Jump to content

Don Hudson

Donating Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Don Hudson last won the day on July 21

Don Hudson had the most liked content!


908 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,346 profile views
  1. So what is required is a leader that can set the MSM back on its heels - a breakthrough, for one is always at risk criticizing something that is obviously, energetically, broadly-understood to be "very good", ('Trudeaumania', 'When-Irish-Eyes-Are-Smiling' moments!, etc.), and the MSM falls in-line, largely performing as a mirror rather than a crystal ball...(so to speak!) If it really is believed that the MSM has that much power over our thinking and therefore our actions and our political economy, then we are not doing nearly enough of our own thinking, using the tools freely available everywhere.
  2. Can the present times "produce" a true conservative? I think not. "Conservatives" are over, and nature fills vacuums. But the problem remains: Can the present times imagine, create then produce a true conservative, as, for example, a George Will might consider worthy of the term? All the colourful, 70-point font cartoons & sloganeering on this and other threads will not change minds one bit but further entrenches & hardens positions. "Since the early 1960s, the conservative political harnessing of backlash against kindly liberalism had been unsmiling and scary, all ferocious contempt."1 It doesn't work; in the 60's it resulted in the landslide loss of Goldwater and the elimination of Wallace as conservative voices. Not much appears to have been re-imagined. At the moment, sounding distantly, embarrassingly like a trump mini-me rather than a creative, imaginative thinker of social & economic policy, Mr. O'Toole is NOT an alternative to Mr. Trudeau. But dynasties, like countries, have their path and their futures sewn into human nature, and boredom & frustration are setting in but there is no place to go. Why can't the center-right imagine a way forward that includes rather than sets exclusionary positions & divides? Partly because the "political ecology" isn't fertile. Our country IS inclusive; that is its strength and enduring power, particularly on the world stage. Boring is Good. But without imagination and inclusiveness it isn't good enough. 1 Evil Geniuses, Kurt Andersen, Random House, 2020, p81
  3. I had heard that there was a Merlin belonging to a private owner hanging around the Vancouver area but location was never mentioned. I wonder if this is the one. It certainly looks like salt-water exposure has occurred. Still, it's a MERLIN!
  4. Meanwhile... BREAKING: Canada is officially the world leader in fully vaccinated. major kudos to all the community/frontline workers who made this happen at a rate that’s peerless.
  5. Whenever I observe resistance to wearing masks, (admittedly, a PITA, but...), self-isolation and vaccination being expressed as a limit on one's personal freedom, I am puzzled. Facts: It is a scientific fact that the currently-available, western vaccinations work with unexpected efficacy; Long-term, broad data establishes the fact that without vaccination, one is at risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death; The same data establishes that, with rare exceptions, vaccinated people will not require hospitalization and will not die; Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can carry & transmit covid-19 Delta, through virus-loaded nasal passages. The claim of broad, public "confusion" when the CDC issues advice as reason for complaint and resistance is, in my view, a red-herring and just plain, bad thinking. I say this because eighteen months ago, nothing was known about covid-19. That's why it was/is called a "Novel" Coronavirus. So new information is being discovered all the time, as the Delta variant continues to teach us, harshly, it appears, leading to "new" advice from healthcare leaders and providers. It is puzzling to me that the introduction of new knowledge regarding Delta etc., is greeted with frustration, even anger. That response, while understandable is a real puzzle because it is misplaced. It is as though, having discovered the design-fault with the B737MAX, our frustration & anger is somehow touted as a "solution" when in fact, analyzing the design, determining solutions then fixing the problem is what will keep people alive. I would have thought that such discoveries and facts are being made, very swiftly, would be greeted positively because it would mean that we are closer to defeating this terrible scourge. Our healthcare leaders are telling us there IS a way to stay alive in the face of the Delta variant. How can one reasonably be angry with that? After all, if for example, one's cancer treatment wasn't working out as expected and one became aware of new information and new medicines regarding a "miraculous" treatment that really did work which prevented both hospitalization and one's death, wouldn't one want it? Wouldn't one welcome the news and gladly adapt to the changes that could cure one? It is not the CDC (or other agencies) that have changed; it is the science and the virus that has changed. I think this is a reasonable comparison and approach to hesitancy. Unfortunately, because public and private entities can't survive lockdowns forever nor can they accept the high risks of swift infections for all, from unvaccinated people and they are forced into what is mistakenly labelled "discrimination" which is a pejorative political term, not a healthcare term.* So I'm puzzled by the broad, political response and the unfortunate endurance of conspiracies that masking mandates as somehow a "loss of one's freedom", when the greatest loss of all freedom is one's death, and the way to keep one's freedom in the face of such a certain threat, is vaccination. *added: Seattle area employers rethink the rules on masking, vaccines as pandemic takes a new turn.
  6. Ya think? I understand that military readiness is a priority somewhere equal to human life, but if this were a civilian airliner wouldn't it be grounded until it was demonstrably fixed? There may be "wheels-within-wheels" in the decision-making process but this seems outright reckless.
  7. The question of the "efficacy" of the Delta variant and its rapid spread including breakthrough infections, was explained by Dr. Fauci on MSNBCs "All In", hosted by Chris Hayes. Link, in one-minute increments, (courtesy the "Internet Archive"), at time 17:55): https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20210728_000000_All_In_With_Chris_Hayes/start/3420/end/3480 & Transcript, courtesy MSNBC, https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-all-chris-hayes-7-27-21-n1275256: HAYES: So, once again, Centers for Disease Control has changed its guidance on masks and COVID. The CDC now says announcing today, all Americans, including those who are fully vaccinated should wear a mask inside of areas with high transmission of the virus, which according to the CDC community transmission map, which highlights areas of high transmission red, appears to be a whole big swath of the country. To help explain this change in policy, I`m joined by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Chief Medical adviser to President Joe Biden. Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky was saying that at the announcement today that this was based on data they`ve been collecting sort of in real-time about Delta variant transmission. So, what`s the data? And what about the data pushes towards this is the policy recommendation? [20:55:05] DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: OK, there are two aspects, Chris. One, we know that the Delta variant is considerably more efficient in transmitting from person to person than the original Alpha variant that we have been dealing with, number one. The Delta variant is the totally dominant variant now in this country, more than 80 85 percent, and in some regions it`s 90 plus percent. But even more importantly, it is clear now, that when there are breakthrough infections, namely people who are vaccinated, but still get infected with the Delta variant, which happens because no vaccine is 100 percent, effective. We`ve learned clearly now without a doubt, that people who are vaccinated get a breakthrough infection actually have enough virus in their nasal pharynx, that they can actually transmit it to other people, and have documented transmitted to other people. So, because of that, the virus has really changed. And that has really triggered the change in the CDC guidelines. So, right now, the way you correctly said, that even if you are vaccinated, you need to wear a mask in indoor public settings in the areas that have a high degree of transmissibility, namely the orange and red areas of the CDC designation. HAYES: So, when we spoke about the decision by the CDC to say you didn`t have to mask indoors if you were vaccinated, the key driver there was data about virus transmission amongst those who was vaccinated and you were on the program and there was a little bit of a question. We knew that in -- the in the testing for the clinical trials in a real-world testing, this was doing a very good job of preventing severe illness and hospitalization. There was more question about whether you had viral load to transmit. The data came back saying you don`t really and that it`s OK to be indoors. Now, I -- so, I guess the data is just different with Delta. But do you understand why people might feel a little whipsawed between the last announcement and this one? FAUCI: Yes, it`s thoroughly understandable. But there really is a pretty clear explanation of it. And here are the data. When you go back 60 days of the two months ago, when you look at the level of virus in the nasal pharynx of a person who`s vaccinated and gets a breakthrough infection, it was considerably less than the level of virus in the nasal pharynx of an unvaccinated person, the data were clear. Now, that we have a Delta variant, that has changed the entire landscape. Because when you look at the level of virus in the nasal pharynx of a vaccinated person who gets a breakthrough infection with Delta, it is exactly the same as the level of virus in a unvaccinated person who`s infected. That`s the problem. So, those data are very compelling. And that triggered the change in the CDC guideline. HAYES: That is fascinating to me, because I know, basically nothing about medicine. But I guess my intuition would be that the viral load would correlate to severity of illness. And what I`m hearing from you is that like, you`ve got a situation in which Delta is producing a higher viral load and higher viral load shedding by orders of magnitude of the data we have is to be believed, and yet, not leading to severe illness in the way that you would fear, right? FAUCI: Right. HAYES: That the big fear was that you`d have -- that it would essentially evade the vaccine. FAUCI: Right, Chris, you nailed it, because that`s exactly what it is. That the antibody response, the immune response that your body makes, that needs to block virus in the upper airway needs to be much more powerful than the immune response that protects your lungs. In other words, you need a lower level of protection, the lung is more easily protected then the upper airway. We know that from animal studies, it`s very, very clear. HAYES: So, I guess the last point here is, do you feel like you should -- there`s a kind of meta communicative point to make here, which is, this stuff`s going to change. Like, this is a fairly dynamic situation and is going to continue to be where not -- it`s not like we`re going to just kind of turn the page on coronavirus, because there might be new variants and there might be different seasonalities and just, you know, that`s going to be part of life. FAUCI: Well, Chris, it doesn`t have to be. If the overwhelming majority of the people in this country get vaccinated, we could nail this down by just crushing it. The problem we have, Chris, that you and I have discussed multiple times on your program, right now, we have a hundred million people in the United States who are eligible who are not getting vaccinated. That`s the problem. [21:00:10] HAYES: Yes, look at Vermont where they are at 85 plus percent I think and they have crushed this thing, that could be all of us. Dr. Anthony Fauci, as always, thank you, Sir. Appreciate it.
  8. Thanks, Airband - interesting that they explain the backtrack due to "results in minimal operational efficiencies", and not for taking steps to maintain separations between fully-vaxxed and partially / not-vaxxed passengers. It's a logistical decision vice a public health-decision; - there it is. I can certainly believe it's far more complicated to separate based upon vaccination status. Distinguishing between is essentially by testimonial as there is no organized system in place, (itself, being controversial), that provides formal documentation of vaccination. I recently believed that "fully-vaxxed" meant one was essentially immune from being infected with COVID-19 and that it was reasonably safe, (from hospitalization or death), to be among unvaxxed people, say, in an airplane or a hotel, for example. Clearly that belief needs to be modified to accomodate the data, which is itself, disconcerting. One has to pay attention to the evening news because things will have materially changed since the morning edition!
  9. When I read Popular Mechanics as a kid, these dreams were pencil drawings. So were gyrocopters, although I did send away (and received) the plans for the machine. Despite the many & varied challenges, it's good to see the dream turned into reality, mostly due to knowledge & materials developed during the space program in the U.S.!
  10. In the same vein as The Beatles, et.al., yes, I think so. His music is phenomenal and culturally-relevant. Today, yes, not so much, if that's what you're thinking.
  11. Speaking of "cancel culture", Eric Clapton said he will cancel any concert that requires the attendees to provide proof of vaccination: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jul/22/eric-clapton-refuses-to-play-venues-require-proof-of-vaccination-covid?fbclid=IwAR18GLN8zBDzeZFoHl6aznK1uzaqwt2ZHdyC05qdYHBpJEhOQW0cxIsmVlQ It is a surprise to learn of such an insular attitude towards an independantly-proven phenomena from such a broad-minded, intelligent person and cultural icon, but there it is. Eric Clapton, Antivaxxer.
  12. In the end, no one makes you look bad. A friendship is honesty between friends. Its a duty and a favour. It isn't easy living beside a crazy friend but we try, not by following that friend around with a self-help book or Mom's advice, but by example. Tuum Est; It's up to you, no one else. The world's patience and tolerance is not unlimited. There are far bigger problems around to solve.
  13. From the Seattle Times: Don’t look now but our Canada problem is showing again. Our neighbors to the north are making us look bad one more time, and also shrewdly putting us in a bit of a political pickle. This week the Canadian government announced, unilaterally, that it would open its border to Americans hoping to visit. Not to just any Americans, though. Starting Aug. 9, the crossing at Blaine and the entire 5,500-mile border will be open only to … vaccinated Americans. Meaning: About half of us. Canada’s doors are open halfway. If you haven’t gotten both shots, which about half of Americans have not, then you are barred — even if you have a negative COVID-19 test, or have previously had the respiratory disease. The Canadians are not messing around, either: “A person who submits false information on vaccination status could be liable to a fine of up to $750,000 or six months imprisonment or both, under the Quarantine Act,” the country’s public health agency announced. Meanwhile our borders remain locked to Canadians who want to come south. Eventually we will open them — maybe soon, as the U.S. government’s recurring border closure order technically expires Wednesday. But the fact that the Canadians went first, and then dropped a vaccine passport system on us, is awkward for all sorts of reasons. For starters, the reason they did this now is because they have rocketed past us into first place in the vaccination race. “Canada has gone from a vaccine laggard to a world leader in COVID-19 immunizations in just a few months’ time,” the Canadian public broadcaster CBC trumpeted the other day. Canada is now number one in the world in COVID-19 protection, with 70% of the population having received at least one vaccine shot. The U.S. has slipped to seventh, 14 percentage points behind Canada, according to the Our World in Data vaccine tracker. Despite already being that far ahead, the Canadians’ daily vax rate, adjusted for population, remains six times higher than it is here in the U.S., where the vaccine program has flatlined. This has all led to a flood of new exports from up north — of smack talk. “Why would some people rather risk death than get vaccinated? It’s the American way,” the Toronto Star heckled us on Tuesday. It’s a “tragedy of belligerent self-destruction,” it went on. “The U.S. is among the few countries in the world with the means to quickly extinguish the pandemic within its borders. It lacks only the will.” That’s cold, Canada. Not wrong, but cold. Anyway, Canada put the screws to us politically, too. By requiring vaccination for entry, Canada is saying: We’re now number one in the civilized world. If you want to come here, you have to be civilized, too. As an economics columnist in Canada put it: “When it comes to businesses trying to navigate a high-risk pandemic, Canada looks safer and steadier than most other places — and that’s of great value during a period of so much fear. The extensive precautions and our rising vaccination rates serve us well, as marketing tools as well as in pandemic management.” In the U.S., though, the vaccine has become another flash point in a culture war. On our side of the border, in Bellingham, it was reported on Tuesday that the sheriff had to be notified because the Whatcom County health director started getting threats after a council member posted her cellphone number on social media and said she needed to be “reined in.” Her crime? Running a campaign to encourage vaccination among 18- to 26-year-olds. This earned her a slew of angry calls comparing her to the Nazis during the Holocaust. Safe and steady? That’s so Canadian. Look, I’m against mandatory vaccination. But asking that we do it as a ticket for certain things like travel seems reasonable as part of a global community during an infectious disease pandemic. What Canada is saying is “no shirt, no shoes, no service, America.” Meanwhile we are paralyzed on this issue. Legislators in 40 states, led by Republicans, have now introduced bills to ban vaccine passports or passes like this (the states have no say over border policy; the principle though is clear, which is that they’re against the idea). The Biden administration seems rudderless on it one way or another. So increasingly other countries are going to be following not our lead on this, but Canada’s. That’s only going to hurt our border-town businesses, and will leave Americans behind in the recovery. Being dictated to by Canada? That wasn’t in the cards even a few months ago. Get used to it. Because like Canada, other countries likely will soon pass us in the vaccination race, and then they will be in a strong position to dictate to us, too. Danny Westneat: dwestneat@seattletimes.com;Danny Westneat takes an opinionated look at the Puget Sound region's news, people and politics
  14. Thanks Airband. I know the link above doesn't lead to the NYTimes. The NYTimes story is linked in the "Business Insider" story, (the link above). The article that I mention was written regurgitated by Niraj Chokshi of the NYTimes on July 15, 2021, (same as the other two), and published by the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/business/boeing-737-inspection.html and misleading info was just passed on. It appears that REUTERS initially published the story, referencing "oxygen levels". My original comments are still relevant and stand but with the world burning & seeming to come apart that the seams, it's not important so long as the issue is fixed by experts and not the internet.
  15. Hmm, somebody at the NYTimes doesn't understand the science of partial pressure of gasses like oxygen (PO2), how O2 gets into the blood stream, nor do they appear to know the composition of the air we need to breath every few seconds or so! I think that the NYTimes has done a really poor job of writing this story. Initially I thought it had to do with the aircraft emergency oxygen system, "failing" to provide oxygen in a depressurization and wondered where "switches" came into play! I read further, and more slowly. There are no "oxygen switches" and one can't "increase oxygen" by turning the cabin airflow on "High". Oxygen levels don't "drop" because of failed switches on airplanes of course! What drops is the partial pressure of all gasses. So if there is a loss of pressurization, there is less partial pressure for nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon-dioxide, etc., to cross the membranes in the lungs, and hopefully the cabin pressure sensors that warn the crew of a cabin altitude higher than approximately 10,000ft, work. I'm sure those in charge will get it right and find/fix the problem, then have a chuckle at the NYTimes' level of "aviation" knowledge and consquently its writing.
  • Create New...