Gorgeous Gardenia

As a Canadian myself, I want to comment on this. This is the messaging re: Omicron coming out of my home province of Ontario: CTV Toronto on Twitter: "Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore says he's concerned Omicron may be airborne, calling it a 'game-changer.' https://t.co/eVARCSUia9" / Twitter Note the may be. This is a total failure on the part of Public Health messaging. We know the direct route of transmission is airborne: "Third, asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from people who are not coughing or sneezing is likely to account for at least a third, and perhaps up to 59%, of all transmission globally and is a key way SARS-CoV-2 has spread around the world supportive of a predominantly airborne mode of transmission" "Fourth, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is higher indoors than outdoors and is substantially reduced by indoor ventilation. Both observations support a predominantly airborne route of transmission." (Source: Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 - The Lancet) Such pussy-footing around the topic is because focusing on this reality would bring attention to the fact that cloth and surgical masks alone are rendered almost useless.

Not to jump the gun, but another great starting point for discussion: The CDC’s Flawed Case for Wearing Masks in School - The Atlantic "Seen in this context, the CDC has taken an especially aggressive stance, recommending that all kids 2 and older should be masked in schools The agency has argued for this policy amid an atmosphere of persistent backlash and skepticism, but on September 26, its director, Rochelle Walensky, marched out a stunning new statistic: Speaking as a guest on CBS’s Face the Nation, she cited a study published two days earlier, which looked at data from about 1,000 public schools in Arizona. The ones that didn’t have mask mandates, she said, were 3.5 times as likely to experience COVID outbreaks as the ones that did." " This estimated effect of mask requirements—far bigger than others in the research literature—would become a crucial talking point in the weeks to come. On September 28, during a White House briefing, Walensky brought up the 3.5 multiplier again; then she tweeted it that afternoon. In mid-October, with the school year in full swing, Walensky brought up the same statistic one more time. But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. “You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study,” Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study’s lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematic review of COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research “so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse.”

Who's part of Covid Twitter or has taken an interest in analyzing the data pertaining to Covid-19? Since the issue of Covid-19 is one which has effected us all, whether through policy measures taken to curb the virus or through the unfortunate loss of a loved one, I think a lot of people -- those already data-inclined and not, have taken this into their own hands. Many of us who have family in medicine, or who engage in analyzing the scientific literature, professionally or recreationally, have deep reservations about the policies being pushed. Whether a concerted effort or not, a lot of scientific data is being obfuscated, transparency by our health officials is low, and fear-mongering is high. Below is a space for those interested in such a topic to discuss freely as they wish! I hope those participating are eager to foster a space of respectful, intellectual discussion. To get things rolling, I wanted to start by sharing some data out of Denmark. gennembrudsinfektion-covid19-uge49-2021-ji88 (ssi.dk) (SOURCE) Page 11 of the Statens Serum Institute. report on Covid-19 spread in Denmark presents a graph demonstrating that the rate of protection against (re)infection significantly wanes in those with solely vaccine based immunity (green) compared to those with immunity from natural infection (red line) and hybrid immunity (yellow). Now the implications re: this are only on transmission, and not disease severity (which vaccines hold up against), but what does this say for vaccine passports or the idea that the "vaccinated" are the only ones protected?

The newer work is quite lackluster. I don't know but I think it is largely due to the speed with which material is being out; four albums in four years is a lot. An artist should sit down with their work, and sit on it for even longer. I happened to listen to the previews from the Blue Banisters track list recently. Every song seemed indistinguishable from the last to me. I'll happily listen to "Put Your Lips Together" or "Gramma" over "Arcadia" and "Dealer" any day. It's funny that a laptop demo has more grit, allure and is wholly a more transportive experience in melody and lyric than any studio production of hers in the last 3 years. Lana, get back to your roots, love!