#health and economic implications

[artisticdivasworld]

Understanding Burnout: A Personal Journey into Life's Overwhelming Fatigue

Web Life is a beautiful journey, filled with ups and downs, joys and sorrows. But what happens when the downs seem to outweigh the ups, and the sorrows overshadow the joys? What happens when every day feels like a struggle, and the mere act of getting out of bed feels like climbing Mount Everest? This, my dear readers, is what burnout feels like. The Weight of Burnout Imagine waking up every…

[investoropia]

Federal Reserve Stress Test Sends Shock waves through Stock Market! JP MORGAN JUMPED 3.49%

Federal Reserve stress test results on U.S. bank stocks and their influence on the overall market. Gain insights into investor sentiment, regulatory concerns, and the future outlook.

U.S. bank stocks surged in response to the results of the Federal Reserve’s annual stress tests, instilling renewed confidence among investors and traders. The comprehensive health checks provided insights into the resilience of major lenders, addressing concerns stemming from recent failures, including Silicon Valley Bank and other institutions. The impressive performance of bank stocks highlights their ability to weather an economic slump and underscores the importance of stress testing in ensuring a stable financial system.

While the stress test results boosted market sentiment, skeptics remain cautious regarding dividends and share buybacks. Heightened regulatory oversight and uncertainties surrounding the economic outlook contribute to concerns about the feasibility of larger payouts. Analysts at RBC Capital Markets caution that the recent banking crisis has driven banks to adopt a more conservative approach, potentially limiting share buyback activities for the remainder of 2023.

Continue Reading the Complete Article : Click Here

OTHER TOPIC:

Market Corrections: 5 Factors Every Investor and Trader Must Understand

Mastering the Stochastic Oscillator

THE POWER OF BOLLINGER BANDS

GDP Data: Economic Growth and Stable Inflation

Strong Economy: Understanding and Impact

How to Safeguard your Investments During a Market Decline?

[nardacci-does-art]

I only had 10 panels but here's some more fun exciting delightful articles about how republicans think public schools should make kids say christian prayers & teach students that slavery had no longterm affect on black communities, how trump makes fun of disabled people, & just a big categorized list of both republican & democrats' stances on various issues. Oh right the republicans are also lying & saying that the democrats gave all of FEMA's money to illegal immigrants even tho they're the ones who voted against FEMA funding. Not to mention that one time trump refused to fund California's wildfire relief until he was told there's people there who vote for him. Did all the anti-voters just conveniently forget how fucking bad it was when he was president last time.

Either you vote Harris-Wals or you let a bunch of hateful bigots run the US again. Stop using the horrible plight of the Palestinians to justify your voter apathy. It's really hard to help other people when you're fighting to survive. Put on your own oxygen mask first.

Any anti-voter morons will be blocked.

Articles referenced in screenshots under the cut:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/project-2025-what-is-it-who-is-behind-it-how-is-it-connected-trump-2024-07-12/

https://www.newsweek.com/hate-crimes-under-trump-surged-nearly-20-percent-says-fbi-report-1547870

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-anti-immigrant-rant-rally-response_n_66de9a43e4b01b464f3dee5e

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-helped-lead-rise-racist/story?id=76530148

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4892401-trump-proposes-sanctuary-cities-legislation/

https://ballotpedia.org/2024_presidential_candidates_on_transgender_healthcare

https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/2024/international-economic-implications-second-trump-presidency

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-refugee-crisis-gop-ban-terrorism-85afcf677743b8f8c82fe814ffe61161

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/11/unrwa-gaza-humanitarian-aid-congress/

[ecomehdi]

Some Dangers From Pandemic Fatigue: Understanding the Risks

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the lives of people across the globe. With the prolonged duration and the extensive measures put in place to control the spread of the virus, individuals have been experiencing what is commonly referred to as “pandemic fatigue.” Pandemic fatigue refers to the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion resulting from the ongoing crisis. While the…

[reasonsforhope]

"In short: Thailand's Senate has approved a bill legalising same sex marriage in the South-East Asian country.

It will afford same-sex couples practical benefits such as being able to have children through IVF and make emergency medical decisions for their spouse.

What's next? The first weddings may take place later this year, 120 days after the law is announced in the Royal Gazette.

Thailand has become the first nation in South-East Asia to legalise same sex marriage, with the country's Senate approving the landmark bill this afternoon.

The legislation was expected to pass after it cleared the country's House of Representatives in a near-unanimous vote in March.

Despite Thailand's bustling gay bars and prominent transgender community making it a mecca for LGBTQ+ tourists, until now local same-sex couples there have been unable to marry.

The law will take effect 120 days after its announcement in the Royal Gazette, so the first same sex weddings may take place later this year.

Couples who have been waiting years have hailed the move as a historic moment that will afford them rights only reserved for spouses.

A Lifechanging Law

Photos of Anticha and Worawan [including the article picture], dressed in floor-length white gowns and trailed by rainbow flags, getting married at Bangkok's first Pride Festival two years ago went viral, but they are still not legally married.

Now they will be able to change that, and Anticha Sangchai is elated.

"This will change my life and change many Thai people's lives, especially in the LGBT community," she said.

"It is a historical moment and I really want to join with my community to celebrate this moment.

"I want to send a message to the world that Thailand has changed. Even though there are still many issues, this is a big step for us." ...

There were an estimated 3.7 million LGBT people in Thailand in 2022, according to LGBT Capital, a private company which models economic data pertaining to the community around the world.

For the young couple from Bangkok, being able to marry also has very real practical implications.

If they want to have children through IVF, Ms Sangchai says they will need a marriage certificate first.

"I am quite concerned about the time because we are getting older every day, and the older you get the more difficult it is to have a healthy pregnancy," she said.

"So we've been really wanting this law to pass as soon as possible."

Cabaret performer Jena is excited Thailand's laws are finally catching up with the nation's image...

She too had worried about the practical implications of being unable to marry.

"For example, if myself or my partner had to go to hospital or there was an accident that needs consent for an emergency operation, without a marriage certificate we couldn't sign it," she said.

She now wants the government to move forward with a law to allow transgender people to amend their gender on official documents." ...

An Economic Boost?

Thailand has long been famous for LGBTQ tourism and there are now hopes this new law could allow the country to cash in on the aging members of the community.

Chaiwat Songsiriphan, who runs a health clinic for people in the LGBTQ community, said laws preventing same sex marriage were the last barrier holding the country back from becoming a gay retirement hub.

[Note: They do not just mean for rich westerners; Thailand as a gay retirement hub would probably appeal most to and definitely benefit LGBTQ people from throughout Asia.]

"Thailand has an LGBTQ-friendly environment since Thai culture is quite flexible," he said.

"One of my foreigner friends, a gay friend, told me that when he's in his country he has to pretend to be straight … but when he comes to Bangkok he said you can be as gay as you want.

"When we talk about retirement or a long-term stay for the rest of their lives, what people need is … food, good healthcare services, transportation, homes.

"I think Thailand has it all at a very affordable price."

He said it could help give the country a desperately needed economic boost.

"This will have a lot of benefits for Thailand's economy because when we talk about retirement it's people literally bringing all the money they have earned for the rest of their working lives to spend and invest here," he said.

He said he, like the rest of the community, was thrilled by the news.

"It's not about a privilege, it's just equality," he said.

"We are we also humans, so we should be able to marry the one we love.""

-via ABC Australia, June 18, 2024

[mariacallous]

It is often assumed that far-right parties do well in areas with many new immigrants. This is supposedly because housing prices rise, traffic jams get worse, crime and employment can become an issue, and the arrival of newcomers with different habits and religions creates friction with local residents—who then proceed to vote for anti-immigrant parties. The implication of this presumed link between immigration and the rise of the far right is that far-right parties listen better to the frustrations and complaints of “ordinary people” and that other parties have somehow “lost touch with reality.”

But what if this link does not really exist? What if far-right parties aren’t so much listening to the wishes and demands of ordinary citizens in immigrant areas, and then translating them into policy proposals, as they are scaring them and pitting them against newcomers in their neighborhood so they end up voting in their favor?

That is exactly the conclusion of a recent study conducted by four researchers from Bocconi University in Milan and the ETH in Zurich: The Free Movement of People and the Success of Far-Right Parties: Evidence from Switzerland’s Border Liberalization, just published in American Political Science Review. In light of the current hysterical anti-immigration discourse in Europe, it is a compelling read. It provides a convincing explanation for at least part of the political turbulence in France, Romania, the Netherlands, and other countries.

The success of anti-immigration parties, the authors argue, cannot be explained by cultural, economic, or political problems that citizens experience with immigration. Instead, they found it is rather the other way around: It is “political elites” in far-right parties who are responsible for such votes. They decide to focus their election campaigns in areas with immigrants. These campaigns are often hard-hitting and confrontational, using slogans like “full is full” or “stop migration” and cartoons depicting immigrants as black sheep or thieves who do harm and need to be expelled. Instead of citizens complaining of immigrants of their own accord, they are often incited by far-right political entrepreneurs—whereafter they start complaining about immigration and voting for the far right.

The Swiss and Italian researchers studied the correlation between immigration and the success of the far right in an unusual place: the mostly well-off border towns and villages of Ticino, Switzerland’s Italian-language canton. They focused on the period after 2000, when Switzerland and its EU neighbors first opened their borders to enable citizens to live and work freely in each other’s countries. In the period studied, immigration in Ticino rose by 14 percent, and support for the far right increased by 32 percent.

While the link looks strong at first glance, the researchers could not prove it. “We find limited evidence that the standard economic, cultural and security explanations are driving this rising anti-immigrant sentiment,” they write. What their report does show is this: From the moment the borders with France, Germany, Austria, and Italy were opened, Swiss political elites on the far right began campaigning aggressively in those areas, advancing narratives of overcrowding, crime, and “density stress,” meaning increasing pressure on public transportation, housing, parking, health care, and other collective facilities.

The researchers consistently use the term “political elite” in their article to emphasize that the success of the far right is orchestrated from above (top-down), rather than coming from citizens themselves (bottom-up). Far-right politicians often claim they speak on behalf of “the people,” who are fed up with “the elite.” But these politicians, the researchers argue, are themselves part of the elite.

The cultural disruptions caused by immigration in Tricine are minimal. Nearly all immigrants in Tricine come from Italy, oftentimes from just across the border. Most are white, Catholic, and educated. They speak Italian and eat pasta. Culturally and socially, they do not cause much friction.

Economically, too, problems are rare. On the contrary: According to the study, Ticino’s economy has grown since the borders opened for immigrant workers. Employment picked up and salaries rose slightly. Traffic jams did get worse, the researchers observed. But that also happened in parts of Ticino a little further from the border—areas that were used as the control areas in the study—where immigration increased but the support for the far right did not.

The explanation for this, they found, is simple: In these control areas, far-right politicians did not run anti-immigrant campaigns as they did in the areas closer to the border. “Our analysis suggests that political elites target their hostile rhetoric at border regions, and that it resonates more strongly with persuadable voters exposed to immigration.” The voters were “persuadable” because they were in a new situation that they had to adapt to; the far right recognized the potential to give that situation a negative spin by portraying immigrants as troublemakers, freeloaders, or criminals. In the control areas, where voters found themselves in a similar situation, there was no such spin. There, the vote for the far right did not increase.

Politicians in Ticino’s parliament coming from border areas were also found to be more likely to propose anti-immigrant legislation than their colleagues from control areas a little further from the border. Those politicians tabling anti-immigrant legislation mostly came from the far right, and in a few instances also from center-right parties trying to curry favour with voters who were supposedly fed up with immigrants.

This study is important. It confirms findings from internationally renowned political scientists such as Larry Bartels, whose book Democracy Erodes From the Top makes the same point, and Nancy Bermeo, whose study Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times analyzes breakdowns of European and Latin American democracies in the 20th century. Both argue that it is not voters who determine the political direction of a country and, ultimately, the fate of democracy, but the political elites who make calculated decisions to offer voters only certain options.

It would be good if centrist politicians, who all too often ape what their far-right colleagues (or rather rivals) do, finally understood this crucial point. The future of our democracies depends on it.

[olderthannetfic]

I still think the people responding to the abortion thing with "well you wouldn't want them to raise that kid" are missing the point a bit, though. Even if someone has ample resources to take care of a kid, and they're fully prepared to be the best parent ever, they still have an inherent right to abort a pregnancy they don't want. Like focusing on "an ableist parent wouldn't be the best to raise that kid!" or "what if they don't have the resources for the health care they need!' opens up the "adoption" argument - and I'm sure many people would counter it with all the problems of the adoption system particularly for disabled kids. But even if adoption were a surefire way to ensure every child finds the perfect loving home, it is still wrong to force the pregnant person to use their body for 9 months to carry a pregnancy when they would rather not. The problems with relying overmuch on this argument is it has a kind of ugly implication that if a woman has no economic or emotional reason to struggle to raise a kid, it's mean and selfish for her not to be a mother. We saw some of that with the overturning of Roe in the U.S. - a lot of rhetoric of how this was bad just because of how it would affect poor or minority women. And I just wanted to be like, okay, but a wealthy white woman with ample resources who just doesn't want to have a kid, shouldn't have to have a kid. And it's still a massive violation of her human rights to force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months. Like I thought one of the anons made this clear, but people keep saying this so maybe they're not getting it: but think of the burden that pregnancy puts on a body? Think about all the little things you have to do differently if you're pregnant. You can't drink, you can't take certain medications, including some that a lot of people's mental and physical health relies on the rest of the time. It literally moves around your organs to accommodate the growing fetus. It's just painful and nauseating a lot of time. That's not even going into how it's often enough of a medical emergency that it regularly killed pregnant people before we had access to modern medicine and hospitals, and still does in other parts of the world, or with people who refuse that treatment. Isn't that enough to convince you that it's horrifying to inflict that on someone unwillingly? I understand focusing on financial burdens and so on because it helps convince people who maybe aren't all there with respecting bodily autonomy. But also, I'm a cis woman who has no desire to be pregnant and have kids, and sure the fact that I haven't got a lot of money right now helps, but I know that if I was a billionaire and had tons of people at the ready to help raise my kids for me, I still wouldn't want to be a mother. And it's bizarre how radical that is to say even in ostensibly feminist, progressive spaces. A lot of people are just still so deeply uncomfortable with women (or anyone they see as a woman) deciding to choose life paths that don't include motherhood, in a way they simply are not with men eschewing fatherhood. And we can't really talk about gender equality until that starts to change. There's no reason that being born as a particular gender should limit the kind of life that people let you live or even imagine. There's nothing about being a woman that makes you more nurturing or parental, and so no reason that you shouldn't be able to decide that's not for you.

--

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

By Julia Doubleday

This week, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Jeanne Marrazzo, sat down with Stat News to discuss succeeding Anthony Fauci amid public concerns over ongoing H5N1 and mpox outbreaks.

The conversation yielded a staggering admission from Dr. Marrazzo as she downplayed risks of a bird flu pandemic:

"Can I make a quick digression? We recently had a long Covid [research] meeting where we had about 200 people, in person. And we can’t mandate mask-wearing, because it’s federal property. But there was a fair amount of disturbance that we couldn’t, and people weren’t wearing masks, and one person accused us of committing a microaggression by not wearing masks. And I take that very seriously. But I thought to myself, it’s more that people just want to live a normal life. We really don’t want to go back. It was so painful. We’re still all traumatized. Let’s be honest about that. None of us are over it."

This jaw-dropping justification is perhaps more jaw-dropping given that Dr. Marrazzo was not asked to comment on the meeting but broached the topic herself. Her statement clarifies that she and other public health officials don’t wear masks because they find basic disease control to be psychologically triggering. Let’s unpack the layers of anti-science, anti-patient, anti-public health and anti-reality rhetoric - not to mention rancid ableism- in this statement.

First let’s consider the context. Dr. Marrazzo is not referring to masking generally, although any public health official who is informed about the cumulative risks of COVID infections like long-term disability and brain damage should be. She is specifically justifying a refusal to mask at a Long COVID research meeting.

The RECOVER-TLC meeting in Bethesda at the end of September gathered hundreds of scientists, medical professionals and patients to discuss Long COVID. What is Long COVID? Let’s use the definition offered in a recent review article published in Nature Medicine:

"Long COVID represents the constellation of post-acute and long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection; it is a complex, multisystem disorder that can affect nearly every organ system and can be severely disabling. The cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion—equivalent to about 1% of the global economy. Several mechanistic pathways are implicated in long COVID, including viral persistence, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, complement dysregulation, endothelial inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis."

In other words, a quite serious, quite common outcome of SARS-COV-2 infection with a multitude of physical markers, poised to drastically disrupt world economies. Even after vaccination, Long COVID risk remained around 3-4% in a recent study. Long COVID can follow any COVID infection and affect anyone, and risks are known to be cumulative. That means reinfections continue to raise your risk of developing Long COVID. COVID is an airborne virus, transmitted by sharing air with infected individuals.

To debunk several misapprehensions, there is no special kind of person who gets Long COVID. There is, conversely, no special, “healthy” kind of person who cannot develop Long COVID. A person who has had COVID three times and feels okay is not now “immune” to Long COVID. No one has long-term immunity to COVID, and vaccinations can reduce the risk of, but not entirely prevent, COVID infections. COVID spreads in our communities at high rates year-round, with late-September wastewater data showing about half a million cases per day, or one in 57 Americans infected.

But experts gathering at a meeting about Long COVID should be well aware of all of the above.

In year five of the ongoing COVID pandemic, we have plenty of tools to ensure that a meeting- even an indoor, in-person meeting- remains safe for all attendees. Mitigation measures that would have reduced the risk of COVID transmission include adequate ventilation, CO2 monitoring, HEPA filtration, on site testing, Far UVC technology, and- of course- the use of high-quality, respirator style masks. While patients were easy to identify in respirators, many of the government officials and scientists who spoke plainly chose to make the space more dangerous for people with Long COVID.

The Sick Times noted that the lack of accessibility, the risk of reinfection for patient attendees paired with a poor-quality livestream, undercut the meeting’s message of urgency and care around the treatment of Long COVID.

Meetings among experts could easily serve as a gold standard for airborne disease mitigation, modeling how to prevent infections and therefore, inevitably, more Long COVID cases. Airborne disease mitigation could and should be the first line of defense against Long COVID; it is the one and only tool we have that is proven to be effective vs the little-understood disease. This is especially important at this early stage, when treatments are so limited, with no proven path to recovery and certainly no “cure”.

But Dr. Marrazzo and her colleagues, instead of focusing on how to halt the spread of COVID at their Long COVID research meeting, are focused on how to preserve their psychological denial that they, personally, are special people who are not at risk of developing Long COVID.

There is no scientific basis for this idea; it is the fantasy of the crowd, the collective delusion of people much less informed than they are, who are desperate to resume pre-pandemic life and have been fed years of propaganda about COVID’s supposed harmlessness. To participate in this public delusion rather than attempt to pop it is a social decision, not a scientific one. Marrazzo’s statement admits as much.

Marrazzo notes that there was a “fair amount of disturbance” that researchers continue to refuse to mitigate COVID while claiming to want to address the Long COVID crisis. She goes on to state that “one person” accused the group of “committing a microaggression” by not wearing masks, obliquely referring to longtime HIV/AIDS and COVID activist JD Davids. But Davids was far from the only activist angry with the lack of mitigations.

Long COVID patients have been exceedingly clear, for months and years, about their ongoing anger that even doctors explicitly engaged in COVID work refuse to practice mitigations. This failure to mitigate is violence that very literally harms, disables and kills people.

Long COVID patients participating in medical studies like this one at Stanford have been forced to drop out of critical research projects due to staff’s refusal to mask, take airborne precautions, and provide protection from reinfection in dangerous healthcare facilities.

Twitter user Michael Coyle stated in February 2023 that, “my partner and I have both dropped out of a multi-decade (longitudinal) health study, and I dropped out of a COVID transplant study because they weren't taking airborne precautions.”

In July of this year, Jordan Crane wrote, “I have had to withdraw from the Stronger study run by @georgeinstitute in collaboration with @monashuni, 11 months in. LC patients should not be exposed to reinfection during trials aimed at helping those with LC, but that's exactly what @monashuni are doing.”

This is not only immoral, it is bad science; if research teams reinfect Long COVID patients, as well as potentially infecting control subjects, any purported results of said studies would be corrupted and invalid.

If the public at large can claim ignorance- they have, after all, been repeatedly told that risks of COVID infection are minimal and comparable to other common viruses- public health officials have no such excuse.

And why is it, by the way, that the public is so certain that repeated, continual infection with COVID-19 will not harm them? Could it have something to do with the fact that researchers, doctors and public health officials continue to appear in public unmasked, clearly communicating that continual reinfections are safe and nothing to fear?

NIAID officials and other health professionals masking at a large, indoor meeting serves multiple critical public health purposes: one, it avoids spreading the virus, which would create new Long COVID cases. Two, it conveys to the public that SARS-COV-2 infections are not harmless, that Long COVID is serious and can develop from any case of COVID. And three, it expresses that prevention is the most vital- and really, the only- tool we currently have to effectively fight Long COVID.

Marrazzo states that she took public criticism of the lack of masks “seriously”. She then goes on to provide an entirely unserious response, dismissing said criticism by whining, “people just want to live a normal life.”

What, exactly, is meant by this? What population is seen as “people”, who is excluded, and what is “normal” in the construction of this odd sentence?

Quite clearly, Marrazzo and her colleagues do not want to live the life Long COVID patients and other disabled people are now forced to live- a life of continual infection avoidance. They do not want to wear masks, be associated with those who wear masks, be seen as “disabled,” as “other,” as “sick,” “vulnerable” or “abnormal”. They want to be normal- in other words, abled and ableist.

They do not want to be stigmatized, like the abnormal patients they claim to serve.

They do not want to stand out from the crowd of abled people who are healthy enough to tolerate another COVID infection- the “normal” people who aren’t annoying or weird or old or sick or dying.

Like normal (abled) people, they want to spread COVID in peace, while pretending they do not know the damage it inflicts. Like normal people, they want to use conferences as an opportunity to have their photos taken and network over cocktails. Like all the normal people who continue to exclude Long COVID patients from public spaces, these officials, too, will not be making it any easier for sick people to be safe outside their homes. Like normal people, they are going to operate under the assumption that Long COVID and disability cannot happen to them.

Because no study, no statistic, no patient, and no research can educate a medical professional out of ableism, the unmasked people who attended this meeting have all the information in front of them, and yet cannot understand that they, too, are at risk of disability.

Marrazzo goes on to say that she and her colleagues “don’t want to go back” because “it was so painful.” What was? Disease control? The thing public health literally exists to do? Because COVID is still very much with us - 1 in 57 Americans currently positive, you recall? Long COVID patients, disabled people, and people who are avoiding infection do not have any choice but to practice mitigations, and to do so with extreme strictness, given the lack of any coordinated disease control coming from the top. Every day, this task is made harder by the abdication of public health leaders who prioritize the comfort of the most privileged over the safety of the most vulnerable.

Patients are not merely harmed by the superspreader events Marrazzo and her colleagues continue to hold- although they and surrounding communities certainly are harmed by the spread of the virus itself- they are also harmed by the blasé attitude of officials which leads the families and friends of Long COVID patients to doubt the seriousness of their condition, or the need for precautions. Long COVID patients are unsafe in their own homes because masking has been so stigmatized that their own spouses, parents, and children will not stop reinfecting them.

If the head of the NIAID declares that she cannot wear a mask because she wants to be “normal,” what hope does an ill patient have to convince her husband to buck the social, political and professional pressure he faces in public life to consistently mask? When the very public health leaders who should be stressing the importance of tools that prevent reinfections are stigmatizing them, framing them as weird, abnormal and scary?

Lastly Marrazzo insists that researchers cannot wear masks because “we’re still all traumatized,” and “none of us are over it.”

A moment for the absurdity of the statement that you cannot use a safety tool that very literally saved lives during a traumatic event because you’re psychologically triggered by it. It is akin to saying you can’t wear a seatbelt because you were in a bad car accident and people died. Go to therapy. Wear the seatbelt. Definitely do not project your personal psychological problem with seatbelts onto the people fighting for auto safety.

Watching people get infected and die during a pandemic is certainly traumatizing. But…masks didn’t do that. SARS-COV-2 did. The same virus you’re spreading when you refuse to acknowledge and mitigate it, despite being well-aware of the long-term and cumulative harms of continual reinfections. By claiming the mask is triggering your trauma by reminding you of COVID, you are essentially saying that you exist in a state of utter denial that COVID currently surrounds you.

It’s doubly astounding to dare use the word “trauma” to describe the relationship of health officials toward masks while dismissing the trauma of patients being gaslit, ignored, further disabled, and forcibly reinfected by society at large- all while those who claim to want to heal them participate in stigmatizing the best prevention tool available.

Long COVID patients are traumatized by their illness, their abandonment, their social stigmatization, the relationships they continue to lose, in many cases the loss of careers and homes, and their utter exclusion from public life. Public health officials are not “traumatized” by having to mitigate the disease that inflicted and continues to inflict all of those actual traumas.

There is a social and cultural problem within public health institutions regarding airborne disease control. Broader social norms of ignorance and denial of the virus’s harms- which were themselves seeded by mainstream politicians and media, whose rhetoric was in turn cribbed from far-right libertarian thinktanks- have been absorbed into medical and public health settings.

The stigmatization of masking certainly began on the far right, but as Biden’s administration sought to normalize recurrent COVID reinfections and push people “back to normal,” Democrats joined in on the political project to socially destroy the tool humans would have killed for in centuries past. To be able to make use of respirators is not a burden or traumatic- it is a gift, not to mention a privilege that many around the world cannot access. People gathering for a Long COVID meeting should be all the more grateful, knowing full well the outsize outcomes such a small device can prevent.

It is a shame, a failure, and a shock to hear a public health official with so much power contribute to anti-mask sentiment amidst spreading mask bans which will kill disabled people. At a time when public health should be educating the public about the importance of mitigation, stressing the value of these tools, people in power are declaring masks weird and abnormal, contributing to further stigmatization of those who need these devices to even enter public spaces.

It is shockingly anti-science to hear a public health official disparage disease control technology at the altar of fascist social norms that seek to disappear disabled people from public entirely.

Dr. Marrazzo’s words reveal that she does not identify with Long COVID patients, nor does she see them as “people” who deserve to be a part of “normal” life. Only the able-bodied- those who have not yet been disabled by COVID- have a right to “normal,” which is defined by the disappearance of accessibility, disease mitigation, and medical devices. Trauma is not what has been and continues to be inflicted on those most harmed by COVID, it is what is experienced when a doctor sees a mask and, for just a second, remembers what it felt like to be scared, to feel vulnerable, to feel like maybe illness and death weren’t things that come only for the weak, the lesser, and the old.

But those days are over.

[sunnycanvas]

As Life Fades, Sibylla remembers Baldwin IV

Warning: Implication of sexual violence and strong implications of internalised misogyny

Note: Although inspired by heavily historical events the fiction is still historically inaccurate. So please take everything here as a grain of salt

From former queen of Jerusalem

Sibylla

Sibylla signed the letter with a heavy heart, her hand trembling as she sealed it. She ordered her servants to deliver it to Conrad de Montferrat, though she knew deep down that it was likely in vain. Already stricken with illness, Sibylla mourned in the camp alongside her relatives, where the epidemic had ravaged their lives. The loss of her daughters, Alix and Maria, who had succumbed to the epidemic just days earlier, weighed heavily on her soul. As she lay in her tent, waiting for Conrad's reply, a sense of foreboding settled over her. Death was closing in, and though the thought of reuniting with her children in the afterlife brought her some solace, she couldn’t shake the sorrow for her kingdom. Why had God been so cruel to her? Had she not been the obedient wife she was required to be? Had she not remained silent when it was demanded of her? What had she done to deserve this fate? Why would God allow the kingdom to fall into Saracen hands? Her troubled thoughts were interrupted by the arrival of a servant, holding a letter from Conrad. Sibylla’s heart raced as she demanded impatiently, "What does it say?" Despite her worries for the kingdom, her desire to reunite with her children in the afterlife was overwhelming. She wondered what her sons and daughters would be like in heaven, confident that she had earned her place there. The servant hesitated, nervously clutching the letter as he fidgeted with his fingers. "Well...?" Sibylla pressed, her voice sharp with anticipation. Finally, the servant unfolded the letter and began to read aloud, "I shall maintain the succession rule established by the former King of Jerusalem, King Baldwin IV." Sibylla's eyes widened as memories of her late brother flooded back. The atmosphere in the tent grew tense, as the other servants and maids fell silent at the mention of Baldwin’s name. She could see the grief in their eyes, a reflection of the loss they still felt for their king. Sibylla, too, missed her brother, but after the death of her son, she had scarcely had time to think of him. A maid, her voice filled with nostalgia, remarked, "Our kingdom flourished both spiritually and economically under his rule." Sibylla’s cheeks flushed with shame at the reminder of her own failures. Before she could dwell on it, her health took a sudden turn for the worse, and she collapsed to the floor. To her shock, none of the servant neither the maids nor the male messenger standing by the tent’s entrance moved to help her. One maid, her voice dripping with venom, spat out, "We were wrong to think our kingdom was cursed because of our leprous king. No, it was cursed because of you. You are the reason why our women are being violated, why we lost Ascalon to save your husband. We lost our lives and dignity because of you, and I pray God gives you the judgment you deserve for your sins." Sibylla wanted to protest, to defend herself, but she was too weak. Her life was slipping away, and the last thing she heard was another maid scolding the one who had spoken so harshly. As darkness closed in, her final thoughts were of her brother Baldwin, wondering how he would have reacted if he were alive to see the fall of Jerusalem.

Sibylla awoke, feeling groggy and disoriented. As she looked around, she found herself in a dark, desolate place. The only things visible were trees, their branches bare and charred as if they had been burned. The oppressive darkness weighed heavily on her, and she struggled to recall anything her name, her family, or where she had come from but her mind was blank. With no memory and no sense of direction, Sibylla began to walk, her feet sinking into the wet, murky ground. She wandered aimlessly, unsure of where she was headed, until she noticed a faint glimmer of light in the distance. Desperate for a sign of hope, she pressed on toward it. As she drew closer, the ground beneath her feet became warm and dry, and she found herself surrounded by clouds, a stark contrast to the darkness she had just left behind. Sibylla sighed in relief and continued walking, hoping to find someone who could help her make sense of her situation. Soon, she spotted a blonde, bearded man crouched down, playfully interacting with two little girls. He looked cheerful, chuckling as he gently pulled the girls' cheeks, his eyes filled with warmth. Sibylla felt a surge of hope and hurried toward them, eager to ask for help."Excuse me, Sir," she called out. "I find myself in a strange situation where I can't remember my name or where I come from. Do you happen to know how to help me?"

The man's smile vanished the moment he heard her voice. He stood up slowly, his demeanor shifting from warmth to a stern, almost detached expression. "Sibylla," he said confidently, addressing her by name.Sibylla stared at him in confusion, the name sounding familiar yet distant. The two little girls turned toward her, their innocent voices calling out, "Mommy?" Her confusion deepened as she looked at them, unable to comprehend what was happening. The man's gaze remained fixed on her, his expression now tinged with frustration and disappointment. He closed his eyes halfway, his tone sharp as he spoke."You seem as lost as we were when we first arrived here," he said. "But it's okay, you’ll remember soon enough... 'Dear Sister'."

Sibylla’s confusion quickly turned to frustration. Unable to contain herself, she yelled at the blonde man, "I came here looking for answers, but you've only made things worse! Help me if you can, or leave me alone! Why do you insist on complicating my life?" As the words left her mouth, a sudden wave of déjà vu washed over her. Baldwin, hearing her outburst, chuckled bitterly and shook his head. "Still the same," he muttered, his voice tinged with a resigned bitterness. Sibylla noticed how tired he looked, as though her reaction was something he had seen too many times before. It was clear he knew her far too well for a stranger, and that only deepened her frustration. "You look like you were expecting me to say that," she protested. With a weary sigh, the man replied, "This time, yes. I only wish I’d expected it back when I was alive." He paused, then added in a strained voice, "Sister." The word struck Sibylla, silencing her. The déjà vu grew stronger, and suddenly, flashes of memory began to surface, fragments of a past she had forgotten starting to come back to her.

"Annul your marriage. It’s what's best for our kingdom," the king insisted. Sibylla clicked her tongue in annoyance. "Don't you see that what I’m doing is for the best?" The king looked at her, shocked, as if she had just grown a second head. "No, you can’t rule not that you’ve ever shown any interest in ruling, anyway." Sibylla hummed, a slight smirk on her lips. "You’re right, brother. As a woman, I’m supposed to have no voice, only to be a devoted wife and mother." Frustrated, the king snapped back, "And yet you disrespect your king by disobeying his orders in front of everyone! What about your duty to me and our kingdom? You and your husband humiliated me before the entire court and the common people by refusing to appear when summoned, and by questioning my authority when I personally came to see him." He paused, the weight of his position evident in his voice as he continued, "I’m trying to stabilize the kingdom, but you and your husband seem determined to tear it apart. People are already questioning my authority because I chose Guy de Lusignan as my successor. It’s hard enough to stay on the throne as a leper, especially after our parents' marriage was annulled. They see Guy as a weakness, one that can be exploited against me." His tone softened, now vulnerable, as he added, "Can’t you show the same love and devotion to me, your brother?" Sibylla smiled, her tone almost patronizing. "Brother, God cursed you because of our parents’ annulment. I’m doing everything right, fulfilling what’s expected of me as a woman. You should be here helping me, not arguing against me. Why do you have to make everything so complicated?" The king, exhausted, sighed deeply. "There’s no point in arguing any further. I’ve made my decision—I am disinheriting you."

Sibylla blinked as tears welled up in her eyes. "Baldwin?" she whispered. Baldwin nodded, confirming her suspicions. Sibylla looked down, her voice trembling as she asked, "Alix and Maria?". The two girls beamed with joy. "Mommy!" they exclaimed, rushing forward to embrace her. Sibylla felt a surge of joy as she held her daughters, overwhelmed to finally be reunited with them. As she looked up, she noticed Baldwin’s attention had shifted to his nieces. His expression was warm and affectionate as he gazed at them, a tenderness that pierced Sibylla’s heart. She realized, with a pang of sorrow, that Baldwin had never shown her the same love since she arrived here.

Baldwin knelt down and gently called to his nieces, "Do you remember your promise? Now that you’ve seen your mommy, it’s time for you to go to the place where you truly belong."

The girls giggled and replied, "Okay," before hugging their uncle one last time. Baldwin welcomed their affection with open arms, ruffling their hair and kissing each of them on the forehead. "Go," he said, though his voice wavered, betraying his vulnerability. Fortunately, the girls didn’t notice and left .

Sibylla’s heart shattered as she watched her daughters walk away. Driven by an instinct to follow them, she started to move, but Baldwin gently caught her hand, stopping her in her tracks. She turned to him, about to question his actions, but Baldwin spoke first. “They had to go; they’d stayed longer than they should have,” he explained softly. “Children aren’t meant to linger in the afterlife like we adults are. Besides, I wanted some time alone with you.”

Sibylla composed herself, knowing she couldn’t question the workings of the afterlife. Yet, she couldn’t resist asking, “How are my son and mother?” Baldwin’s response was sharp and filled with anger. “Do you think anyone would want to see you after what you’ve done?” His sudden outburst made Sibylla flinch; Baldwin had never spoken to her like that before. Her eyes welled up with tears as she struggled to hold back her emotions. Sensing her distress, Baldwin pressed on, his voice cold and demanding. “I can’t help but wonder… Why did you do all of it? Why did you betray me and our kingdom like that? Was it because I was a leper?” Tears streamed down Sibylla’s face as she protested, “How could you say that? You’re my brother; I could never hate you.” But Baldwin shook his head, refusing to listen. “You said you didn’t wish to rule, and I accepted that,” he continued. “All I asked in return was respect, but you undermined my authority by refusing to come to court. Your husband publicly insulted me in front of both commoners and nobles when he refused to answer me, even when I was carried on my litter to ask why he disobeyed his king. I was already blind, my limbs barely functioning, yet I got up from that litter and knocked on his door. He ignored me ignored his king in front of everyone, showing them all how weak I was in controlling my own vassal.” Sibylla shook her head, now openly weeping. “That’s not true, brother. I thought I shouldn’t meddle in men’s affairs. Besides, my husband said you would separate us.” Baldwin, however, was unmoved by her tears. “If it were that easy, I could have eliminated my brother-in-law and forced you to marry someone else. Sister, you’re not naive or submissive, because if you were, you wouldn’t have tricked the council into making Guy de Lusignan king.” Sibylla’s eyes widened in shock as she stared at her brother. Baldwin met her gaze and continued, “Yes, I saw everything from above. I saw how you abdicated the throne in your husband’s name. You knew exactly what was happening; otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to deceive the council. I watched as you dismantled my kingdom so easily after my death, as if my words and choices meant nothing to you. You knew how much I despised him, yet you went ahead and did everything I expressly didn’t want. Did I do something so terrible to deserve such disrespect from you?”

Sibylla tried to justify herself, but Baldwin had no interest in her excuses. “I tried to understand your actions, but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t. How could I, a leper cursed by God, earn the respect of both my enemies and allies, yet fail to earn my own sister’s respect? You never stood up for me against your husband, not even when it came to my health. Back when my condition wasn’t as severe, I needed Tyre for medical reasons.” Baldwin paused, a bitter smirk crossing his lips. “Remember?”

Sibylla swallowed hard as the memory came rushing back.

Baldwin dismounted from his horse and approached the residence of Guy de Lusignan. He signaled the guards to come closer. "Tell your lord I wish to exchange Jerusalem for Tyre," he instructed. The guard bowed and departed. It wasn’t long before the guard returned, his expression clearly indicating that the news was unfavorable. Bowing again, he reported, "The Lord refuses to exchange the city, stating that it is of no benefit to grant such a favor to yourself." Baldwin was deeply offended by Guy’s dismissive response but decided to try once more. "Tell him that Tyre is essential for my health and that I am willing to trade it for the holy city of Jerusalem," he said firmly. The guard, visibly anxious, left to deliver the message again. When the guard returned, he brought another scathing reply from Guy. The people around Baldwin were astonished by the continued rudeness. The guard, fearful of Baldwin’s reaction, attempted to excuse Guy’s behavior by saying, "The Lord is not very skilled at communication," but it was too late. The insult had already been delivered, and the damage was done. In the twelfth century, such disrespect was intolerable for any king, and Baldwin left the encounter in evident displeasure.

Sibylla smiled as she reminisced, saying, "You could still walk back then." Baldwin was uncertain whether Sibylla was being nostalgic or attempting to humor him. His frustration flared as he replied, "The coastal climate of Tyre was beneficial for my condition, which is why I was willing to exchange the holy city of Jerusalem for it. Yet, despite how Guy treated me, you repeatedly took his side. Why did you persist in supporting him after everything he did to me?" Sibylla, trembling with pain, responded, "I didn’t understand back then. I loved him too much to question him." Baldwin raised an eyebrow and pressed, "Love? Or was it something else? Did you harbor a personal grudge against me?" "I am sure the man who you loved, for whom you fought against your family and gave up MY kingdom wouldn't even personally mourn your death but mourn the claim he lost through you" In her fearful state, Sibylla defended herself, "Please brother, don't talk to me like that, it hurts" "I listened to you when you advised me to marry William Longsword, and I also obeyed when you instructed me to marry Guy de Lusignan, despite not knowing him well. Just as I obeyed you, I obeyed my husband." Baldwin sneered, "Imagine if Father had refused to annul his marriage out of love. He would have been seen as a fool. You, however, have the advantage of being a woman here. Nobody would have questioned you, but they would have questioned me if I choose my decisions emotionally" "They had already questioned me when I failed to appoint a proper successor. I could have been ruthless, but I loved you too much to do anything that would deeply hurt you and therefore now I look ike a fool in front of everyone" He paused, his laughter fading into a sigh of exhaustion. "Honestly, I find it hard to believe you were so naive. If you were truly that submissive, you would have married someone else when I asked. Jerusalem might have survived longer." Sibylla looked horrified. "How could I annul my marriage with a living husband and marry someone else while he was still alive? I couldn't jeopardize the kingdom by angering God. I cared for the kingdom enough to call for the Third Crusade."

Baldwin retorted, "Our kingdom wouldn’t have suffered so if you hadn't crowned Guy as king again. Your husband surrendered the birthplace of our Lord because he lacked both the skills of a king and a general. Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen so quickly if it weren’t for Guy. Your husband’s incompetence led to the city's fall and the suffering of its people. We had our enemies boasting about their atrocities especially r**pe committed against women. Everyone knew Jerusalem would fall if Guy continued to rule. I publicly dismissed him while I was alive, yet you disregarded my authority as king by not appearing in court when summoned. You crowned Guy again despite the pleas of the entire nobility. Even our enemies were baffled by your choice. You went to Ascalon with your daughters to defend the city, only to surrender it to Saladin in exchange for Guy's release, but the sultan kept him imprisoned anyway."

Baldwin's voice grew weary as he expressed his frustrations. Baldwin walked away from Sibylla, standing at the edge of the clouds, his posture reflecting a profound sense of brokenness. Sibylla felt a surge of fear as she saw him like this, a sight that reminded her of the last time she had witnessed him so shattered after Guy's massacre of the Bedouin.Just when Sibylla thought things couldn’t get worse, she heard Baldwin whisper words she wished she had never heard: "At the cost of my life." The whisper brought back painful memories she struggled to forget.

Bedouin were a nomadic tribe under royal family's protection. They provided information about the Egyptians' movements. Guy's massacre of the Bedouin of the royal fief of Darum, who were under royal protection of Baldwin shocked him. She had first time seen him so broken and suffering from severe anxiety from at that time. He shortly suffered from fever and died. Sometimes Sibylla wondered if Guy's action indirectly caused his death. Sibylla felt immense guilt feeling in her bones now that her suspicion in proved to be true. Baldwin generally keeps falling ill all the time with new diseases. Sibylla believed that she was overthinking when she felt somehow her husband was related to it. Alas, her suspicion has been proved true. She really never wished to know about it."Jerusalem, the place for which I sacrificed my body and soul," Baldwin said with a wistful smile, reminiscing about his past. "I remember when I was a child, surrounded by physicians who rubbed oils on my body and performed bloodletting. I could sense something was terribly wrong, which led to my isolation. I lost all my childhood friends, and I came to realize that my condition was the reason for this separation. When I finally understood my disease, I accepted it, believing I was cursed. Defending Jerusalem was not just a duty but a way to escape the torment of my condition." Baldwin paused, looking at his hands. "I loved being a king and not just a helpless leper. Jerusalem reminded me that I could still be a king despite my curse." He continued, smiling once more, "I did everything for Jerusalem, the designated birthplace of our Lord, even at the cost of my health. Despite being advised to rest and relinquish my office, I refused." The smile faded from his face as he spoke sadly. "To have those very places taken away, as if my sacrifices meant nothing," he said, turning to Sibylla with a face full of pain. "I waited for you to seek answers so that I could finally move on peacefully. Everyone I met in the afterlife told me to let go. They advised me to accept that I had earned my place in heaven and it was time to leave. I could go if I wanted, but I truly needed an answer: Why did you do all that?" Sibylla began to beg, tears streaming down her face. "Please, brother, no more. I can't bear to hear any more. I was blinded by love. I thought I was making things right by following my husband's commands. I believed he was the best choice to rule the kingdom. Please forgive me. It hurts so much." Baldwin pinched the bridge of his nose in frustration. "Is love the only justification for everything? Even at the expense of my health? I endured more anxiety from your husband's actions than I did in the Battle of Montgisard. How could you be so naive? You could have ruled alone, with no one threatening your power, unlike our grandmother, Queen Melisende." Baldwin’s expression grew calm as he faced his sister. "If you truly loved me, you would never have given up Jerusalem the place I protected with my life. I had hoped for a different answer, Sibylla, but I must accept that you loved your husband more than you loved me."

With that, Baldwin turned away from Sibylla, his back turned to her. Desperate to end their conversation on a more positive note, Sibylla ran after him. "Brother, please wait," she pleaded as she chased him. Baldwin began to slowly fade into the clouds, and Sibylla felt herself slipping away as well. As her final moments flickered before her eyes, tears streamed down her face until, with one last, anguished cry, she too vanished.

Meanwhile in Acre:

"So the queen is dead". Muttered an elderly knight. Another knight complimented the queen "She was a good devoted wife who shed tears when her husband was held hostage". All the others nodded their head in agreement.

"So what happens to Jerusalem then" questioned another knight. The question laid heavy in the air. Which was answered by solem reply

"I don't know"

[gatheringbones]

[“Like every profession, psychiatry has a degree of autonomy in their research and practices, yet they are ultimately shaped by current power relations. The priorities of the profession, therefore, tend to mirror the priorities of capitalism. To illustrate this point with another example, Lane (2007) has profiled how shyness became the new mental disorder of social phobia (since relabelled as social anxiety disorder) in the DSM-III (Chap. 4). With no validity for such a diagnosis, a number of parties are implicated in this case of medicalisation including the Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation (who funded a number of task force meetings at the time) and Robert Spitzer’s fight with the psychoanalysts for control of diagnostic constructions. However, these issues are predated by the profession’s own research focus on shyness which can be traced back to the mid-1960s, with a small number of patients showing symptoms of anxiety around social situations such as visiting the office canteen, attending parties, or being involved in public speaking (Lane 2007: 71).

As would progress further under the neoliberalist doctrine, the development of new classifications such as social phobia would appear to the profession to originate in some sort of “evidence base” (which are actually people’s problems in adjusting to changing arrangements of capital in arenas such as work, home, and the school). Psychiatry then does in fact maintain a key role in setting the agenda for what potentially ends up in the DSM; however, the origins of that agenda are external to the profession, dictated by wider social and economic forces. By the time of the DSM-5, psychiatric diagnoses are blatantly mirroring neoliberal ideology in relating mental illness to underperformance. With the diagnostic criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), for example, the manual (American Psychiatric Association 2013: 172, emphasis added) states that “[t]he symptoms are associated with clinically significant distress or interference with work, school, usual social activities, or relationships with others (e.g., avoidance of social activities; decreased productivity and efficiency at work, school, or home).” Thus, the prevailing ideological values of our time—for instance, to be productive and efficient in all aspects of our lives—is conceived through psychiatric discourse as a common sense mental health message. Are you failing within neoliberal society? Then you might have a mental illness.

As Conrad and Potter (2000: 561–562) have summated of psychiatry���s diagnostic project here, the process is necessarily historically and culturally contingent: “[c]ertain diagnostic categories appear and disappear over time, reflecting and reinforcing particular ideologies within the ‘diagnostic project’ (the professional legitimization of diagnoses), as well as within the larger social order.”]

bruce m.z. cohen, from psychiatric hegemony: a marxist theory of mental illness, 2016

[marzipanandminutiae]

she's never going to read this, but it's still interesting

so the person with the extremely cold corset takes last night has now decided that dress history folks are straight-up lying about the purpose of corsets. because we just love them so much, I guess?

she found this ad:

and therefore knows corsets were Totally About Waist Reduction First And Foremost, Always And Forever, Amen

I have. some thoughts.

the main one being that nobody claimed corsets were never used to waist-train back then

the secondary one being that many ads for "form-reducing corsets," at least the ones that I found, make a distinction between "normal" corsets and their product:

It's a specialty product, not what the average woman is wearing on a daily basis. Is its existence messed up? Yes! But nobody has been disputing that pressure on women to look a certain way, and fatphobia, are awful. The issue in question is: was the primary function of an average (in this case Victorian/Edwardian) corset waist reduction? It seems to me that the ad supplied- again, for a specialty garment that was not seen as an ordinary corset -does not prove OP's point.

so let's look at some ordinary corset ads, shall we?

(don't freak out too much about the "baby/child corsets"- I've worked with extant examples many times, and they're just lightly stiffened vests. you couldn't lace a kid down in them if you tried- not that you should, obviously)

(Pliability, elasticity, comfort- but no mention of waist reduction as a selling point)

(this one is an unusual design, but I'm including it because it mentions support- and specifically breast support -not once, but twice. It also instructs ladies to measure their waists OUTSIDE their clothing- which will result in a larger measure even than we commonly use for custom corsets nowadays. note that a 2" lacing gap was common, per a corsetiere quoted in Valerie Steele's The Corset: A Cultural History)

(Flexibility and comfort, yet again.)

(Rather a ridiculous one, including the implication that you need an elegant corset to snare a husband and therefore economic security and love, but the bottom left text says "What an improvement the Madam Warren corset. And how comfortable.")

so we've clearly got comfort, support, and ease of movement at the forefront of the average consumer's mind, for so many ads to mention such thing. a number also don't have much text at all:

(The Celebrated EEE is my hypothetical burlesque name, but I digress.)

of the first twenty random ads that come up when I do an image search for "corset advertisement," eleven mention health and/or comfort, and only one directly mentions waist reduction- while advertising, again, a separate specialty "reducing" corset.

am I saying it never happened? absolutely not. I have NEVER been saying that. tightlacing did happen. obviously reducing corsets existed. I would not deny any of this

am I saying that, clearly, support and comfort were thought so high on the average corset-wearer's priority list that manufacturers played to those attributes more than waist reduction when constructing/advertising corsets, implying that they are NOT, in fact, the same thing as a Kim K waist cincher? yes

(file under: things I cannot believe I have to fucking say, and yet here we are)

[liminalweirdo]

Long COVID represents the constellation of post-acute and long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection; it is a complex, multisystem disorder that can affect nearly every organ system and can be severely disabling. The cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion—equivalent to about 1% of the global economy. Several mechanistic pathways are implicated in long COVID, including viral persistence, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, complement dysregulation, endothelial inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis. Long COVID can have devastating impacts on individual lives and, due to its complexity and prevalence, it also has major ramifications for health systems and economies, even threatening progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Addressing the challenge of long COVID requires an ambitious and coordinated—but so far absent—global research and policy response strategy. In this interdisciplinary review, we provide a synthesis of the state of scientific evidence on long COVID, assess the impacts of long COVID on human health, health systems, the economy and global health metrics, and provide a forward-looking research and policy roadmap.

[mosabeldali]

The War on Gaza: 332 Days of Continuous Conflict ‼️

Since October 7, 2023, Gaza has been engulfed in a continuous state of war, with intense military operations now entering their 332nd day. This conflict, one of the longest and deadliest in the history of clashes between Israel and Palestinian factions, has brought immense human suffering and environmental and economic disasters, affecting all aspects of life in the besieged enclave.

Humanitarian Situation

As military operations persist, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has deteriorated sharply. The population of the enclave is living under a tight blockade, leading to severe shortages of food, medicine, and fuel. Health facilities are barely functioning amidst a rising number of injuries and casualties.

Children, women, and the elderly have been the most affected by this prolonged war, with poverty and unemployment rates reaching unprecedented levels. Additionally, the population suffers from acute shortages of clean drinking water and electricity, exacerbating their daily hardships.

International Stance

Despite widespread international condemnation and repeated offers of mediation to halt the fighting, diplomatic efforts have so far made no tangible progress. The parties continue to exchange accusations of thwarting peace efforts, while countries like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey persist in attempts to broker a long-term ceasefire.

War’s Impact

Economically, Gaza is facing near-total collapse in its infrastructure. Thousands of homes and vital facilities, including schools and hospitals, have been destroyed, making reconstruction a massive challenge that requires extensive international efforts.

The environment in Gaza has not been spared from the war’s impact either, as agricultural lands have been polluted and destroyed, threatening the food security of the population.

Conclusion

After 332 days of relentless fighting, Gaza remains in a state of loss and uncertainty. The ongoing war casts a shadow over the entire region, foretelling long-term implications for peace and stability in the Middle East. What the Palestinian people urgently need now is an end to this war and the establishment of a lasting political solution that ends decades of conflict and suffering.

This article summarizes the current situation of the ongoing war in Gaza, highlighting the humanitarian, political, and economic aspects of this prolonged conflict.

[starseedpatriot]

Regarding UN Sustainable Development Goals

An excellent reply by Alexandra Latypova when asked how her company would meet the UN SDG’s:

“UN is an unelected, unaccountable organization whose pronouncements have no bearing on our company's bylaws, management principles and corporate governance. We resent the implication that they do.  

We do not support UN's "Sustainable Development Goals" and related ideology as we believe it is vague, self-contradictory, unimplementable and overall damaging framework designed to promote the interests of wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations at the expense of the working people globally. 

"Sustainability" is a purposefully undefined but pleasantly sounding nonsense.  The 17 "goals" made up by overpaid bureaucrats are designed to obfuscate the reality - the monopolizing of control over the world's resources and subjugation of the people who never consented to be governed in this manner.  

As an example of absurdity, the core of the SDG program for development and poverty reduction relies on industrial growth — ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption.

Goal 8 calls for 7% annual GDP growth in the least developed countries and higher levels of economic productivity across the board, calling for less and more at the same time.  

The most recent example of SDG in action is the devastating collapse of the entire country of Sri Lanka precipitated by capricious "sustainability" burdens such as bans on fertilizer and ban on non-organic farming which led to widespread hardship and civil unrest. 

Widespread protests of farmers are currently ongoing in the Netherlands and other European countries.  The hardworking people are pushed to the brink of despair by the SDG inspired "green" nonsense while UN's corporate sponsors like Bill Gates are simultaneously purchasing all arable land in sight. 

“Sustainable water" agenda comes with Nestle's sponsorship which aims to have all freshwater on Earth owned by corporations. 

“Health" goals are sponsored by the global pharmaceutical companies and, unsurprisingly, aim at increasing government purchases of drugs, elimination of individual health choices and informed consent as already demonstrated by the global covid-19 policies to date. 

In summary, we do not support UN and its agenda 2030.  We think nobody should. 

Collectivist utopias have led to devastation both human and environmental every single time they were attempted, and UN's SDG is yet another attempt. 

We strongly believe in the individual rights to free thought, expression and self-determination, as only truly free individuals can build a just, moral, non-fraudulent society for common good.”

https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel

[politicalfeed]

What’s Next After Joe Biden Steps Down from the 2024 Elections?

The political landscape in the United States has shifted dramatically with President Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 presidential race. As the Democratic Party grapples with this unexpected development, several key questions and potential scenarios emerge about the future of the party and the upcoming election.

Immediate Reactions and Interim Leadership

Following Biden’s announcement, Vice President Kamala Harris has become the most likely interim leader of the Democratic Party. Her role as vice president positions her as a natural successor, and she has already garnered significant attention and support from various factions within the party. However, her potential candidacy will need to be officially endorsed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Potential Candidates and Primaries

The race for the Democratic nomination is now wide open, with several high-profile politicians likely to throw their hats into the ring. Potential candidates include:

Kamala Harris: As the current vice president, she has a strong platform but will need to consolidate support from various party factions.

Gavin Newsom: The Governor of California has been seen as a rising star in the party, known for his progressive policies and strong leadership.

Pete Buttigieg: The Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has maintained a significant national profile since his 2020 presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren: The Senator from Massachusetts remains a powerful voice within the progressive wing of the party.

Amy Klobuchar: The Senator from Minnesota offers a more centrist approach that could appeal to moderate voters.

The DNC will need to organize a series of debates and primaries to allow these candidates to present their platforms and vie for the nomination.

Impact on the General Election

Biden’s decision to step aside has significant implications for the general election. The Democratic Party must quickly rally around a new candidate who can unite the party and appeal to a broad base of voters. This includes addressing concerns about Biden’s health and ensuring that the new candidate can effectively challenge the Republican nominee, presumably former President Donald Trump.

Strategic Shifts and Campaign Focus

With a new candidate, the Democratic Party may need to adjust its campaign strategies. Key issues that will likely be emphasized include:

Healthcare and Pandemic Response: Continuing Biden’s efforts in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and improving healthcare access.

Economic Recovery:��Building on the current administration’s efforts to strengthen the economy and address income inequality.

Climate Change: Promoting aggressive policies to combat climate change, a central issue for many Democratic voters.

Social Justice: Ensuring that issues of racial and social justice remain at the forefront of the campaign.

Republican Response

The Republican Party will closely monitor the Democratic transition, adjusting their strategies accordingly. Trump’s campaign is likely to capitalize on the perceived instability within the Democratic Party, using it as a point of criticism. However, the Republicans will also need to address their internal challenges and unify their base.

Voter Mobilization and Engagement

The uncertainty surrounding Biden’s departure places a premium on voter mobilization and engagement. Both parties will intensify efforts to reach out to key demographics, including young voters, minorities, and independents. The importance of voter turnout cannot be overstated, especially in swing states that will determine the election’s outcome.

Conclusion

Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 election marks a significant turning point in American politics. The Democratic Party faces the urgent task of selecting a new candidate who can inspire and unite voters. Meanwhile, the Republicans will seek to exploit this transition to their advantage. As both parties navigate this evolving landscape, the 2024 election promises to be one of the most consequential in recent history, shaping the direction of the United States for years to come.