OT: Covid-19 (Part 43) Let 'em in

[Naslundforever]

I'm in Montreal and you can't have 3 people from 3 different households dine at the same table, even outdoors. A maximum of 2 adults total when from two different households is allowed at the same table.

I didn't know that going in because I stopped reading about new rules and changes a long time ago. I wonder why they didn't inform me when I made my reservation.

This might work very well for those that have families, but it's unfair to those of us that live alone (all 3 of us do) and can't socialize. We're supposed to socialize in pairs and pairs only which is total horse crap IMO. I can invite up to 7 other people from different addresses to hang out on my balcony (cough, cough...of course all socially distanced) yet sitting at the same table is a no-no. Makes little sense to me.

Cheers, It is indeed totally arbitrary, I understand. I imagine your mom deserves a proper sit-down dinner and not a blanket in parc Maisonneuve

 

[buddahsmoka1]

The people who believe said videos.

What's your point? That there's a tiny segment of the population that believe weird shit?

Once again, who cares.

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

I was making a gif of those who give that argument

It's so dumb

Ah my bad. Hard to follow every single persons opinions on here.

 

[buddahsmoka1]

You don't. There's examples of sick people who did research and helped the medical field without having a degree. But those do not involve a bunch of google search. Those people worked hard for many years to educate themselves with the same books they use in a school. You simply can't educate yourself enough about cellular/molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology to know what you are talking about by just doing a bunch of google search over a year or two.

I don't understand the rhetorical move to suggest there's something inherently different about reading a book and searching something on Google. Either of those activities can constitute "research." A lot of books (or whatever else) suck and have shoddy information, and a lot of sites on the internet are the same (or worse).

The point I was trying to make was that talking down to someone for having an opinion based on whatever research they did themselves, as some unqualified opinion because they don't have x credential, or didn't do y years of 'research on cellular/molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology' is asinine.

The people on here who pretend that political elites and public health officials are inherently more trustworthy or right because of the position they hold or the credentials they have are ridiculous, considering the absolutely abysmal track record they have had during this pandemic. To further suggest that anyone who has a contrasting point of view but does not have comparable credentials or standing is inherently wrong for said reasons ironically goes against every foundation of the scientific method.

 

[flying v 604]

We in the states are all starting to see Fauci for what he is....a total fraud.

I no longer watch any news but sky news out of Australia. They refuse to cave to the MSM and tell things like they are.

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

I no longer watch any news but sky news out of Australia. They refuse to cave to the MSM and tell things like they are.

I would take a lot of the reporting from Sky News with a big grain of salt. They also have their own agenda.

 

[Naslundforever]

I no longer watch any news but sky news out of Australia. They refuse to cave to the MSM and tell things like they are.

I read hockey forums.

 

[waffledave]

I don't understand the rhetorical move to suggest there's something inherently different about reading a book and searching something on Google. Either of those activities can constitute "research." A lot of books (or whatever else) suck and have shoddy information, and a lot of sites on the internet are the same (or worse).

The point I was trying to make was that talking down to someone for having an opinion based on whatever research they did themselves, as some unqualified opinion because they don't have x credential, or didn't do y years of 'research on cellular/molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology' is asinine.

The people on here who pretend that political elites and public health officials are inherently more trustworthy or right because of the position they hold or the credentials they have are ridiculous, considering the absolutely abysmal track record they have had during this pandemic. To further suggest that anyone who has a contrasting point of view but does not have comparable credentials or standing is inherently wrong for said reasons ironically goes against every foundation of the scientific method.

These people Google search "why vaccines are bad" without also checking "why vaccines are good" and call it research.

 

[Milhouse40]

I don't understand the rhetorical move to suggest there's something inherently different about reading a book and searching something on Google. Either of those activities can constitute "research." A lot of books (or whatever else) suck and have shoddy information, and a lot of sites on the internet are the same (or worse).

The point I was trying to make was that talking down to someone for having an opinion based on whatever research they did themselves, as some unqualified opinion because they don't have x credential, or didn't do y years of 'research on cellular/molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology' is asinine.

The people on here who pretend that political elites and public health officials are inherently more trustworthy or right because of the position they hold or the credentials they have are ridiculous, considering the absolutely abysmal track record they have had during this pandemic. To further suggest that anyone who has a contrasting point of view but does not have comparable credentials or standing is inherently wrong for said reasons ironically goes against every foundation of the scientific method.

It's not a research on how to bake a cake or a reasearch on a fish for school here.
Not everyone is the same, that I agree.......

But this is very complicated stuffs we're talking about.
What we've beed seeing mostly for the last year is a shot load people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills."

That's what we're seeing in this pandemic....a lot of people thinking they are very smart, they think they know better, they think they have figured it all out and the majority of us are all dummies following blindly. The reality is the majority is smart enough to understand their own limitations.

 

[buddahsmoka1]

It's not a research on how to bake a cake or a reasearch on a fish for school here.
Not everyone is the same, that I agree.......

But this is very complicated stuffs we're talking about.
What we've beed seeing mostly for the last year is a shot load people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills."

That's what we're seeing in this pandemic....a lot of people thinking they are very smart, they think they know better, they think they have figured it all out and the majority of us are all dummies following blindly. The reality is the majority is smart enough to understand their own limitations.

You have no evidence for this, you are just talking about of your ass.

I think people are well capable of doing research on things that affect them personally (i.e. vaccines, covid treatments). There's something called informed consent (in fact, we have built federal and international medical laws on this foundation), and it rests on the assumption that people are capable of making their own rational decisions before deciding to undertake any procedure, treatment, ect.

Let me state this more clearly: our whole medical system is built upon laws that expect and require individuals to understand, do the necessary research, and make their own decisions before deciding to undertake any medical procedures and treatments.

Furthermore, given that countless laws and 'decrees' made by local and national governments have been completely illogical and have no basis in evidence, the audacity to claim that ordinary people are not capable of researching things themselves to decide what to do with their own personal decisions is silly at best, false elitism at worst.

 

[Andrei79]

You have no evidence for this, you are just talking about of your ass.

I think people are well capable of doing research on things that affect them personally (i.e. vaccines, covid treatments). There's something called informed consent (in fact, we have built federal and international medical laws on this foundation), and it rests on the assumption that people are capable of making their own rational decisions before deciding to undertake any procedure, treatment, ect.

Let me state this more clearly: our whole medical system is built upon laws that expect and require individuals to understand, do the necessary research, and make their own decisions before deciding to undertake any medical procedures and treatments.

Furthermore, given that countless laws and 'decrees' made by local and national governments have been completely illogical and have no basis in evidence, the audacity to claim that ordinary people are not capable of researching things themselves to decide what to do with their own personal decisions is silly at best, false elitism at worst.

Yes, let's bring up informed consent, the threshold of which is so low, that mildly cognitively impaired and intellectually handicapped individuals can show capacity without much of an issue.

This clearly supports the notion that by large, people inform themselves well and have a good grasp of complex issues.

As far as @Milhouse40 's goes, bud we're witnessing an excellent case report on Dunning Kruger in effect.

But, do go on. I look forward to more of your informed insight.

 

[Andrei79]

According to some poll.

Not some poll, but multiple polls including studies like this one A look at the Americans who believe there is some truth to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned that was cited in a JAMA article on science denial and conspiracies theories. This specific study isn't Qanon theory per say, but these findings keep getting replicated with similar results.

But yeah, a tiny portion, consistently showing worrying percentage numbers of the studied population .

And who actually thinks the political elite and public health officials are the gospel ? And why would you even lump these two groups together lmao.

 

[Adam Michaels]

So today, all of Québec is either yellow or green zones.

 

[Milhouse40]

So today, all of Québec is either yellow or green zones.

You're wrong my friend, today all of Quebec is Red, White and Blue
Go Habs Go!!!

 

[dinodebino]

So today, all of Québec is either yellow or green zones.

Yusss!

Now, Ford open up the Ontario "borders" so I can go visit my parents in Niagara. Oh! And start playing somr courses in Ottawa.

 

[RabbleMasterBlaster]

I don't understand the rhetorical move to suggest there's something inherently different about reading a book and searching something on Google. Either of those activities can constitute "research." A lot of books (or whatever else) suck and have shoddy information, and a lot of sites on the internet are the same (or worse).

The point I was trying to make was that talking down to someone for having an opinion based on whatever research they did themselves, as some unqualified opinion because they don't have x credential, or didn't do y years of 'research on cellular/molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology' is asinine.

The people on here who pretend that political elites and public health officials are inherently more trustworthy or right because of the position they hold or the credentials they have are ridiculous, considering the absolutely abysmal track record they have had during this pandemic. To further suggest that anyone who has a contrasting point of view but does not have comparable credentials or standing is inherently wrong for said reasons ironically goes against every foundation of the scientific method.

No, it does not.

Sorry man, but you can sugar coat a turd, but it will always be a turd. This is a dismal argument.

You're saying "I don't care you went to school for 10 years and have done nothing but research, written papers, given conferences and are an expert in your field, I have an opinion I think is valid based on my 15 minutes of Google search and I reserve the right to express that opinion to counter yours."

Actually..no, you don't. This is pretty much the exact situation where you stfu and let the experts do their job.

Edit: I think that it's important to remember that Covid has been a very unique event that absolutely no one on the planet was ready for and was able to handle perfectly. It's expected that our officials may have not gotten everything right and will need to essentially "learn" on the job the best course of action. Did they do a perfect job? No, of course not. Do we wish they had done better, of course! So to take a stance like yours, where you feel qualified to question their judgment (with the benefit of hind sight at that) seems misguided, at best.

Where I live right now, we were enjoying our lives fairly "normally" (masks everywhere were still required, limit of 8 people gathering) until about a month ago when we had a surge of cases that brought them up to...30 a day. And the whole country locked down again to bring the cases down. I mean it worked, but it sucks. We are about to get some relief starting this week, but it's not like how we were just before this most recent lock down.

As far as I can see, we're going to be in this mess for a very long time and it's kind of what the future is going to be like. Don't think we're ever going back to how it was pre-covid. Kind of like how everything changed after 911.

 

[Adam Michaels]

You're wrong my friend, today all of Quebec is Red, White and Blue
Go Habs Go!!!

Awww yea!!!!

 

[buddahsmoka1]

Not some poll, but multiple polls including studies like this one A look at the Americans who believe there is some truth to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned that was cited in a JAMA article on science denial and conspiracies theories. This specific study isn't Qanon theory per say, but these findings keep getting replicated with similar results.

But yeah, a tiny portion, consistently showing worrying percentage numbers of the studied population .

And who actually thinks the political elite and public health officials are the gospel ? And why would you even lump these two groups together lmao.

This is completely dishonest.

First of all, we were talking about QAnon. Not "conspiracy theories." It's not surprising that people have doubts about the origins of COVID considering they have been gaslighted for the past year on where it came from.

Second of all, did you read the article referenced to the right, btw? Or were you too busy building up dishonest arguments?

Over 75% of those surveyed knew absolutely nothing about QAnon. 20% knew 'very little.'

QAnon’s conspiracy theories have seeped into U.S. politics, but most don’t know what it is

So much for 'a lot' of people believing in it.

 

[buddahsmoka1]

No, it does not.

Sorry man, but you can sugar coat a turd, but it will always be a turd. This is a dismal argument.

You're saying "I don't care you went to school for 10 years and have done nothing but research, written papers, given conferences and are an expert in your field, I have an opinion I think is valid based on my 15 minutes of Google search and I reserve the right to express that opinion to counter yours."

Never said this at all. This is a strawman argument.

This is pretty much the exact situation where you stfu and let the experts do their job.

Yeah, sounds like a winning solution. Just shut up and let the authoritarians tell you what to do. Societies have surely thrived under that formula.

Edit: I think that it's important to remember that Covid has been a very unique event that absolutely no one on the planet was ready for and was able to handle perfectly. It's expected that our officials may have not gotten everything right and will need to essentially "learn" on the job the best course of action. Did they do a perfect job? No, of course not. Do we wish they had done better, of course! So to take a stance like yours, where you feel qualified to question their judgment (with the benefit of hind sight at that) seems misguided, at best.

Where I live right now, we were enjoying our lives fairly "normally" (masks everywhere were still required, limit of 8 people gathering) until about a month ago when we had a surge of cases that brought them up to...30 a day. And the whole country locked down again to bring the cases down. I mean it worked, but it sucks. We are about to get some relief starting this week, but it's not like how we were just before this most recent lock down.

Lock downs did not work. There's plenty data on this. They are ahistorical solution to this pandemic - they were imported from authoritarian China and have never been used in Western society in past epidemics or pandemics.

They have caused more harm than good - they have done nothing to prevent the spread of the virus and have caused innumerable other mental and health issues, and significant downstream economic issues.

And I hope, just like this guy, that when we look back in history they are viewed like this: Lockdowns are 'the single biggest public health mistake in history', says top scientist

 

[Adam Michaels]

- 123 cases

- 1 death

- 1 less hospitalization (214 total)

- 4 less in ICU (54 total)

 

[buddahsmoka1]

Yes, let's bring up informed consent, the threshold of which is so low, that mildly cognitively impaired and intellectually handicapped individuals can show capacity without much of an issue.

This clearly supports the notion that by large, people inform themselves well and have a good grasp of complex issues.

As far as @Milhouse40 's goes, bud we're witnessing an excellent case report on Dunning Kruger in effect.

But, do go on. I look forward to more of your informed insight.

This post is completely useless. We include those people because they have rights as well.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Week-to-Week Comparison

- CASES -
June 6: 193
June 13: 123 (70 less)

- HOSPITALIZATIONS -
June 6: 265
June 13: 254 (11 less)

- ICU -
June 6: 58
June 13: 54 (4 less)

- 1ST DOSES -
June 6: 5.59M doses administered
June 13: 5.84M doses administered (25K more doses administered)

- 2ND DOSES -
June 6: 580K doses administered
June 13: 950K doses administered (370K more doses administered)

_____________

Year-to-Year Comparison

- CASES -
June 13 2020: 128
June 13 2021: 123 (5 less)

- DEATHS -
June 13 2020: 27
June 13 2021: 1 (26 less)

- HOSPITALIZATIONS -
June 13 2020: 769
June 13 2021: 214 (555 less)

- ICU -
June 13 2020: 85
June 13 2021: 54 (31 less)

 

[llamateizer]

I'm in Montreal and you can't have 3 people from 3 different households dine at the same table, even outdoors. A maximum of 2 adults total when from two different households is allowed at the same table.

I didn't know that going in because I stopped reading about new rules and changes a long time ago. I wonder why they didn't inform me when I made my reservation.

This might work very well for those that have families, but it's unfair to those of us that live alone (all 3 of us do) and can't socialize. We're supposed to socialize in pairs and pairs only which is total horse crap IMO. I can invite up to 7 other people from different addresses to hang out on my balcony (cough, cough...of course all socially distanced) yet sitting at the same table is a no-no. Makes little sense to me.

Orange zone was only allowing two adults.
now with yellow (starting today), it's up to 4 adults within 2 families.
you'll have better chances to celebrate with your sister and mother. you're a single family

At worst. your sister lives temporarily to help your mother since covid began.

 

[Licou]

Never said this at all. This is a strawman argument.



Yeah, sounds like a winning solution. Just shut up and let the authoritarians tell you what to do. Societies have surely thrived under that formula.



Lock downs did not work. There's plenty data on this. They are ahistorical solution to this pandemic - they were imported from authoritarian China and have never been used in Western society in past epidemics or pandemics.

They have caused more harm than good - they have done nothing to prevent the spread of the virus and have caused innumerable other mental and health issues, and significant downstream economic issues.

And I hope, just like this guy, that when we look back in history they are viewed like this: Lockdowns are 'the single biggest public health mistake in history', says top scientist

Lockdowns did work at what they were intended to do: protecting healthcare systems that are not well designed at handling very large numbers of customers with severe illnesses. Saying that this is not the case is disingenuous at best. Saying that lockdowns have done nothing to prevent the spread of the virus while waving your hands in the air is dishonest, not backed by data and just an outright lie.

Here is a study out of many measuring the effect of lockdowns at curbing the disease spread : Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions | Nature Human Behaviour

Your argument that lockdowns caused a lot of harm is very legitimate though. It seems like you cherry picked the opinion of one scientist, but I am certain there are many others who agree with him and with very good arguments as well.

We have had many examples of countries that were hit hard last spring, either because of surprise or by negligence and they were forced to lockdown to let their healthcare systems take a breather. Even Texas and Florida had to lock it down for a little bit and their private healthcare system has more wiggle room than ours.

Canadian lockdowns, especially in Quebec, were draconian for sure, and their tolls on mental health cannot be understated. We will be paying for that for years. But letting covid roam free would most likely have been catastrophic, and there is data to back this up.

At the end of the day, we should have been better prepared. Also, individuals should have been more open to a more robust and invasive tracing system, like Korea did. Letting technology do its part during a legitimate world crisis could have saved lives and probably shorten the duration of this awful situation.

 

[llamateizer]

Yusss!

Now, Ford open up the Ontario "borders" so I can go visit my parents in Niagara. Oh! And start playing somr courses in Ottawa.

really hope to open Ontario because my plan to PEI is no longer valid.

NB are opening for Canadian tourists on July 1st.
PEI is around Sept 12th

Ontario is still closed without any plan.