Alex_Krycek

Trump must be sizing up these new separatist republics as possible hotel markets.

Germany halts Nord Stream 2 approval over Russian recognition of Ukraine ‘republics’Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspends gas pipeline over ‘grave breach’ of international law

I've been following this conflict for several months now, before it became a headline crisis. While I have believed from the beginning that a real conflict was probably going to materialize, I also do not believe that seizing the entirety of Ukraine is Putin's current goal. The conflict with Ukraine looks like classic incrementalism - or "salami tactics", taking territory slice by slice. Now that these two separatist areas (Luhansk and Donetsk) have been annexed, I think we will see no further advances by Russian forces at this time. Further, I believe that the US knows this and has essentially agreed with Russia since their bilateral talks in January (which didn't include Ukraine) that this annexation would be tolerated in order to avoid a full scale war. Of course, this would never be officially stated. I believe the Russian forces stationed in Belarus, ominously north of Kiev, are there to merely intimidate Ukraine and NATO into not interfering while this annexation takes place. They are the "backup" in case Ukraine or NATO tries to stop the seizure of this eastern territory; they're not there with the primary goal of invading the entire country. It's a classic strategy of "scare you with a bigger threat so you accept a smaller sacrifice". In the coming weeks I expect we'll see the Russian "peacekeepers" control this section of territory but not advance any further. This will allow Russia to officially link up the separatist areas with Crimea (previously seized in 2014) and continue their expansion into the Black Sea. Although the new independent republics will never be officially recognized, Ukrainian forces will pull back and respect this new de facto boundary. (Red lines denote where Russian peacekeepers will actually be stationed) Russia's stategy to recognize two "independent states": Dontesk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic rather than subsume these territories into Russia mirrors the annexation of other friendly satellite states such as South Ossetia (2008) and Abkhazia, both of which Russia took from Georgia. Over the long term this approach counters the "Soviet Sphere" narrative while accomplishing the exact same objectives.

For me, how one answers this question depends on one's individual worldview. One can construct marvelously elaborate arguments as to why free will does not exist, and marvelously elaborate arguments as to why it does. In the end both views are subjective projections. I consider free will as probabilistic based on the relationship between environmental conditioning/external forces and the strength of the individual actor and their manifested capacity for independent action. In other words, both the environment and the individual have a role in determining an outcome that is not always definitive.

Yes, there are multiple variable at play. Women tend to naturally be more Agreeable if considering the OCEAN framework. Agreeable people won't get the same results in a salary negotiation as non-agreeable people (e.g. accepting the first low ball offer, or not pushing for a raise or developing other options to leverage their position). If we're considering the pay gap between professions, interestingly this is widest in the most egalitarian societies (such as Norway) where, given the choice, women statistically choose professions that are lower paying such as nursing, teaching, etc, or they don't work at all and choose to stay home and raise their children instead. And yes, I used the work choose, since the evil Patriarchy didn't force them to enter professions against their will.

Well, when a woman works her entire life to compete at a high level in a particular sport, and is then made immediately irrelevant by a trans athlete such as Lia Thomas, a white person claiming to be the next Jackie Robinson (yes, that was actually said by this person), I think it's understandable. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/592822-sixteen-penn-swimmers-say-transgender-athlete Cite data here please.

Interesting and balanced talk between Lex Fridman and Gary Nolan on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCc2-1tbBQ Premiered February 7th, 2022

Pretty cool. Stairway reminded me of this prank from a while back.

Concerning the communication question, the Ariel School encounter circa 1994 offers some interesting clues. In that encounter, witnesses described a physical alien craft landing on the outer perimeter of their school in remote Ruwa, Zimbabwe. Several extraterrestrial beings emerged which then interacted with the students telepathically, projecting images into their consciousness of dire environmental destruction awaiting mankind, if humanity does not change course and amend their actions. (Video clip of this encounter posted below). The reference to telepathic communication by these witnesses is notable. Projecting images into another being's consciousness would be an extremely effective way to communicate with / influence that being. Human beings use image projection all the time to influence other humans: through television, films, internet memes, photography, virtual reality, and of course through written and spoken language. Affecting another person's imagination, or you could say their inner mental model of reality, is also a very effective way of influencing that person's behavior. Human beings remember sequences of images easier than abstract concepts, which is why most people naturally remember television shows and movies. It's also interesting that children were the chosen recipients of this message. It seems the aliens were intent on creating a level of communication that would impact human behavior on a species level, i.e. transcend the individual experience and resonate with us collectively as a species. Inducing permanent species level change is no small task, especially when humanity is concerned. First, think of all the ways that wouldn't work: landing their spaceship in Times Square would only induce terror and fighter jets. Speaking to government leaders at the top of the power hierarchy would probably be useless and result in suppression of the message. Even engaging with one particular nation directly would be very dangerous, since human beings are essentially territorial apes, and the perception of alien intervention in favor of one superpower might result in all out war (as was the premise of the movie "Arrival"). But children on a playground who will tell their story in an unbiased manner? Such a situation might be the right set of circumstances to allow the information in the message to resonate collectively over time in an uncorrupted way. Possible reasons why children were chosen for the communication: Children are less likely to respond with physical violence Children more open/receptive to the communication (won't become terrified and run away) Possible Long Term Effects of the Interaction The children will grow up and spread their message to others, information resonates over time If the interaction garners enough credibility, that is, the public believes this was a real encounter, the gravity of the event may be enough to induce species level change

Excellent article here on the "Putin Doctrine". Explains Putin's motivations perfectly, and why this latest tempest may be more than mere saber rattling. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-01-27/putin-doctrine

Dr. Campbell isn't anti-vax. He's an ardent supporter of the vaccine and encourages his viewers to get it. Here's the bullet points of the data he discusses in the video. The data shows that number of deaths attributable to Covid is far lower than once thought. -------- 127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average Official data https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai... -------- Deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes FOI Ref: FOI/2021/3240 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp... ----- Death registrations for 2020 and 2021 for deaths where COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause, but had no other pre-existing conditions recorded on the death certificate, England and Wales 2020 Total deaths, 9,400 0-64, 1,549 65 and over, 7,851 ------- 2021 Q1 Total deaths, 6,483 0-64, 1,560 65 and over, 4,923 ------- 2021 Q2 Total deaths, 346 0-64, 153 65 and over, 193 ------- 2021 Q3, Total deaths, 1,142 0-64, 512 65 and over, 630 ------- Therefore, 2020 and first 3 quarters of 2021 Total deaths from covid alone, 17,371 Of this number 13,597 were 65 or over Of this number, 3,774 were under 65 ------- Average age of death in UK from covid in 2021 82.5 years Average life expectancy in the UK, 2018 to 2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... 79.0 years for males 82.9 years for females This represents a fall of 7.0 weeks for males and a slight increase of 0.5 weeks for females (from the latest non-overlapping period of 2015 to 2017) This is the first time we have seen a decline when comparing non-overlapping time periods since the series began in the early 1980s ------- The entire presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

Seems more applicable to you.

Another interesting article. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/18/health-department-warning-over-vaccine-mandate-for-nhs-england-staff Excerpt: Ministers have been issued with a stark warning over mandatory Covid vaccines for NHS workers in England, with a leaked document saying growing evidence on the Omicron variant casts doubts over the new law’s “rationality” and “proportionality”. On Tuesday the Royal College of Nursing said the leaked memo should prompt ministers to call a halt to the imposition of compulsory jabs, which it called “reckless”. “The government should now instigate a major rethink”, said Patricia Marquis, the RCN’s England director. “Mandation is not the answer and sacking valued nursing staff during a workforce crisis is reckless.” “The low VE [vaccine effectiveness] against infection (and consequently effect on transmission) plus the lower risk posed by Omicron brings into question both the rationality of the VCOD2 policy and its proportionality and makes the case for vaccination requirement weaker than when [ministers] decided on the policy. “The evidence base on which MPs voted on VCOD2 has now changed and we may see more objections from MPs, increased media interest and higher likelihood of judicial review.” “Now we’ve learned more about both vaccine efficacy against Omicron transmission and its severity, it looks increasingly foolish. “Ministers would be wise to rethink the policy and avoid putting even more pressure on our NHS by sacking tens of thousands of health and social care workers in the next few weeks. When you know something won’t work, it’s right to change course.” Hospital bosses have voiced rising concerns that they may have to close entire units and send patients elsewhere for treatment because the enforced dismissal of unvaccinated staff means they cannot run safely. There is particular concern about maternity units as hospitals are already 2,500 midwives short. Matthew Trainer, the chief executive of Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust in London, said last week that the loss of unvaccinated midwives, coupled with the fact that it already had a 10% vacancy rate among those specialists, “would put us in quite a serious position”. Recent data on deaths caused by Covid -19 (in the UK) from the Office of National Statistics calls this into question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

And I'm 99% sure you haven't read any of the resources I have posted establishing this point.

Are they uninformed? I question that. I think these healthcare workers are actually hyperaware of the data surrounding the vaccine (AZ in particular, since we're focusing on the UK). While the majority of the general public doesn't focus on the small chance they will be fatally impacted by a thrombotic event, these employees would likely be quite cognizant that there's a real chance such consequences could impact them directly. As I mentioned previously, the fact that these events happen and are viewed as acceptable collateral damage, with no effort to improve the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, can't be too encouraging. They're weighing this risk against the possibility of being seriously impacted by Covid, and determining the vaccine isn't worth it. Patricia Marquis, from RCN England made that same point (see my post above). Now, you can call these workers "uninformed" if you want to. It's reassuring to wield self righteous anger at a chosen out-group that you can collectively ostracize. But the fact is in a free society with free access to information, these workers have a choice to interpret the data and risk as they see fit, and act accordingly. Which brings us to the question of the effect on the NHS as a system, and whether the mandate is actually worth it from a systems perspective. Many in the NHS feel the harm done to the patients would be measurably greater with these impending staff shortages than if employees are allowed to work unvaccinated. Just how far is this crusade to forcibly vaccinate everyone prepared to go and at what immediate cost? Do the ends really justify the means? I don't think they do, and neither do many others.

Another interesting article. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/18/health-department-warning-over-vaccine-mandate-for-nhs-england-staff Except: Ministers have been issued with a stark warning over mandatory Covid vaccines for NHS workers in England, with a leaked document saying growing evidence on the Omicron variant casts doubts over the new law’s “rationality” and “proportionality”. On Tuesday the Royal College of Nursing said the leaked memo should prompt ministers to call a halt to the imposition of compulsory jabs, which it called “reckless”. “The government should now instigate a major rethink”, said Patricia Marquis, the RCN’s England director. “Mandation is not the answer and sacking valued nursing staff during a workforce crisis is reckless.” “The low VE [vaccine effectiveness] against infection (and consequently effect on transmission) plus the lower risk posed by Omicron brings into question both the rationality of the VCOD2 policy and its proportionality and makes the case for vaccination requirement weaker than when [ministers] decided on the policy. “The evidence base on which MPs voted on VCOD2 has now changed and we may see more objections from MPs, increased media interest and higher likelihood of judicial review.” “Now we’ve learned more about both vaccine efficacy against Omicron transmission and its severity, it looks increasingly foolish. “Ministers would be wise to rethink the policy and avoid putting even more pressure on our NHS by sacking tens of thousands of health and social care workers in the next few weeks. When you know something won’t work, it’s right to change course.” Hospital bosses have voiced rising concerns that they may have to close entire units and send patients elsewhere for treatment because the enforced dismissal of unvaccinated staff means they cannot run safely. There is particular concern about maternity units as hospitals are already 2,500 midwives short. Matthew Trainer, the chief executive of Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust in London, said last week that the loss of unvaccinated midwives, coupled with the fact that it already had a 10% vacancy rate among those specialists, “would put us in quite a serious position”.

When did I say that it was? We're discussing a proposed mandate, not one that is already in place.

Of course. He's repeating the same points as before without addressing the new ones I raised. No animosity here, or at least not greater than that being directed at me.

You seem fixated on the idea that this discussion is about you and me. It's not really about that, sorry. I'm more interested in the mechanics of this scenario and discussing the potential consequences. So perhaps you can see beyond the personal tit-for-tat for a change and analyze this situation objectively?

This thread is about examining whether a vaccine mandate for NHS staff should be enforced or rescinded. There are numerous factors to consider: the practical consequences to the NHS with their current staffing issues, reasons why staff might be hesitant to get the vaccine, whether they are justified in their perceptions, what the limit of government power should be in the context of this situation. I have heard your views already. Something to the effect of "These people are stupid and they should just accept whatever mandate is thrown at them" Copy that - understood the first time. However there are more elements to this situation than dismissing these people as you choose to do.

You haven't offered conclusive evidence of anything. You seem incapable of addressing the nuance of this situation, hence your need to revert to childish memes and dismissive over simplifications.

@iNow Spamming silly memes now? How mature.

You haven't explained anything conclusively.

Easy for you, perhaps, since dismissing others with contrary views is your MO. Flu vaccines are not novel MRNA vaccines. So, invalid point. Incorrect. Not in the context I described. Well, first of all, AZ has been linked to blood clots in the past, so your argument that there is no evidence for that is categorically false and uninformed. I think the issue many have with AZ and the MRNA in general is the lack of a long term track record of safety. I think informed care workers are assessing the risk of dying from Covid, versus potentially being adversely affected by the vaccine, and concluding that their risk of being adversely affected by Covid is lower. The opportunity to improve AZ has also been missed, with downstream consequences. When perfectly healthy men and women drop dead of a blood clot after taking AZ, and the public health messaging is effectively "Don't worry, that only happens randomly to a few people. Those people are essentially collateral damage in the context of the wider campaign against Covid; they're mere statistics. Further, we're not going to work to address these safety concerns or improve the vaccine because the number of people affected is too small to really matter." To many people this deeply irresponsible messaging in the face of such fatal consequences is cause for deferring the vaccine.

You projected the phrase "kindergarten level of analysis" at me in the other thread. Right back at you with that post. The picture perfect scenario you just painted doesn't allow for unknown variables such as new diseases with new vaccines, vaccines that don't have a sufficient track record of safety in the eyes of some (in the case of the NHS it seems to be around 80,0000 workers who are willing to walk off the job because they feel it's so unsafe). Not so easy to dismiss healthcare workers as Q-Anon cranks. Perhaps it is Astra Zeneca's unpredictable and potentially fatal thrombotic events that concern these workers. Perhaps it is the risk of an increased chance of myocarditis. Whatever the reason, being told to "shut up and take it" won't work, since they will just quit, leaving the NHS more severely short staffed than ever. Nor will contractual agreement solve the issue, since the vaccines you referenced have all been proven safe after decades of use, unlike the novel mRna vaccines. Unless a clause is written that said employee will consent to any vaccine for any future disease for the entirety of their employment and must remain in their position and not resign if they are unhappy about it. But if such contracts are ever produced by employers and upheld by the courts, we're no longer living in a free country.