CharonY

It shows to me that appealing to folk's base instincts continues to work. Facts don't matter, policy doesn't, accountabilty sure doesn't. Be xenophobic and you are halfway there. Make them fear the others to cover the difference. True then, true now. It seems we only made superficial progress.

It is not even Trump who worries me most. It is the folks who realize how to abuse the government machinery (e.g. Project 2025). I doubt the civil war angle. Folks are too complacent and frankly, lazy (or busy). Strife, yes. And radicalism.

It is not about what he says. Or even does. It is about how folks feel and they feel validated in all their dark (non-PC) worldviews. Much of it is about invalidating reality. We are in the dumbest possible timeline. And things are only starting.

Yeah, Looks like Trump is outperforming polls to some degree. Welp, who needs democracy anyway? Lets go another round on the facism train. Edit, maybe the Ukrainians could have needed that...

There is still some, including academic and commercial research. There is also a bit of redistribution to other diseases that have taken a backburner until recently. But I don't know how much precisely. But I do think that there are still a few millions specifically for COVID-19 for sure.

Potentially. It really depends on how the market develop and/or whether health authorities see a heightened need. Our understanding of postviral syndromes has accelerated by having so many people suffer from it, for example, so I would consider the situation still developing. But as you said, not in an emergency context.

Much of it is just a matter of public money. Remdesivir for example was originally developed to treat other viruses but I am not sure how far in trials it actually went. Trials for COVID-19 were possible by a huge injection of governmental money (over 160 millions or so). Oftentimes it is not just a matter of harder easier or more deliberate. It is often how much the companies are willing to invest. Ideally, if they don't have to, things can go pretty fast (until there are roadblocks for scientific reasons, that is). There are quite a few new generation of antiviral candidates. However, getting them to clinicals is the most expensive bit and unless the companies can make money, they wont' commit that much. This either means that clinicals can take a long time to finish, or might not finish at all.

I think it was changing over a longish period of time (certainly with the tea party), but quite a few were holding onto a veneer of respectability. After all, folks like Steve King was in congress since 2003? And he wasn't exactly shy about his white nationalism. I think it felt rapid as Trump was a bit of a "mask off" event, allowing them to remove all filters (become non-PC). It should be noted that while he was ultimately ousted, his cardinal sin was likely losing ground to Democrats.

The most stupid and blatant form of racism was also the broad propagation of Haitians eating pets. Especially considering that it is the wrong form of racism- folks have long accused East Asians to eating dogs (and rats), not Haitians. Too incompetent to be a proper racist, so to speak. I forgot to add points to the sexism part: - other than racism, sexism was the second strongest predictor for Republican voters (presidential and mid-term). This was in part because previously Republican voters with less sexist and racist attitudes shifted to the Dems in the 2018 election. - the whole Dobbs situation. It is at this point almost impossible not to see a sexist angle, especially as we see women denied health care and dying only so that certain folks can feel morally superior. - the GOP has largely embraced language from the manosphere, which is explicitly misogynist (male supremacist, if you prefer). Often it it frames under the concept of "traditional values", which ultimately translate to subordinate role of women. - this trend has not gone unnoticed and much has been said about the increasing gender rift.

I probably should add that any treatment likely provides selective pressures in favour of mutations that provide drug resistance (if applicable). No drug is likely safe from that effect. The key here is not to provide a situation where the pathogens are allowed to persist under selective pressures. This is why antibiotics should be taken at high dosages and until the pathogen are eliminated, otherwise, one allows the more resistant ones to proliferate. This is also why vaccines are so important. If a pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2 is allowed to circulate, it will accumulate mutations just by virtue of so much of it being around, which in turn makes it more likely that we encounter resistant variants. Breaking the chain of infections, or at least reducing it, as well as reducing the amount of serious infections, so that antivirals are not necessary is is the only way to delay resistance formation. It was always weird to me that there are folks against vaccines, but in favour of antivirals.

I looked at the Nature paper and one thing that seems to get lost in the conversation is that the study specifically looked at immunocompromised patients with chronic infections. The reason why that is important is because that in those folks infections stick around longer so mutations can arise which could be selected for higher resistance against antivirals. It is not something that is unknown (similar effects have been observed for antibiotic resistances) and it is not a failure of the drug. The second study actually seems to contradict what the article in OP is saying. Again, higher rate in immunosuppressed patients and lower rate of resistance in treated patients without immune issues (but still higher than without treatment). However, rates were low and did not persist. So overall good news, though again, immunocompromised patients remain at higher risk.

Relating to OP just a few general themes: - the GOP base has coalesced around nativist and racist themes (great replacement theory). These lines of thoughts are penetrating the GOP with most members now suggesting that racial diversity is a threat to the country (which was steady at around 20% through the years) - this has penetrated the party at large where racist voices were largely delegated to the fringe (to various degrees) but are now carrying significant power in congress - GOP-dominated areas are changing school curricula to make it more difficult to understand the concepts of historic and systemic racism. Essentially the GOP has a concerted effort to revise historic facts and how the next generation is supposed to think about it - In short, there is a concerted ideological re-arrangement in the GOP which in which the racist fringe has been empowered and gleefully throw their weight around.

Depending on the outcome of this election, there is likely going to be an accelerated change in how polls are going to be conducted. And I think some assumptions of representative cohorts might be affected. In the US, abortion rates are lower in lower economic groups, suggesting that the price of abortion limits access. In countries with socialized health care, the opposite might be true. Though there are confounding factors as folks in lower socioeconomic brackets also tend to be using fewer contraceptives and other reproductive health services.

The polls do indicate that given the consideration of any limits, the majority are more having no rather than some (the 52-41 split). It is given in the context of established medical limits, though.

The issue is that such distinction becomes a gish gallop of arguments. You will end up spending more time justifying your position, while the other side can heap inane claims on you. This just gives another vector of attack while ceding ground. As case in point, Dems do have introduced bills and have said that repeatedly that they want to protect abortion rate until fetal viability. Later abortions can be restricted, provided that provisions are added (e.g. if pregnancy can endanger the mother). But based on your comment, it seems that post-birth abortions are a way more common knowledge than the details put out by Dems. Edit: I should add, these limits are not decided by Dems, but largely follow existing court rulings, most notably Roe and there is some disagreement on when exactly viability is reached (though I think it could be determined by attending physicians). From what I understand in Canada, there is not legal restriction on abortion. However, there are regulations, either by health authorities or professional bodies which basically implement limits.

It is really not really reasonable. If folks carry the child to the point where they are viable, it would be extraordinary rare for them to suddenly decide to end the pregnancy. Almost all abortions happen within the first trimester and I suspect that the majority of folks (especially women) take that into account to some degree in their answers. Asking whether you support abortion just before birth is simply not a realistic question (and quite leading), especially as the medical provider at best might just induce birth (or just wait a few days).

Unfortunately, the US election has global reach. As I learned, even leaving the country does not help.

Just wanted to add to my post above that the poll I was thinking about was likely this one: Majority of Canadians are completely pro-choice (52%) but a significant segment (41%) is considered in-beween and a small minority (8%) is completely pro-life. https://angusreid.org/abortion-canada-faith-pro-choice-pro-life/

On the data sheet the question was indicated as: "Every woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one". In all groups, except US Republicans the majority (56-96%) were in favour. But as mentioned, Canadian Conservatives are more aligned with US Independents on this issue. In another poll (Ipsos, 2020) there were also finer grained options, I have graph below. You can see that the least restrictive option is still in the majority in Canada (59%). I believe I have seen a similar poll around 2020-22 phrasing it specifically around restrictions (something like there should be no restrictions in the access to abortions) and there was a close majority for this option, too (~52%). Unfortunately I forgot which poll it was and I cannot find the data table right now, either. Though I think the phrasing of "whenever a woman wants one" is reasonably close to being unrestricted.

That would be rather poor science. I got curious and quickly did a lit search. It seems that a lot are pop-sci articles (e.g. Scientific American), physics articles, books and a handful of physician-type articles. Plus two biochemical articles. At least it does not seem to pop up regularly in anatomical papers.

I think there is some fracturing going on there and it looks to me that especially on the provincial level conservatives are dipping their toes into certain areas such as vaccination, gender identity and so on to see whether that gives them a boost. It looks a fair bit like the US around 10 years back but in some areas there is some radicalization going on for sure. Unfortunately American Crazy is a potent export and I am not sure whether even on the Federal level the Canadian parties can counteract that.

It is also somewhat concerning that one might think that knowledge is lost until it is shown on youtube of all places.

You are right. I should avoid these funny little buzzwords that obscure how obscene and crazy the actual situation is.

Eh, I kinda doubt that this still true at this point in time. Also, the Trump flags next to F*ck Trudeau stickers is jarring. That is certainly not universally true. There are aspects that are certainly different from US conservatives and in some cases (e.g. firearms) it is because they cater to a radical minority. So I would say that Canadian extreme right has less sway over the party than in their equivalent in the USA (which at this point is largely dominating the party). However, especially on the provincial level conservatives are adopting (perhaps milder) US style campaigning and have sowed vaccine skepticism (https://www.nationalobserver.com/), tend to ignore climate change and for some reasons are obsessed with trans folks. Looking at the US election, 44% of Canadian conservatives prefer Trump over Harris (36%) (https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/read-the-report6589c781-7dd1-40c2-b3ad-372bb98c1aa1.pdf?sfvrsn=cac8947f_1). That is clearly more US Independent territory than Democrat. Likewise, on abortion rights, Canadian conservatives are far more in favour (66%) compared to the US Republicans or even Independents (34%/58%) but still less than US Democrats (89%). Canadian Liberals are closer to US Democrats (91%). Economically, on statements of social and economic justice (i.e., government should do more to make sure racial minorities are treated fairly and government should reduce income gap between poor and rich), Canadian Conservatives (62% and 58% in favour) are close to US Independents (64%/50%) than US Democrats (93%/87%). The percentage is still higher than US Republicans (36%/34%). Still, while Canadian conservatives as a whole are are more to the left of US Republicans, they are closer to Independents rather than Democrats. Some surveys do show further movement to the right in Canada, especially in some provinces, suggesting that the polarization in USA, which has been largely absent until ~2019 in Canada might also start to settle in.

I think they will be feel very much at home seeing the pickups with confederate flags... Plus, depending on the province and how the next Federal election will go, there might be 2,000 additional jobless folks.