plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
17003 stories
·
20 followers

Supportive-Housing Tenants Lose Hard-Won Rental Law Protections | The Tyee

1 Share

Some supportive-housing tenants who won hard-fought court challenges for the right to have visitors without time limits have now lost that right thanks to B.C. government action.

The government exempted the tenants from portions of the province’s rental housing law.

Kelly Dorscheid-Harmon said he learned of the change on May 1 when building staff told him a guest would have to show identification before they could enter the building.

Dorscheid-Harmon had previously negotiated an agreement with his landlord allowing people to visit without showing identification after several neighbours won Residential Tenancy Branch hearings that ruled their landlord’s visitor restrictions violated the Residential Tenancy Act. Those restrictions included limiting overnight visits to 14 nights per year and a requirement that guests show ID.

“The thing is, they separate us from our families. Fourteen overnights a year — it’s bullshit,” said Dorscheid-Harmon, who is partially blind and said he couldn’t read a notice that had been put on tenants’ doors about the legal change.

“When I was allowed to have guests, I was able to take care of myself better. They cook for me, they help me clean up, because I really can’t see. If my place is dirty, I don’t even know it.”

The B.C. government and supportive-housing providers say the changes were necessary to keep supportive-housing buildings safe.

Supportive-housing tenants are now exempted from the portion of the Residential Tenancy Act that protects their right to quiet enjoyment of their home, a change the government and landlords say was necessary to be able to restrict visitors, require guests to show identification and do wellness checks.

“In order to operate supportive housing safely, what we’ve heard from supportive-housing providers is that they’re either at odds with the [Residential Tenancy Act] or they’re at odds with their requirements under the Workers Compensation Act and occupational health and safety standards,” said Jill Atkey, CEO of the BC Non-Profit Housing Association.

Some supportive-housing providers back the changes and some say they don’t go far enough and they still can’t manage health and safety concerns in their buildings.

Atkey said that when the tenancy act is applied to supportive housing, the only option to deal with tenants is eviction — something providers are trying to avoid. (The Tyee has previously reported on advocates’ concerns that evictions from supportive housing are frequent and there is not enough information about the number and cause of evictions.)

But tenants and rental law advocates say they’ve been taken aback by the extent of the changes. They’re concerned the change to B.C.’s rent law has left low-income and disabled residents with fewer legal protections than other renters in the province.

Shawna Di Guistini, a supportive-housing resident who lives in the same building as Dorscheid-Harmon, organized a tenants’ meeting to discuss the changes. She said her neighbours asked, “‘Were tenants consulted? Why didn’t we know about this? Why weren’t we consulted, what can we do about this?’”

“And from what I can see: nothing. It’s a done deal.”

In response to questions from The Tyee, staff at the Ministry of Housing said the legislation changes had been made based on “prior engagement” with housing providers and tenants, but did not provide any details on the consultation process.

In a press release about the changes, landlords are quoted, but there are no quotes from tenants.

Robert Patterson, a lawyer who works at the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre in Vancouver, said the Residential Tenancy Act could have been rewritten to allow wellness checks and restrict visitors in a way that doesn’t remove existing rights.

But he said the way the law has been changed is an overreach by the B.C. government that gives too much power to landlords.

“Now, tenants in this kind of housing have no right to quiet enjoyment, which means that they have no right to recourse if the landlord’s harassing them or another tenant’s harassing them and the landlord won’t do anything about it,” Patterson said.

“They have no right to deny the landlord entry.”

Patterson said the government should instead be looking at whether supportive-housing providers have enough funding to be able to adequately staff their buildings, and whether tenants are getting the right supports.

Supportive housing is designed to help tenants who are at risk of homelessness or have been homeless in the past stay housed. Some supportive-housing tenants have ongoing medical conditions, including addiction, and many live with disabilities. All are low-income.

Tenants in the buildings are supposed to be connected with support workers, meal programs or other assistance to help them stay healthy and housed.

For years, supportive-housing providers have tried to keep their buildings safe from violence by restricting guests and controlling who comes in and out of the building. Many supportive-housing landlords also do wellness checks to check whether tenants have overdosed or need to be reported as missing to police.

But all of those policies contravened the Residential Tenancy Act. In multiple Residential Tenancy Branch hearings and court cases, arbitrators and judges have ruled that the act does apply to supportive housing. The tenants who mounted those challenges won the right to have visitors and a key to the front door of their buildings.

The B.C. government confirmed that removing the right to quiet enjoyment means that previous court judgments and RTB decisions no longer apply when it comes to guest policies, although tenants will be able to continue to keep their front door keys.

Karol Decker lives in a supportive-housing building and has a full-time job working in another supportive-housing building. She said it’s common for supportive-housing workers to enter residents’ rooms when they’re not home. Di Guistini said she has also seen staff enter her neighbours’ rooms when they’re not at home and has asked staff at her building not to conduct wellness checks on her.

“Prior to this change, I had submitted a form and said I didn’t need this, but I still had staff come to my door and try to do wellness checks,” Di Guistini said, adding that some of her neighbours do want to get wellness checks.

The Tyee asked the Housing Ministry whether there are any guidelines for how wellness checks must be conducted under the new legislation and was told those guidelines are currently being worked out with supportive-housing providers.

Some tenants of supportive housing have complex medical needs, addiction issues or mental health issues. But other residents live in the buildings because they can’t afford to live elsewhere, and say all they want or need is normal rental housing.

“I don’t do drugs. I don’t drink. I go to work every day. I just don’t make enough money to live,” said Decker.

“And they’ve just made it so they can do whatever they want.”

Dorscheid-Harmon said he doesn’t consider himself a supportive-housing tenant, because he doesn’t receive or want any supports from his landlord. But under the B.C. government’s definition, people who live in supportive-housing buildings don’t need to be receiving the supports to be considered supportive-housing tenants.

The Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre’s Patterson has concerns about the vague definition of supportive housing. Under the current rules, he said, any operator of social housing or non-market rental housing could define themselves as a supportive-housing provider “simply by having one staff member in your building run a monthly bingo night.”

Housing Ministry staff told The Tyee that supportive-housing providers must be charitable organizations or government agencies. To be considered supportive housing, the residential property must be run by a supportive-housing operator and the unit must be occupied by a tenant “who is assessed as experiencing or at risk of homelessness and would benefit from housing stability support.” The ministry did not respond to a question about whether tenants can ever have that assessment re-evaluated.

If tenants are concerned about how staff are carrying out the supportive-housing provider’s policies, they can complain to BC Housing. But that agency is also the main funder of supportive housing in the province, and there is no third-party ombudsperson or regulator for supportive housing.

Di Guistini said the government’s changes to remove some of her rights as a tenant have made it clear to her that she needs to find a way to move out of supportive housing.

“People who are already severely disadvantaged, you’ve just wiped away their rights without a second thought,” she said.  [Tyee]

Read the whole story
sarcozona
8 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Afraid of Cicadas? This Entomologist Wants to Change That. - The New York Times

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
8 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Does the public understand that "variant" means "vaccine resistant"?

1 Share

Last week, the WHO announced that it will recommend creation of a new booster for the JN.1 variant of COVID-19. One little problem: JN.1 was hyper-dominant all fall and winter but is quickly fading away. Now, its descendent KP.2 is positioned to take off in an early-summer wave. By this winter, when we’re able to get the brand-new JN.1 vaccine, the dominant variant will most likely be a descendent of KP.2. In other words, a distant relative of JN.1.

If you, like me, got the most recent booster, you got a vaccine designed to help prevent and lessen symptoms of XBB.1.5, the variant most dominant in the winter of 2022-23. During that winter, the booster was designed to combat the Omicron BA variants, which were predominant a year prior, in the winter of 2021-22.

You see the pattern?

Often when the topic of COVID is broached, people who have paid little attention since early 2021 point out that “now we have the vaccines.” Ok. Yes. But are you aware of what has changed since 2021? Specifically, the virus?

When Moderna and Pfizer announced their COVID-19 vaccines, the efficacy of the shots was thrilling. Early data showed a reduction in infection - not just severity, in actual infections- of 90%+. Here’s a link to a Pfizer release which states:

Data from 43,448 participants, half of whom received BNT162b2 and half of whom received placebo, showed that the vaccine candidate was well tolerated and demonstrated 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 in those without prior infection 7 days or more after the second dose….These pivotal data demonstrate that our COVID-19 vaccine candidate is highly effective in preventing COVID-19 disease and is generally well-tolerated.

In the vaccine world, this is a home run. No vaccines are 100% effective against infection. But if you can get enough shots 90+% effective in arms fast enough, you can achieve what is called herd immunity. Herd immunity is achieved when the “disease gradually disappears from a population and may result in eradication or permanent reduction of infections to zero”. The virus runs out of hosts and dies out.

This was the explicit goal of the Biden administration, stating in early 2021 that we could be “heading to herd immunity by summer”. His exact words were, “I feel confident that by summer, we're going to be well on our way to heading toward herd immunity”. This meant- at the time- getting to a place where the majority of the population has immunity to COVID, and therefore vulnerable people aren’t exposed. It’s critical that people understand that Biden’s COVID response never achieved its own stated goals, rather, the public was gaslit into accepting a new goal: forever reinfections.

It’s critical that people understand that Biden’s COVID response never achieved its own stated goals, rather, the public was gaslit into accepting a new goal: forever reinfections.

Not exposing vulnerable people was a key goal of the lockdowns and other mitigation measures that we adopted in 2020. COVID was/is dangerous, but the vast majority of abled people under 65 who got COVID did not die, even prior to the vaccines. It’s odd to see young liberals pointing to their own mild infections as proof that vulnerable people don’t need to “live in fear,” because it’s very literally the same argument young MAGA people made in 2020. What MAGA attributed to their immune systems, liberals attribute to the vaccines, but the reality is they were never the demographic most at risk. The goal of lockdown was to avoid the exposure of vulnerable groups that would lead to mass death and overwhelm healthcare systems and hospitals. The goal was to protect vulnerable groups until herd immunity could be achieved.

As late as November 2021, amid the Delta wave, Fauci’s projection for what “back to normal” would look like- the point at which we could give up masking and other mitigations- was no more than 10,000 cases a day, nationally. Ideally, under 3300 per day. But today, during the lowest lull we’ve had in a full year, we’re seeing 165,000 COVID cases daily. The winter wave broke 1.5 million cases per day. Since Fauci set the bar of “under 10,000 cases per day” as the marker for “normal,” we’ve never had one single day with fewer than 10,000 new cases. In fact, we’ve never seen a single day with under 100,000 new infections, or 10 times his marker for “normal”, and we’ve had many with over a million each winter- 100 times his marker for “normal”. This is not herd immunity, and it’s not what the government projected or prepared for.

Perhaps this is why our government officials and media continue to try to redefine herd immunity and claim that we do have herd immunity to COVID. Instead of explaining that the vaccine-first (or rather, vaccine-only) strategy was misguided and has failed, governments keep moving the goalposts of success. They declare victory while urging us to get reinfected repeatedly. Reinfections, which, by the way, carry myriad long-term health risks including cognitive damage, heart damage, and disability, among other things.

Herd immunity is what we have for measles, smallpox, diphtheria, mumps, and other vaccine preventable diseases. Vulnerable people- even those who cannot be vaccinated because of medical conditions- are protected from exposure to and infection with these diseases by the immunity of the herd. How is a vulnerable person being protected by “the herd” if the plan is for them to get exposed over, and over, and over again? It’s ludicrous.

The early high efficacy of the original shots is why their debut was met with such jubilation. Walensky, on Rachel Maddow, stated:

today, the CDC reported new data that shows that under real world conditions…not only are the vaccines for those folks, thousands of them, keeping those people from getting sick from COVID themselves, those vaccines are also highly effective at preventing those people from getting infected, even with non-symptomatic infection. And if you are not infected, you can’t give it to anybody else.…. What this means is that we can get there with vaccines. We can end this thing…now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.

A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.

That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this

To reiterate, Walensky explicitly stated that because the COVID vaccines (at that time were believed to) prevent infection, the shots could end the pandemic. This also implies that were the vaccines not able to prevent infection, they would not be sufficient to end the pandemic.

Our leaders overestimated the ability of vaccines alone to mitigate COVID because of early data, before the virus had had the opportunity to counterpunch us through mutation. By July 4, the Biden administration declared victory over COVID. That following winter was the second deadliest wave of the COVID pandemic. It was the deadliest wave for cancer patients.

Winter 2021-22 was a wave of mass death of the exact kind we’d tried to avoid. We saw thousands of people dying per day, while the good folks at the New York Times continued to cover it as no big deal and even spin it as a positive. It was the point at which many vulnerable people, being reassured that with the vaccines and the “mild” strain circulating (Omicron, which was later shown to be no milder than the original Wuhan strain), were exposed to COVID for the first time. Some of them paid for the mistake of believing our government with their lives.

We will likely never see a wave as acutely deadly again, because the hundreds of thousands of people who could not survive their first contact with COVID-19 are already dead.

40% of those who died during Omicron wave 1 were vaccinated. 60% of those dying by the following summer were vaccinated, and vaccinated people still make up the majority of deaths today. Yes, vaccinated people are over-represented in the population- but as thousands continued to die each week this winter, it’s a far cry from Biden’s claims that COVID had become a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. In early 2022, his administration blamed unvaccinated people for overwhelming hospitals while tens of thousands of vaccinated people died in a matter of weeks.

Here’s what happened.

Throughout the pandemic, the Biden and Trump administrations- and governments worldwide- have been prone to accepting the most optimistic science as the truth and promoting those optimistic predictions as solid facts. COVID isn’t the only arena where this is true; we certainly see it with climate change. We saw it with our premature declaration that COVID wasn’t airborne. We saw it with our claims that people would only get COVID once. We saw it with the claims that COVID would probably just randomly get milder. And in the case of the vaccines, we saw it with the idea that herd immunity to COVID would be possible, that the virus wouldn’t just quickly mutate around vaccine protection. Unfortunately, the virus mutated very, very quickly.

Has this been well communicated to the public? Or does most of the public believe we are as well protected as we were in the spring of 2021?

Think of it this way: the MRNA vaccines contain a little blueprint for the COVID spike protein. Once your body receives the blueprint, it follows the instructions and builds a replica of the COVID spike protein- in the case of our first-round series of shots, it is specifically, genetically, the spike protein of the ancestral strain. Then, your immune system learns how to get rid of this spike protein. It’s like a training program for your body. When it encounters the real spike protein, your body reacts quickly because it has seen this protein before.

One common analogy used to explain viruses, vaccines, immune systems and mutations is the mugshot. When your immune system encounters a pathogen, it creates a bunch of T and B cells specific to that pathogen- these are basic components of your adaptive immune system. After the pathogen is cleared, most of those pathogen-specific cells are also cleared from the body, but your immune system knows to hold on to a few of them, called memory T and B cells. Think of your body’s memory of the spike protein as a sort of mugshot it can use to quickly identify COVID and respond.

When COVID enters your body, if your immune system has a mugshot of the virus, it can much more quickly and easily mount defenses; it might even clear the virus before it causes any symptoms. Your body recognizes the spike protein.

Now, what happens when mutations appear on the spike protein? Well, that protein becomes harder and harder for the body to recognize. A couple mutations might be analogous to the criminal in your mug shot putting on a wig. But the Delta variant, for example, had over a dozen mutations on the spike protein. That starts to be more similar to a full body makeover complete with nose job and BBL. The Omicron variant had 30 mutations on the spike. It’s getting more and more difficult for your body to recognize the virus as the criminal from your immune system mugshot. In other words, it’s getting more and more difficult for your body to match the protein it remembers from your vaccinations with the protein in the newest COVID variant, especially since so few people get updated shots.

And of course, the mutations haven’t stopped. Omicron is quite genetically distant from Delta; JN.1 is quite genetically distant from Omicron. The greater the genetic distance between the spike protein in your vaccine- which, for most people, are the ones they received in 2021- and the spike protein of the circulating virus, the less effective the vaccines become. From a previous Gauntlet article:

Last year, a study looking at data from 2022-2023 found that children under 5 who received the bivalent boosters had an 80% reduction in risk of ER visits, whereas those who received the original series Moderna shots had only a 29% reduction in risk of ER visits. Studies continually find that new subvariants “escape neutralizing antibodies induced by both vaccination and infection”.

COVID’s ability to mutate underscores the need for people to get boosted, because older shots are more out of date and thus, less effective. The media’s continual downplaying of COVID - their claims that COVID is “over” because we are “vaccinated now”, have actually led to a widespread reluctance to get boosters, which the media then turns around and hand wrings over. Why would people rush out to get a new vaccine when they’ve been told the virus is no big deal?

It’s also an odd choice to call the updated vaccines “boosters,” as this seems to imply a topping up of a shot you already received. We generally don’t call flu shots “boosters,” because they are different shots, formulated for different variants. So are the updated COVID vaccines. But the institutional desire to minimize the ongoing issue of unmitigated COVID has led governments and media to be cagey about this.

How and why does mutation happen? And why does the virus keep becoming more vaccine resistant? Well, using the vaccine as our first, rather than our last line of defense, is part of why we keep challenging the protective capabilities of our vaccines.

Mutations occur randomly; when a pathogen copies itself, those copies contain random genetic mistakes- mutations- that make the pathogen more or less fit. We call the genetically distinct copies variants. The less fit copies are outcompeted and die out. The more fit copies are able to make more copies of themselves and become more common. If the new variant happens to be very fit- meaning very well adapted to its environment- it might start to outcompete the dominant strain and ultimately replace it.

Now, what happens when COVID begins encountering a lot of vaccine protection? The predominant variant is unable to spread and starts to die out. This is what was happening in summer 2021, when Biden declared victory. COVID was finding fewer hosts to safely reproduce in. But because COVID mutated so quickly and with a high degree of genetic variance, some of the original strain’s children happen to be good at outwitting vaccine protection. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say the Wuhan strain has 10 children, and 9 of them are easily identified by the vaccinated body as looking similar to the immune system’s mugshot. Which one survives to duplicate itself? That’s right, the highly divergent strain- divergent meaning, genetically different. The one the vaccinated body could not recognize.

Thus, the more the virus encounters the vaccine, and the more it’s allowed to replicate among vaccinated people, the higher the likelihood of developing highly-divergent, highly-fit strains that evades vaccine protection. That’s why a vaccine should be the last line of defense COVID encounters, not the first. With clean air provided by new, high-quality ventilation standards and HEPA filtration, along with the implementation of new technologies like far UVC, along with normalizing mask-wearing, the virus would encounter fewer humans, and fewer vaccines. It would then have fewer opportunities to learn how to evade the vaccines.

Let’s take a step back. None of this means that vaccines cause mutation or variants. Mutation and variants happen whether people are vaccinated or not. What it means is that vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus to become better at hiding from vaccine protection; infection similarly put evolutionary pressure on the virus to evade immune memory. That’s exactly what happened and continues to happen. The variants that are better at hiding from vaccine protection and from prior immunity through infection go on to become dominant. That’s why, even though you already had COVID 2 or 3 or 4 times, you’re going to get it yet again.

This is not a very sustainable approach to controlling a virus. The one component of this “strategy,” if you can call it that, that “protects” us from infection is…. infection. In other words, not everyone gets sick at the same time, but only because we’re all getting sick over and over again. The vaccine only-strategy relies on the infections and deaths of vulnerable people as part and parcel of this reinfection normalization to maintain an unsteady form of homeostasis with the virus. It’s this form of “balanced” coexistence with the virus that governments are now trying to incorrectly label “herd immunity”.

In the context of COVID, this new definition of “herd” simply means everyone has some degree of immunity from their previous infection, which will get topped up by their next infection. It is a strategy that not only produces forever reinfections, it is dependent upon forever reinfections. It not only doesn’t protect vulnerable people, it is dependent on harming and killing them. It not only can’t prevent reinfections, it incorporates continual reinfections as critical to its “success”. (Note: this decision to throw everyone under the bus of recurring infections has worsened, not ended, the unsustainable pressure on health systems globally).

I’ve spoken a lot about vulnerable people, but it’s inaccurate to frame the needs of vulnerable people as contrary to the needs of the rest of the public. This is a rhetorical and political trick the media has engaged in since Omicron wave one, when it became clear vulnerable people could not and would not be protected by vaccines alone. Instead of acknowledging that the “vaccine only” strategy was based on bad science and wouldn’t work to end the pandemic, the media persuaded “regular” people who have “nothing to fear” from COVID, to turn on “vulnerable” people, who very rudely won’t let us get back to normal because of their selfish desire to do stuff like keep being alive and not die.

Now, conservatives had always embraced this framing. From day one, Republican politicians and news organizations like FOX raged that we were all being held in a horrible state of captivity (wearing masks and not dining indoors) by the terrible, rude, selfish vulnerable people who should just go die. But Omicron was the point at which it became clear that the Democratic approach to protecting vulnerable people- vaccine-only- had failed. And it’s this point at which liberal outlets also began to subtly adopt this Republican framing. Suddenly it wasn’t, stay home to save a life, it was, well, stay home if you’re at risk. Suddenly it wasn’t my mask protects you, your mask protects me, it was “geez some people are really annoying about masks”. Collective health became personal risk assessment. The point at which COVID proved it would continue to evade our vaccines was the point at which liberals decided harming vulnerable people was ok, after all.

Breaking the solidarity that had arisen between members of the public- particularly liberals and those on the left with disabled people- required continual reframing of COVID as a problem that was over, that had become mild, and/or that couldn’t be controlled. It also involved reframing the most vulnerable- those we’d organized the COVID response to protect initially- as annoying, bad, possibly crazy, and definitely mean. We see that perception echoed everywhere today, even among leftists touting solidarity as the great principle of community organizing (which it is). Instead of engaging with real concerns about the safety of constantly reinfecting everybody with COVID- which, it should be clear, is not at all safe and inarguably awful for everybody’s health- people who don’t want to mitigate often go on the attack against vulnerable people, calling them names and mocking them. This is a weakness on the left that is being exploited to normalize unprecedented levels of illness among the entire public, not only the vulnerable.

Now, student absences are record high.

Whole economies are entering recession because of the unprecedented number of worker sick days.

And Long COVID continues to move formerly abled people into the vulnerable category.

Breaking solidarity will never, ever, put the left in a place of strength. Not when it comes to trans people, not when it comes to immigrants, not when it comes to disabled people. The media framed public health - the thing that protects vulnerable people, but also everyone- as contrary to the interests of the majority. In this case, those interests being “go back to normal,” and “pretend nothing is happening.” In reality, we all benefit from public health and disease mitigation. Just as welfare, and housing for the homeless, and raising the minimum wage is in the interest of everyone in society, so too is mitigating disease instead of letting it run rampant. The government has a responsibility to mitigate COVID by cleaning the air, just as it has a responsibility to mitigate cholera by cleaning the water. Instead, the media has people arguing on behalf of allowing viruses to spread freely. That is a coup of state propaganda, nothing less.

When people claim we are “in a different place” because of “the vaccines,” I know they have not engaged with the science around COVID since 2021. Vaccines that were initially thought to prevent infection and confer long-term immunity were found to be capable of neither. The virus mutated faster than expected, and updated vaccines continue to trail viral evolution by a year or more. The herd immunity strategy that Biden and the CDC openly pursued, failed and collapsed into a forever-reinfection nightmare.

Vaccines reduce the risk of death and severe outcomes- including Long COVID. We should all get boosted because it’s better for your vaccine protection to more closely match the genetics of the dominant variant. But “reduce” and “more closely” isn’t enough to get us back to normal when this virus is circulating at high levels year-round, reinfecting people within months, and leaving a devastating trail of disabling, long-term illness. We also now know that more COVID reinfections increase your cumulative risk of Long COVID; what, then, is going to happen to those “regular” people after 10 infections? 20?

The public needs to stop framing vulnerable people- people who are simply warning the public of the fate that awaits them after X number of reinfections- as the enemy. The enemy is the unmitigated spread of this virus that is continuing to produce vaccine-resistant variants we can’t possibly keep pace with. The enemy is the institutions that want to buy a feeble form of temporary immunity with our health and our lives. The enemy is the propaganda campaign that has everyone claiming, loudly and confidently, that COVID is over, while catching it for the fifth time in four years. The enemy is the utter destruction of public health for the sake of a normal that isn’t coming back.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
8 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Learning Clause-Chain Languages.

2 Shares

Hannah Sarvasy reported back in 2020 on some suggestive research:

Languages like Japanese, Korean, Turkish and the indigenous languages of the Amazon, East Africa, and New Guinea build sentences in a way that lets them grow to enormous length. Our research shows learning one of these languages may help children create complex sentences that express multiple ideas at a younger age.

Try recounting what you did this morning, or telling a story, and chances are you’ll use a series of several sentences: “This morning, I woke early. I dressed and ate breakfast. I gathered my things, said goodbye to my family, and they waved goodbye to me. Then I drove to work.” In English, the simplest sentence, or “clause,” is just a subject plus a verb (“I dressed”). You can also join two clauses into a sentence using words like “and” or “while,” but it’s unnatural to join more than about three clauses into one English sentence.

But in many languages across Central Asia (from Turkish to Tibetan, Mongolian, Japanese, and Korean), and in many indigenous languages of the Amazon, East Africa, and New Guinea, stories can take the form of one long sentence. These sentences look more like this: “Waking up early this morning, dressing, making breakfast, eating, washing the dishes, gathering my things, saying goodbye to my family, they waving goodbye to me, I drove to work.”

These long sentences are known as “clause chains.” Unlike in English, where most of the clauses in a story would make sense if you spoke them outside the story (“I dressed”), all but the very last clause in a “clause chain” are abbreviated—they can only function in a clause chain. “Dressing” or “making breakfast” sounds unfinished on its own, and only the final verb of the clause chain tells you whether the events are happening in the past, present, or future.

Clause chains are special because they can be extremely long, pushing the boundaries of what we consider “sentences” in English. Chains of more than 100 clauses have been recorded. Non-native speakers may have trouble keeping track of who is doing what in clause chains. One linguist who studied a language of the Himalayas (where many languages use this type of sentence) color-coded clause chains in her notes to keep track of the plot.

In some languages, especially of the Amazon and New Guinea, there’s a further twist. In each clause of the chain, the speaker has to announce in advance whether a different person is carrying out the action in the upcoming clause (as in “saying goodbye to my family, they saying goodbye to me”). This is called “switch-reference marking,” and it probably means speakers of these languages have to plan further ahead than speakers of English.

So do kids learning Turkish or Japanese speak in precociously complex sentences, compared with their Anglophone peers? We investigated this for six languages—Japanese, Korean, and Turkish, plus three indigenous languages of New Guinea and Australia (Ku Waru, Nungon, and Pitjantjatjara). We used a variety of methods, looking at data from different children and from the same children over time. […] It turns out children learning these languages are first able to speak in well-formed clause chains between the ages of two and two and a half. This is around the time that children learning English and French make their first attempts at combining clauses into sentences.

But the English- and French-speaking children generally make some mistakes (for instance, by leaving out conjunctions), or actually express only a single idea across two clauses (in “look at the house that we built!”, there is only one notion: that we built a house). The children learning the clause-chain languages did not make such errors. What’s more, in most of these languages the children’s early clause chains express multiple ideas. It may be that the abbreviated verbs used in all but the last clause of a clause chain make it easy for these children to describe complex sequences of events in a single utterance. […]

It’s well known that children learning most languages go through an early phase in which their utterances are limited to two words: the “two-word phase.” After this, children don’t proceed to a “three-word phase.” Instead, the progression is from two to “more.” However, until now no-one has thought to ask when children learn to combine more than two clauses into a sentence. This may well be because research on how children learn to combine ideas into sentences has been largely shaped by speakers of English and other languages that lack clause chains. (This shows it’s important for scientists to come from varied backgrounds!)

When we investigated this idea, we found that all children learning languages with clause chains begin by speaking in two-clause chains. So no, kids don’t begin spouting sentences of 20 clauses at age two! But the “two-clause phase” lasts for as little as one or two months, and after that most children we studied advanced directly to a “more clauses phase,” in which their sentences include anywhere from two to five or more clauses. A Japanese child recorded a 20-clause chain at age three and ten months, and this may not be unusual.

Interesting stuff — thanks, Bathrobe!

Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
hannahdraper
28 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Let’s Turn Abandoned Malls into Housing!

2 Shares

I fully support Rachel Cohen’s ideas here about turning our many abandoned malls into housing.

Amy Casciani, a longtime real estate developer whose corporation built housing across seven states, watched her local community struggle for years to add new homes.

Casciani grew up in upstate New York, in a suburban town outside Rochester. She eventually started a family and raised her children there, and in the early 1990s, a new mall opened up, bringing over 100 new stores including anchor retailers like Sibley’s, J.C. Penney, and Sears.

The mall was a proud boon to the town of Irondequoit, and a go-to spot for teenagers to hang out. “Hands down the most attractive shopping mall in the area,” an editorial for a newspaper serving Albany declared. “From its blue Legolike entrances and splashing fountain to its light-trimmed glass roof, columns and carousel, the mall exudes carnival gaiety.”

But in a few short years, retail patterns across the United States began to change. Mall foot traffic slowed and online shopping ticked up. Stores in the Irondequoit Mall began to close, and by 2016, the last major anchor, Sears, called it quits.

Casciani ached for her town, which not only was dealing with the eyesore of the abandoned mall but also lacked enough vacant land to develop desperately needed affordable housing. Her nonprofit development group, PathStone, embarked on a complex but meaningful project: They retrofitted the Sears department store into 73 rental apartments and built a new four-story multifamily building with 84 rental units on the adjacent parking lot.

PathStone connected the two buildings by a raised pedestrian walkway, and the Skyview Park Apartments now serves adults 55 and up who need subsidized housing. Half of the units are reserved for seniors at risk of homelessness, who can receive on-site supportive services.

“As affordable housing needs and costs keep going up and a shortage of available vacant land is growing, why not use what we already have?” Casciani said. “Why not creatively turn it around from being a blight on the community to an asset?”

Across the country, policymakers, researchers, and real estate developers are paying more attention to mall conversions like the one in Irondequoit as they grapple with their own shortage of affordable housing. While the Irondequoit Mall was a traditional mall, strip malls in particular offer some unique advantages, like big empty parking lots, that could make housing redevelopment an easier task.

A report last fall from Enterprise Community Partners, a national nonprofit focused on increasing housing supply, estimated that strip mall conversions could create more than 700,000 new homes across the United States.

There’s so much broken in our discussions about the housing issue, mostly which has to do with everyone having a single talking point that is far too simplistic. One thing that connects a lot of these issues is issue of space. When a person buys up 5 old New York apartments and turns them into his personal fiefdom, that’s a lot of housing that is taken off the market. When everyone wants 2,000 square feet of housing, that really limits what we can do. But also, we have often struggled to retrofit previous disastrous uses of space (and the endless decaying malls, both traditional and strip), is a great example of this.

Here in Rhode Island, where what was once a state of density, the postwar housing boom turned huge parts of what is today Warwick and Cranston into completely unplanned strip malls that are today are decrepit, empty, or just look like shit because they are 50 years old, were poorly planned in the first place, and are half or less full. And yet, for all of our very real housing problems, none of this so far as I can tell has been converted into housing. It’s right there!

The post Let’s Turn Abandoned Malls into Housing! appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
hannahdraper
21 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Scientists Finally Starting To Study Menopause, Also, Too!

1 Comment and 2 Shares
You could also try manual uterine palpation.

One of the weird things about bodies is that so very many people seem to have them, and yet not all of them are the same! This is something relatively recently discovered by such luminaries as NASA rocket scientists:

525,600 tampons. How do you measure a trip into space?

The details and implications of this knowledge are still being debated. But one interesting thing that happened along the way is that, according to The Atlantic, doctors started to realize that the questions that they asked FtM folk when they began therapy that artificially changed their hormone levels were not at all the same questions that they asked cis women going through spontaneous hormone changes at menopause.

Marci Bowers thought she understood menopause. Whenever she saw a patient in her 40s or 50s, she knew to ask about things such as hot flashes, vaginal dryness, mood swings, and memory problems. And no matter what a patient’s concern was, Bowers almost always ended up prescribing the same thing. “Our answer was always estrogen,” she told me.

Then in the mid-2000s, Bowers took over a gender-affirmation surgical practice in Colorado. In her new role, she began consultations by asking each patient what they wanted from their body—a question she’d never been trained to ask menopausal women. Over time, she grew comfortable bringing up tricky topics such as pleasure, desire, and sexuality, and prescribing testosterone as well as estrogen. That’s when she realized: Women in menopause were getting short shrift.

Menopause, for the uninitiated, is not merely relief from monthly bleeding. It’s a whole damn thing affecting more organs than you knew you had. And the transition from a stable adult menstrual cycle to a stable post-menopausal body state can be long and chaotic and affect far more than anyone has bothered to research. Kind of like menstruation itself! And while it’s caused to some significant degree by changes in estrogen, neither is that the only cause nor is replacing estrogen the only cure.

Bodies are highly individual things, almost like each person has their own version and it’s not the same as any other. Mind you, this has caused some distress for the medical profession, which has a history of very much wanting to square humans’ pegs and holes, regardless of the harm this might do. Recently, it seems, doctors have even become aware that hacking at the bodies of others in order to maintain binary illusions of an oppressive society may, in fact, be somewhat less than the ethical best practice.

As a result of all this exposure to radical trans antifa, BLM-HRT, police-defunding, highway- and puberty-blocking activists, a few doctors have been questioning a binary or two their own selves.

Although clinicians lack high-quality research on the role of testosterone in women over age 65, they know that in premenopausal women, it plays a role in bone density, heart health, metabolism, cognition, and the function of the ovaries and bladder. A 2022 review concluded, “Testosterone is a vital hormone in women in maintaining sexual health and function” after menopause.

Yet for decades, standard menopause care mostly would mostly pass over androgens. Interest in testosterone therapy has only begun rising—and rapidly—within the last 10 to 15 years. (Nota bene: the lack of research on testosterone use by perimenopausal women was not cited by the NHS as a reason to shut down such “experimental” prescriptions. This is our shocked face.)

There are more barriers than lack of research, however. It turns out that getting cis women comfortable with taking testosterone is not always easy even when it would be medically helpful, for they sometimes think the doctors are calling them trans for the temerity of ceasing menstruation:

[Cis women] have to get used to the idea of taking a hormone they’ve been told all their lives is for men, at just the time when their femininity can feel most tenuous […but…] taking testosterone wouldn’t change a menopause patient’s gender identity.

And patients are not the only ones struggling with holistic care for bodies that produce lots of hormones to varying degrees. Pharmacists, too, have a hard time believing leavening estrogen therapies with a bit of testosterone is kosher:

Some of [Dr. Kelly] Casperson’s female patients have had their testosterone prescription withheld by pharmacists; one was asked if she was undergoing gender transition.

While rapid-onset vaginal dryness has been observed as a side effect of even small doses of Ben Shapiro, the Cooties Hypothesis asserting social transmission of perimenopausal sexual symptoms seems unlikely to go viral, and there is as yet no movement to withhold testosterone from 52-year-old cis women for Baby Jesus and Western Civilization.

What does this all mean?

It means that trans people fighting for the medical establishment to take their care seriously has knock-up effects for cis health, and thus the more doctors get comfortable with trans lives, the better cis women’s care. Queer cis women, too, have benefited straight cis women’s care by challenging assumptions that what women want is too obvious to bother actually asking women. After centuries ignoring women’s desire, The Atlantic reports doctors are beginning conversations with

“Tell me about your sexuality. Tell me, are you happy with that? How long does it take you to orgasm? Do you masturbate? What do you use?”

And the benefits go both ways: trans men who experience menopause as a result of hormone therapy can now benefit from topical vaginal estrogen cremes originally developed to relieve dryness and vaginal pain during straight, menopausal women’s penetrative sex. (Though given the historical lack of conversation about cis women’s desire, it’s likely that these cremes were developed more with an eye towards the benefits to cis het men who didn’t like being turned down.)

This isn’t the only benefit either. Doctors have recently been studying menstruation and fertility in FtM folks taking testosterone, and to the surprise of many a third still ovulated. This should not have been news as testosterone isn’t birth control. Indeed it was tried decades ago to poor effect. And yet this was news in trans communities.

Why don’t we already know these things, study these things, talk about these things?

Part of the problem is that society insists on treating different communities as entirely separate, even when that’s radically inappropriate. And society does this in ways more hypocritic than hippocratic. For decades drug manufacturers would only include cis men in clinical trials of medicines because female bodies were considered a confound and male-bodied trans people were considered to have a confounding illness, even though there was no reason to think that a medicine would know your gender identity and function differently because of that. Yet after trials, manufacturers wanted their drugs prescribed to everyone as if they had been found safe and effective for every body. Even today the safety of many drugs for fetuses or pregnancies or female fertility has gone unstudied, yet the drugs are still prescribed for people who are or may become pregnant, with barely (and not always) an “ask your doctor if” warning.

But they’ve taken the opposite approach when the benefits might flow to patients instead of investors: anti-trans fuckfaces continually insist that puberty blockers have not been proven safe for trans children going through puberty. Yet these are old and well-tested drugs. And yet, the Cass Review is right there, insisting that bone density development during the years of postponed puberty must be studied before puberty blockers can be considered safe for adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Scotland has even decided to ban the use of puberty blockers until the age of 18, which Yr Wonkette thinks we can all agree misses the point of “puberty blocker” by rather a large margin.

We have said before that trans rights are reproductive rights, and that we are all in this together, and we are not the only ones to notice. Sad Brown Girl writes, “Despite the ongoing rhetorical battles over how trans people should be included in discussions of abortion, the link is unambiguous for those seeking the end of both: as goes abortion, so too transition, and vice versa.”

The Pope agrees, throwing in surrogacy for good measure.

The Vatican on Monday declared gender-affirming surgery and surrogacy as grave violations of human dignity, putting them on par with abortion and euthanasia as practices that it said reject God’s plan for human life. […]

[Pope Francis] has also denounced “gender theory” as the “worst danger” facing humanity today.

Yr Wonkette does not pretend to know whether asking someone what name they prefer is worse than climate change burning Canada to death and choking New York City on the ash, but we do know that the Pope is unlikely to be factoring in the benefits to straight cis women’s sex lives that accrue when all of us, regardless of gender, are treated as whole, complex people who deserve healthy bodies and happy lives.

[Atlantic]

Give Wonkette yr monies to help stock up on chocolate cakes for the menopaucalypse!



Read the whole story
hannahdraper
16 days ago
reply
Yr Wonkette does not pretend to know whether asking someone what name they prefer is worse than climate change burning Canada to death and choking New York City on the ash, but we do know that the Pope is unlikely to be factoring in the benefits to straight cis women’s sex lives that accrue when all of us, regardless of gender, are treated as whole, complex people who deserve healthy bodies and happy lives.
Washington, DC
sarcozona
16 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories