the thing that's going to save the weakest is the antibody treatment that trump got, and an ability to adjust and mass manufacture that on demand.

vaccines are really not the best approach for these kinds of weak, contagious viruses.

the one drive servers are terribly inconsistent.

it's horribly frustrating to try to work in them, because the results are consistently changing.

why can't it just stay put?

there has been some editing of my writing.

i'm not going to sort through it and rip my hair out and try to figure it out.

i am simply going to demand it is undone.

this belongs to me - i do not want my art comodified or "corrected" for mass consumption.

i demand you undo all editing immediately and cease from editing anything in the future.

if everybody was like me, anarchism would actually be really easy....

alas.

i don't want to be your boss.

be your own fucking boss.

and fuck off, too.

when you ask me why i rejected "entrepreneurialism" (which is just a fancy word for the bourgeoisie), i actually don't tend to bring out the marxist or hegelian theory to deconstruct it.

rather, what i'll tell you is this: being an entrepreneur is a shitty way to exist.

- it's stressful

- it's boring

- it's time consuming...

yes - i'll align with the marxist framework if you trot it out, preferably not on skis.

but, that's not actually my pushback - i actually just think it's fucking boring.

i'm data driven.

i debunk things.

it's my function.

i'm sorry.

i've been waiting for numbers to kind of stabilize before i post an analysis update. i decided some time ago that a play-by-play isn't helpful, and i became far more interested in the diet. i'll update things as i work through this.

but, one thing is clear - while covid-19 is a strong flu, it's far closer to the 1968 flu in terms of ifr than the 1918 flu.

at the end of the day, this will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of severity.

.....much like donald trump will, himself.

fwiw, this is a screenshot of the cdc's page, dated sept 10, 2020.

if you agree that the cdc's modelling is a safe source, the conclusion is clear - these numbers are roughly the same as the flu.

and, we have lots and lots of data now, too.

so, that statement appears to have been correct.

perhaps i should clarify a point that people may be unclear about, because they may not know better.

while it is the case that old people are more vulnerable to weak viruses, this specific virus is particularly deadly for the elderly because it's entirely novel. the reason it kills so many of them is that they've never seen it before, and their immune system is unable to mount a defence, because it's so old and weak.

when people in middle age today get into these older age brackets, whether they are able to mount a response or not will partially depend on how well their body was trained to deal with this virus when they were younger. it follows that protecting a 55 year old from this virus is just eliminating the body's time window to mount a defense, and leaving them vulnerable as they age.

it follows that the mortality rate should decrease as younger people get older if they get proper exposure when they're young; otherwise, we're going to see a pattern set in, where people get systematically wiped out as they age.

i could get conspiratorial, and i have a mind to, but i think ockam's razor is to blame it on our collective stupidity. we had the right answer and we attacked it; we did everything wrong, instead, blinded by our own arrogance, and this human instinct to dominate and control.

it's frustrating.

and, you wonder why i hate people.

viruses are no doubt even more deadly than religion, if they are not one and the same thing.

...and, you will die.

you know that, even if you forget it, sometimes.

historically speaking, viruses have killed a lot of humans, and you probably would have died of a virus, perhaps in the presence of cancer, regardless.

this is how people die.

it's how they've always died...

as this virus will be with us forever, people in their 30s and 40s need to catch up by contracting it as many times as they can.

it's the people in their 50s and 60s that should be most concerned about the existing policy, because their time window is closing.

they'll probably be ok if they catch it tomorrow.

...perhaps, less so in six months.

so, we need to make a choice - do we want to live under fascist lockdown indefinitely?

or are we going to need to change how the elderly live to ensure they take a greater responsibility in protecting themselves?

it's not just the one in south africa. they're finding dozens of variants...the other vaccines will fail in time, too. it's a proof of concept.

it's obvious - and you're operating on faith, in denying it.

so, what they need to do is keep track of these things and keep fighting. i'm not arguing that we need to give up; we fight against the flu every year, we don't give in to it. but, we need to accept a concept of normalcy around this.

it's going to be with us until this happens again, and some other virus displaces it. 

i don't want to be protected from the virus - that's going to get me killed, in the end.

we've done the worst things we could possibly do.

and, we've done them over and over and over.

and, we don't even understand.

shit.

this is the new flu. and, that was obvious from the start.

how's the flu doing? not so well.

vaccinations are going to need to be yearly, and vaccine research is going to need to be constant.

and, that means that everything we've done was a waste of time.

life is going to be very difficult for the elderly for the rest of their lives. but, we need to get back to reality, now. this can not be permanent. we must adapt.

we were foolish; it's time to cut our losses, and shift the burden of responsibility - you have to protect yourself, because this is never going away. ever.

as a relatively young person, i want to train my immune system via exposure. and, i resent a system that is trying to keep me weak in preventing me from doing so.

this was both predictable and obviously so.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/south-africa-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine-drive-over-variant-1.5299360

i'm just reading through that and...

yup.

all of it.

really. no shit.

so, we're doing this as well:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQ2-8EV5YwNAeI_d5HRA480_K-bkpSRa/view?usp=sharing

over time, i expect to have a series of these texts cut out from the main blogs that will be edited and updated.

again: i don't want a book deal. i find the idea of exchanging labour for money to be vulgar. i want a ubi....

the backlash against the term 'retard' is truly retarded.

the angrier you get at my use of the term "retard", the more likely i am to call you a retard over it.

and laugh at you for it.

you need to chill the fuck out, and i'll keep calling you all a bunch of retards until you do.

actually, i've taken to recently using the term "retard" because people find it upsetting.

five years ago, i would have suggested it was crass - but the reaction against it has become so absurd, that i've decided to regularly say it just to piss people off.

so, my position is that that kind of censorship is regressive and needs to be reacted against, basically.

i'd apologize to all the actual retards out there, but they wouldn't understand, anyways.

there's some kind of burning rubber smell down here tonight, and it's pissing me off, to say the least. it's got me feeling very shitty and fucked up.

i'm going to stop to eat.

i'd rather you call me a blogger than a journalist, frankly.

journalism is not a profession i have much respect for.

i'm an artist - a writer. sure.

i'm not a journalist. yuck.

sorry.

wait.

you don't think i think i'm a journalist, do you?

lol.

no.

i am not a journalist. at all.

this is a combination of creative writing and a public diary. i comment on the news sometimes, but i'm not a journalist in any sense at all, have never called myself one and would correct you on it if you ever called me one.

i've taken comparisons to hunter s. thompson critically, or with a grain of salt.

nor do i want to be one. yuck. no...don't think of this like that, that's vulgar to me...

people that want to push their way to the front of the line and undercut the livelihoods of others are demonstrating antisocial behaviour that benefits nobody but themselves, and the capital they're selling themselves to. that's something that should be rightfully condemned as what it is.

you've probably been badly manipulated by agents of this capital and consequently don't understand that. 

but, this is a debate about economics, not a debate about race or language or identity.

these workers are merely trying to survive. so long as laws governing the flow of labour exist, they need to be enforced in some trivial manner, but it should not be a crime to cross a border to seek work.

what is truly criminal is hiring people below the minimum wage, without benefits and without safety regulations. what is criminal is denying them the right to form unions. and, what is criminal is throwing them out of the country when they agitate for change.

what is criminal is the theft of surplus value occurring at even more obscene levels than elsewhere in the economy.

it needs to be the employer's legal responsibility to ensure they are not hiring illegal labour, and they need to be held liable for it, if they do.

in this particular case, the individual appears to have entered the country on a legal work permit and overstayed it - something that's relatively common. as such, criminal charges may not be appropriate. but, that just shifts the burden to the employer that much more.

i've been clear that i'm not an advocate of deporting people.

this is what i'd do in this case and cases like it:

1) i'd charge them with illegally entering the country, and find them guilty of doing so. that gives them a criminal record.

2) i'd send them to jail for like a week or something.

3) i'd release them.

this is within the context of very strict restrictions regarding the use of illegal labour under the table. in the long run, i'd like to see border restrictions broken down so that people can move freely between countries with minimal supervision. for right now, it is imperative that illegals register with the state to ensure that they're not undercutting domestic workers by taking substandard wages. if this person is an illegal migrant, how did they get a job? it is the company that hired them (at what wage level?) that needs to be prosecuted, not the worker that sought employment to survive.

the individual then ought to be let back into the society to make a choice as to whether they can survive in canada with a criminal record, or if they're better off returning home.

that would provide an incentive to do things properly, which is what everybody wants.

over time, when the issue of employers hiring illegals to avoid paying minimum wage is dealt with, which is the real problem here, these restrictions should be lifted and people should be allowed to move freely.

deportation is almost never justified.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/family-deportation-canada-portugal-risk-1.5902716