CharonY

That is unfortunately the big issue for me. The first term was built laziness and greed and things moved along even against his wishes. For example, they provided support to Puerto Rico after delays, despite he being against it (incredible that folks already seemed to have forgotten that). It was only when there was a real challenge that things fell apart really dramatically during COVID-19 (again, no idea how folks keep forgetting that). This time around, folks around him realized that they can undermine the checks and balances to their advantage and if they are even moderately competent, they may achieve that.

I think what is ultimately coming true is a reckoning that many of our social agreements in democratic systems have become undone. Traditional parties still operate under assumptions such as that democracy is fundamentally valued, or that not adhering to social norms (e.g. overt rather than covert racism/sexism/authoritarianism/criminal behaviour etc.) is going to be punished by voters. I feel (and it comes from interacting with young academics a fair bit) there is a social change incoming, at a different rate and shape than we might be aware of. As someone has posted, idiocracy in action. Except at some point we will be the idiots.

The deportation was ever a deception. It was built around the non-existing surge of criminal immigrants. What is likely going to happen is aggressive ICE enforcement as under his previous presidency, more aggressive policing of the borders and similar "virtue signaling" efforts. But it is not a thing he really cares about beyond vague ideological aspects. There will be a number of civil rights issue by entangling law enforcement, border security, immigration and potentially the military. Canada is currently limiting (or re-aligning) immigration. And real estate is very expensive in the more populated areas.

No, they are not Trump clones. You are giving him way too much credit. Far-right sentiments have been on the rise already before Trump and there are a couple that are not centrist. They may have started out on the right but quite a few have descended into more than a bit of fascism lately. The AfD in Germany, for example has folks in the leadership who are demonstrably fascists (as in validated by courts). This has always been the deception and you are falling for it. Trump is not the works manifestation of this sentiment, just a symptom. Overtly it is always about things that are agreeable, such as the economy, or making lives better. The underlying sentiment is that the others are somehow making things worse and "poisoning our blood". They are not even trying to make things better. They just want it make worse for marginalized groups and therefore make the appearance that they are doing something. Meanwhile, they enrich themselves only. In many cases you cannot do that. But as I said, you can enact laws against folks without stated protection (e.g. transgender folks). You can and they do enact censorship and they reduce protections that limit discrimination against folks with darker skin. You do not need a law force people to discriminate. The sad truth is that without protection, folks do it on their own. Again Trump is not the cause, just a sad symptom. Which is helped by the inability of our species to remember stuff it seems. Note the absence of COVID-19 in everyone's mind despite its impact on all the elements (i.e., economy, inflation, immigration, etc.). This includes the disastrous handling of the pandemic itself. But if deaths don't convince anyone, I don't know what does. Probably some stupid tiktok dance or whatever.

This is the sentiment I have been seeing. There will be some research on this, and my gut feeling is that it will be borne true. Doubly so for a woman of colour. My suspicion is that the data will show lower support among white women for Harris than for either Biden or Clinton. And this under the looming threat of Dobbs. Ultimately, it shows again the power of identity politics over everything else.

-Mencken. Again. You are wrong about the far-right parties in Europe, they are extremists without question and are flirting with among other things deporting citizens with incorrect values. These are clearly unconstitutional, but the fact that they are discussing it amongst themselves (it was revealed by undercover journalists) tells you all you need to known. Objections to Abortion and LGBTQ issues are superficial elements related to virtue signaling your right credentials and it is being done in in Europe (and also Canada) to various degrees. You will note that during the election the GOP was actually not going hard on those as they were not winning issues. It was mostly used to make fun of transgender folks and related policies, though some folks (e.g. Musk) clearly had a more personal stance than others. Plus Hungary has authoritarian rule for some time and it might be worthwhile to look into their rhetoric and policies (e.g. ending recognition of transgenderism, censoring of LGBTQ positive contents in book and media and so on). While I am not saying that I have a thorough understanding of the political right in Europe, I think that your assumptions might need some revisions. I tend to believe that the assumption of decency and civility was a veneer to keep society aligned to some degree- if only strenuously. Once the idea arose that we can move beyond that and really be inclusive to everyone set out a number of alarm bells that have not stopped ringing since then. There was a weird shift in American politics, which could be followed in real-time on Fox News once Obama was elected and folks declared that the USA has become a post-racial nation. There will be a lot of discussions of what went wrong, but honestly at the root it is the people and the fact that we do not have a shared reality to align things anymore.

Europe needs to step up, which they likely won't. Especialy with pro-Russian right wingers waiting. Also above I forgot to rant about sexism. We are a bunch of dum dums. That was what we discussed a few times. I feel that appealing to moderates has not been a great strategy. And she might even lose the popular vote. The way folks perceive and feel about things has changed and what we perceive as the norm is gone.

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/