One other thing worth mentioning is that the unvaccinated are perfectly well aware that they are no threat to the vaccinated, and this makes them even angrier when politicians claim they are. How do I conclude that they are no threat?
1. The vaccines are very effective at preventing serious illness (much more than a cold) or death, so the vaccinated are at low risk anyway.
2. The vaccines have been shown to be pretty ineffective at preventing infection and transmission - Israel, US and UK data is showing between 30 and 70% efficacy.
3. Many of the unvaccinated have already had Covid, which provides much better immunity against infection and transmission than the vaccines.
4. Many of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who can't be legally vaccinated.
Given that nearly 80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, a vaccinated person's risk of serious illness from Covid is a) very small to begin with, and b) almost entirely coming from people other than the voluntarily unvaccinated - who are the only people directly affected by the mandates.
The claim that vaccine mandates help protect people who are medically unable to be vaccinated is implausible, as the mandates either exclude medical exemptions or circumscribe them so tightly as to effectively exclude them. The claim that mandates protect children is absurd, as we all know that they are at basically zero risk anyway.
I'm aghast that I will likely vote PPC, solely because they are the only party that released a statement opposing gender ideology. A philosophy based on feelings that is transforming all of society without any evidence-based research.
If only that statement had been dismissive of gays and lesbians, I wailed to myself! Because then it would be so much easier to dispatch them from my voting mind. Heck, they even acknowledged the fact that violent males are currently housed in women's prisons. Meanwhile, the mainstream media will not even cover the protests we stage in front of said prisons. And my MP has ignored 4 emails about the prison issue. Is anyone listening?
I am open to being convinced to vote otherwise (note that name-calling is not an argument).
How many of this very loud bunch will actually get vaccinated when the walls if vaccine mandates are closing in? And will they even admit to it to a pollster?
If many of of them are truly outraged at Trudeau, how many will at the end of the day vote in a way that betters the chances of getting rid of him?
As the election approaches, the journos become more fascinated with fringe stuff.
After a lifetime in Alberta watching the Reform Party, the Western Canada Concept, the Wild Rose Party go by, you realize it's all the same splinter of prairie culture, mostly rural, expressing itself, as it has since "Social Credit", with a radical distributive economic policy mostly described in Robert Heinlein's 1948 SF novel, "Beyond This Horizon". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit The SoCreds weren't very economically right-wing, but they were very populist and socially right-wing (leader was a evangelical radio preacher, sound American enough?) They didn't allow women to enter bars unescorted.
The vaccine-hesitant are emphatically not a voting group; they have nothing else in common.
The anti-vaxxers are indeed about 2 million, about 7% of voters. Just not enough unless some seat were at a tipping point. Are any?
Readers are encouraged to read the last few deep-polling-based books by Michael Adams of Environics. 20 years since his "Fire and Ice" book about how Canada and the US are different cultures at a surprisingly deep level, and have been diverging, not converging. Then his book a few years back about how Trump can't happen here.
Boris Johnson's polls are clarify that it's poor pandemic fighting that costs popularity, not too much pandemic fighting:
...badly at the start of the pandemic, when he proclaimed his "herd immunity" madness, then they went positive when he pulled a 180 on that...and now, very badly again that the big reopening caused a big wave.
As the shades darken from "conservative", to "fascist", you see worse and worse pandemic response: BoJo, Bolsonaro, Modi ... until it's outright suicidal, like Modi losing 4 million people to India's crowded burn pits.
Why did the author put "far-right" in quotes? Why qualify with "at least, further right than the [CPC]". It makes him sound like he's doing a sell-job on them, combined with the very upbeat tone about their prospects.
Interesting piece. I wonder what will happen to PPC support when the pandemic control measures end because of sufficient vaccinations, natural immunity, ennui, or a combination of these. ;)
One other thing worth mentioning is that the unvaccinated are perfectly well aware that they are no threat to the vaccinated, and this makes them even angrier when politicians claim they are. How do I conclude that they are no threat?
1. The vaccines are very effective at preventing serious illness (much more than a cold) or death, so the vaccinated are at low risk anyway.
2. The vaccines have been shown to be pretty ineffective at preventing infection and transmission - Israel, US and UK data is showing between 30 and 70% efficacy.
3. Many of the unvaccinated have already had Covid, which provides much better immunity against infection and transmission than the vaccines.
4. Many of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who can't be legally vaccinated.
Given that nearly 80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, a vaccinated person's risk of serious illness from Covid is a) very small to begin with, and b) almost entirely coming from people other than the voluntarily unvaccinated - who are the only people directly affected by the mandates.
The claim that vaccine mandates help protect people who are medically unable to be vaccinated is implausible, as the mandates either exclude medical exemptions or circumscribe them so tightly as to effectively exclude them. The claim that mandates protect children is absurd, as we all know that they are at basically zero risk anyway.
I'm aghast that I will likely vote PPC, solely because they are the only party that released a statement opposing gender ideology. A philosophy based on feelings that is transforming all of society without any evidence-based research.
If only that statement had been dismissive of gays and lesbians, I wailed to myself! Because then it would be so much easier to dispatch them from my voting mind. Heck, they even acknowledged the fact that violent males are currently housed in women's prisons. Meanwhile, the mainstream media will not even cover the protests we stage in front of said prisons. And my MP has ignored 4 emails about the prison issue. Is anyone listening?
I am open to being convinced to vote otherwise (note that name-calling is not an argument).
How many of this very loud bunch will actually get vaccinated when the walls if vaccine mandates are closing in? And will they even admit to it to a pollster?
If many of of them are truly outraged at Trudeau, how many will at the end of the day vote in a way that betters the chances of getting rid of him?
Don't believe that these folks are stupid.
As the election approaches, the journos become more fascinated with fringe stuff.
After a lifetime in Alberta watching the Reform Party, the Western Canada Concept, the Wild Rose Party go by, you realize it's all the same splinter of prairie culture, mostly rural, expressing itself, as it has since "Social Credit", with a radical distributive economic policy mostly described in Robert Heinlein's 1948 SF novel, "Beyond This Horizon". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit The SoCreds weren't very economically right-wing, but they were very populist and socially right-wing (leader was a evangelical radio preacher, sound American enough?) They didn't allow women to enter bars unescorted.
The vaccine-hesitant are emphatically not a voting group; they have nothing else in common.
The anti-vaxxers are indeed about 2 million, about 7% of voters. Just not enough unless some seat were at a tipping point. Are any?
Readers are encouraged to read the last few deep-polling-based books by Michael Adams of Environics. 20 years since his "Fire and Ice" book about how Canada and the US are different cultures at a surprisingly deep level, and have been diverging, not converging. Then his book a few years back about how Trump can't happen here.
Boris Johnson's polls are clarify that it's poor pandemic fighting that costs popularity, not too much pandemic fighting:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
...badly at the start of the pandemic, when he proclaimed his "herd immunity" madness, then they went positive when he pulled a 180 on that...and now, very badly again that the big reopening caused a big wave.
As the shades darken from "conservative", to "fascist", you see worse and worse pandemic response: BoJo, Bolsonaro, Modi ... until it's outright suicidal, like Modi losing 4 million people to India's crowded burn pits.
Why did the author put "far-right" in quotes? Why qualify with "at least, further right than the [CPC]". It makes him sound like he's doing a sell-job on them, combined with the very upbeat tone about their prospects.
Interesting piece. I wonder what will happen to PPC support when the pandemic control measures end because of sufficient vaccinations, natural immunity, ennui, or a combination of these. ;)
The PPC facebook page in my riding (former liberal who was booted out for hiring her sister...) went from 2,000 to 16,500 in 5 days last week.
Can you please define populism?. easy to throw the word around, with its negative connotations...