Quebec court rules on moral quandary

In one of those almost-impossible moral quandaries that occur from time to time, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled that, contrary to the wishes of his parents, a Montreal hospital can permanently remove a breathing tube from a child who has been in a coma since falling into a swimming pool some seven months ago.

The boy has been in intensive care since he was submerged in a pool for 15-20 minutes last June. Somehow he lived, but has suffered serious and irreversible brain damage. Doctors say that he is technically breathing on his own, and that the tube is actually doing more harm than good, particularly given that removing the tube would allow the child to return home and receive much-needed physiotherapy.

The boy's parents insist that the tube should only be removed if the hospital is willing to restore it if things "go wrong". The Court of Appeal ruled that "the principle of preserving life at all costs is not absolute when the conditions for maintaining life are unacceptable". It ruled that the parents' objections were not in the boy's best interests, and were based on the hope that God would miraculously return the boy to the way he was before the accident.

The family is considering whether to accept the decision or to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canada's Catch-22 situation in sending tanks to Ukraine

Canada, like Poland and Finland, wants to send some of their German-built Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine to aid in its existential fight against Russia. But we are in the bizarre situation of having to wait for German "permission" to do so.

This is not just a diplomatic courtesy; when Western countries sell weapons, including main battle tanks, to other countries, they normally include an "end-use declaration", which verifies that the buyer is in fact the final user of the weapon, and that it does not intend to transfer them to a third country or use them for another purpose. This is an understandable and even laudable safety clause, and ensures that the weapons are not ultimately used by regimes with poor human rights records, or for causes that the selling country disapproves of.

It seems strange that Canada needs Germany's permission to dispose of its own military equipment, but that's how it is. It should be noted, however, that Poland is considering sending Ukraine its Leopard 2 tanks even without German permission, arguing that Ukraine cannot wait, and that the humanitarian imperative should overrule the niceties of contract law.

Now, the waters have muddied further as a cautious Germany is now saying that it will not allow any of its tanks to be sent to Ukraine unless the USA also agrees to send its M1 Abrams tanks there too, a kind of I-will-if-you-will arrangement presumably designed to ensure that Germany is not seen by Russia as an outspoken aggressor. The problem, say the Americans, is that Abrams tanks in particular are very complex and expensive pieces of equipment requiring substantial training, and American security advisors are loath to promise them to Ukraine. Which means that Germany is unlikely to release its own tanks, or to allow other countries to send their own German-built tanks. Catch-22.

Thus far, Britain is the only Western benefactor that has definitively promised Ukraine tanks (as opposed to armoured trucks and personnel carriers). It has just announced it is sending 14 of its Challenger 2 tanks and ammunition, delivery date unknown.

UPDATE

A major meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, at which several countries tried to persuade Germany to give its permission to send the Leopend 2 tanks to Ukraine, ended in stalemate, as Germany continues to block the more aggressive tendencies of other Euroean allies (and, strangely, the usually modest and circumspect Canadians), a stalemate that Ukraine's foreign minister calls a "huge disappointment for all Ukrainians".

The only thing they managed to agree on at the meeting was to declare the Russian Wagner Group an international terrorist organization (technically a "Transnational Criminal Organization", which would immediately allow for sanctions to be levied against it), something that should have been enacted months, if not years, ago. Negotiations continue on the much-needed tanks, but Germany seems very reluctant to commit itself, or to allow other countries to commit themselves if it might be perceived by Russia as a German initiative (and, of course, Russia would immediately interpret it as such, it being in their propaganda interests).

Visualizing China's dominance in battery production

You probably already know that China has a dominant position in global battery technology. But you might not realize quite to what extent until you see this graphic visualization of global lithium-ion battery production in 2022 and projected in 2027.

This shows the USA and Europe belatedly playing catch-up over the next few years, but only reducing China's dominant ahare of the industry from 77% to 69%. 

Not good.

Jacinda Ardern leaves politics on her own terms

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has decided to call it a day even before her current term ends. Having steered her country through the pandemic, the Christchurch shootings, the White Island volcanic eruption and childbirth, and having presided over her share of controversy, she has decided that she no longer has "enough in the tank" to continue, and that to do so would be "doing a disservice to New Zealand".

Her party is not faring well in the polls, and it seems more than likely that it will lose in the next election, but her exit has certainly left the party in a bit of pickle. That said, it's refreshing to see a political leader not looking to cling onto power ad nauseam. Compare her exit with that of Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu or Boris Johnson...

You'd think that six years in high-level politics would be enough for anyone, but that's not the way it seems to work, at least not in the macho world of man-politics. Direct, down-to-earth, but always classy (apart from when club-dancing), Ms. Ardern will be remembered as a youthful politician with a bit of spark, an international feminist icon to many, and a fierce defender of her own little country on the world stage.

El Niño is coming, expect some record temperatures

Last year was the fifth hottest on record worldwide (sixth warmest, according to some temperature rankings). Only fifth, you say? You might be tempted to think that global warming is starting to slacken off. Not so. The eight hottest years ever have all happened since 2014.

There are also other factors involved. The last three years have all been La Niña years, in which ocean temperatures - an important driver of land temperatures, although far from the only one - are cooler than usual, temporarily dampening the underlying effects of climate change. So, 2022 was the fifth hottest year, EVEN THOUGH it was a La Niña year, and it was certainly the hottest La Niña Year on record.

This year, 2023, will be an El Niño year, leading to even higher temperatures, and probably officially taking us over the dreaded 1.5°C threshold. The El Niño effect actually tends to occur during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, so we probably won't feel its full effects until 2024. But, make no mistake, hot crazy weather is coming. Climatologists are predicting the temperatures in 2024 will be "off the charts".

Why immunity debt doesn't exist, and why masks still matter

It is the conventional received wisdom that the ballooning of contagious diseases this winter, particularly among children, is an unavoidable corollary and result of COVID lockdowns and a whole cohort of young kids who haven't been exposed to the normal epidemiological rites of passage. 

This is often described as "immunity debt" or "deferred immunity", the idea that our immune systems have somehow become weak after 2-3 years of hiding behind masks and observing self-isolation and quarantine protocols. It is a very common belief and has been put forward by many individuals, from internet influencers to medical professionals to our own prime minister. The problem with this narrative is that it's almost certainly wrong, and this is not the way our immune systems work. It is not a "use it or lose it" situation.

The so-called "tridemic" of influenza, RSV and COVID has indeed been a trial for kids and parents alike this year, although it is starting to tail off now. (RSV in particular is usually at its worst in late fall and early winter.) The severity of this year's viral attacks is largely due to the impressive ability of viruses to mutate and adapt. That's just what viruses do, whether we are talking about COVID, influenza or the common cold.

However, what is becoming increasingly understood is that, much like measles and many other infectious diseases, COVID not only makes us sick, it also attacks our immune systems themselves, making them less able to protect us against other diseases as well as COVID itself. It seems likely that COVID is actually suppressing our immune systems and contributing to "T-cell exhaustion" (T-cells are the guardian cells that spot infections and help defend the immune system). Instead of "immunity debt", maybe we should be taking about "immunity theft".

It's hard to know, because we haven't been keeping track of COVID infections for many months now, but many epidemiologists believe that the more severe cases of the flu and RSV we are seeing are probably occurring among people who have already contracted COVID (whether they knew it or not), and who have had their immune systems compromised by it. Anecdotal evidence supports this, and an increasing number of studies are starting to back up this evidence.

The other aspect to this new information is that, contrary to the views of many politicians and even many healthcare professionals these days, masks and basic  public health measures are not part of the problem but an essential part of the solution. We should still be trying our best NOT to get infected with COVID, rather than pretending it doesn't exist and letting it all hang out.

Wyoming to ban the sale of electric vehicles (not a joke)

Much as I hate the place and all that it stands for, you kind of have to hand it to the state of Wyoming for having a sense of humour. Wyoming's state legislature is responding to moves by progresssive states like California and New York to ban the sale of gasoline vehicles by 2035 with its own resolution to ban the sale of electric vehicles by 2035.

Their "justification" is essentially that the oil and gas industry provides employment and income for the state and so needs to be supported.

Wyoming is a tiny maverick state of half a million people, and its action is almost entirely symbolic. But it is indicative of just how divided and fractured the country is, not least in the area of energy and climate change.

I'm not sure that the move is actually tongue-in-cheek - I think they are deadly serious - but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and applaud their sense of humour. Otherwise, it would just be too depressing. In reality, it's about as amusing as Ohio's move to rebrand natural gas as a "green" energy source.

Ukrainian soldier has an unexploded grenade removed from his chest

OK, so how does this work? An injured Ukrainian soldier apparently had an unexploded grenade removed from his chest in a very high-risk surgery. What!?

The VOG, a type of grenade usually fired from a grenade launcher, appears in this x-ray to be lodged within, yes, the guy's chest. Why did it not explode? How is he even still alive? Would a Russian soldier have survived this? So many questions.