind

That question is based on values. I value my kid more than I value rats, therefore the rats die. I value my kid more than many other people in my life, therefore, if it comes down to it, my kid lives, they die. If my kid suddenly becomes evil, then I no longer value him as much, then he dies while others, more deserving, live. All of this is based on perceived values. If the decision is mine to make, my values take precedence over other's. IF not mine to make, do not consult me on the issue. However, values will still guide the decision model.

People will get sick and die no matter what is done by anyone. That is what we do, we live, we get less healthy, eventually we die. Repeat until extinction. This should surprise no one over 6 years old. Quality of life is far more important than quantity of life, at least for me.

How do you define "chores" and define "non-productive people". I am better able to answer if I understand the measurements you are using. Thanks

If one considers a virus as a life, that would be correct. However, as I understand it, a virus is not a living entity, therefore your example is inaccurate. I put it to you differently: C-patient is infested with a large number of D-tapeworms, which are alive. A) By killing the tapeworms c-patient will live comfortably and with increased health. B) By palliating C-patient the tapeworms will live, as will C-patient, however the patient will be in pain for the duration of life. C) By not treating C-Patient at all the tapeworms will procreate until C-patient dies painfully and any tapeworms within the patient will also die.

Which of these scenarios is most preferable? The vast majority would elect that option A) Kill the tapeworms so that the patient may live comfortably and healthy. Certainly so if one's primary concern is the patient. Option B) should be chosen if the goal is maximizing life as there is no death involved. Option C) is only really of value to someone who can't be bothered to be involved. As for which is the most ethical...again, what are you striving to achieve? That answer will guide your treatment plan.

I see vastly different protective gear being used in china and other countries than what is being touted as required here. I would compare the gear difference as one being suitable and appropriate for an Ebola level virus (china response) versus a moderate influenza (Canada response). Clearly something is missing from the narrative as both of these responses cannot be accurate. Since this bug is here to stay, maybe an accurate narrative is in order.

The best I can come up with is something like the value of a life is the value you assign to it. — Manuel

All life is sacred. Therefore every life has an equal value. So the cow that was part of my dinner had the same value as my life. As does the jackrabbit, and all the other creatures moving around. Human life is more relatable to me than animal life, but not more valuable. Every life has equal value, the penalty attached to the ending of a life is very different depending on the species that dies. No one objects to someone killing a mosquito (except the mosquito), more object to the death of a mouse, rat, or gopher (but still not that many) and as the perceived value of the animal increases in the view of humans the number of objectors also increases, until we get to people, then we have special names for the killing of people: Murder. Because it is so bad it gets it's own word, and section in the criminal code. But really, ending a life is ending a life. People=bunnies=whales=cats=bugs. the one dying is rarely supporting of the killing.

Sure they have. And they learned from it and were wiser. But there is no fix for willing blindness except experience. Experience + Intelligence+ reflection =Wisdom.

Anyone that thinks they can pay their taxes with Google Play cards....there is just no fixing that.

I get that there are no clear answers as we don't really know anything about this new bug. I work healthcare, 15 years now. My issue with the response to Covid is that the response has been very not-science based and very public opinion motivated, so fear driven. I assure you, were I to practice half as poorly thought out as the pandemic response, and as evidence-based as the response has been I would lose my license to practice within a month, never to have it back. I find it disturbing that the chief medical officers of the provinces and country I live in are not being held to the same standards that I have been held to since I was a first year healthcare student. Couple that with the flouting of traditional vaccine trials (and yep, they have been fast-tracked) in an effort to "get it into arms faster" and I find myself with even less respect for the healthcare profession than I had a year ago (which is saying something, I am rather burnt out.). Informed consent is non-existent with the vaccine because the person the patient normally asks questions of doesn't know anything about the vaccine or responses to it, no long term effects, etc. and we are told by our licensing bodies "registrants are expected to promote the public health stance." Never before have I been told that. Previously it was "provide the best care to the patient and families" not push the political agenda of the day.

I am not signing up to administer the vaccine, nor will I take it. I know nothing about it. Certainly not enough to feel comfortable advising anyone on it.