OT: Covid-19 (Part 57) Grand Re-Re-Re-Opening Edition

[PhysicX]

Science says best way to avoid Covid is isolation. I sure hope you fella’s weren't and aren’t hanging out in groups, I would never be friends with anyone that is that flippant about Covid. Selfish behaviour. All of my friends have been completely isolating and I wouldn’t have it any other way, we will emerge in 2026 when the risk is finally eliminated.

Amazing reply @japhi

 

[ProMath]

Like I said, the extremists on both sides are annoying, as they always are. Here in the middle we aren’t angry, we try and respect peoples choices and opinions and we understand there is much more to it the vax vs unvaxxed.

If you are vaxed and on tinder chasing tail, are you really pandemic superior to a guy that isn’t vaxed and spends most of his time with family? Of course not, this is very clearly a pandemic of the vaccinated at this point, time to reconsider positions.

You need to compare apple with apple.

Vaxed chasing tail vs Unvaxed chasing tail.

In every comparison you will make, in a pandemic context, the logical choice is to get vaccinate.

Obivously in your exemple both are to blame for something....but it's pretty easy to make anyone look bad if you compare it to something completly different

Who is better ? an Unvaxed not chasin tail following measure while staying at home collecting PCU ? or the Vaxed one following measure, and giving his time to help in RPA ?? This is a ridiculous way to compare stuff.

 

[Milhouse40]

Like I said, the extremists on both sides are annoying, as they always are. Here in the middle we aren’t angry, we try and respect peoples choices and opinions and we understand there is much more to it the vax vs unvaxxed.

If you are vaxed and on tinder chasing tail, are you really pandemic superior to a guy that isn’t vaxed and spends most of his time with family? Of course not, this is very clearly a pandemic of the vaccinated at this point, time to reconsider positions.

It's more a pandemic of everyone....not only the vaccinated.....

 

[BehindTheTimes]

The numbers don’t support your assertion. And that’s across the board.

They certainly do, you can't find a single source that proves their success, I'm seeing a pattern here.

 

[llamateizer]

The Gov't will not withdraw the health emergency state before mid-march.

Sadly this is getting political as per article 129, the gov't has 3 months to provide a report of the decisions during emergency state.
The parliament ends on June 10th. So they'll not be obliged to deliver it
just in time for election

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I mention the jhu study because it's been the go-to recently because of the clickbait NP article headline. The study itself has a number of issues and ommissions. It even points to evidence that things like nonessential business closures and masks DO help.

Several omissions? The study looks pretty solid to me.

At least one author is associated with the AEIR, which generally is going to skew them towards being "pro-business" and have been against lockdowns pretty much from the start. It's also the source of the borderline fraudulent Great Barrington Declaration. I don't know why were looking to economists at a pro-business think tank for medical advice...

Well I disagree that the Great Barrington Declaration is borderline fraudulent, but that's another conversation. You think letting the Chief Medical Officers of the provinces promote lockdowns is better and they don't skew towards their own biasis. There's a reason we don't let them run the country or the provinces.

I can't find the other articles you mentioned, at least nothing more recent. If you have links I'd be glad to read them.

I read them awhile ago, if I can dig them up I will post them. Seems like the search engine is polluted with people trying to discredit the JHU article. I had them open not too long ago, so I should be able to track them down.

You're the one who made a specific claim, and I asked for an elaboration on why you made said claim. Don't know why its suddenly my turn to prove your claim is wrong?
[/QOUTE]
It's pretty simple really, if you're going to impose mandates/restrictions on others it is the responsibility of those imposing them to prove they work. You support them, so show your work. I'm not asking for anything but to be left alone.

As for the rest, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the claim you made or any "position" you've deduced that I hold? I think we should be easing/dropping restrictions too. I just don't want to drop them on a dime because some libertarian economists say so. I also don't have the faith in others to act responsibly that you seem to do. When the masks were just a recommendation, pretty much no one wore them.

Well, rightfully so on masks imo, they are a symbol, they don't work (the ones most ppl are wearing). Once again, I've yet to see a credible study supporting mask mandates and masking children in school, especially with non medical masks.

That was my best guess, I know people who plan to continue to wear them after the restrictions are lifted, for how long etc is just guess work. The vaccine mandates and passports need to go and never return again.

 

[WeeBey]

Several omissions? The study looks pretty solid to me.

So which part of the twitter thread has it wrong? What about the part that actually shows business closures helped? How about the distinction between shelter in place orders and other measures?

Well I disagree that the Great Barrington Declaration is borderline fraudulent, but that's another conversation. You think letting the Chief Medical Officers of the provinces promote lockdowns is better and they don't skew towards their own biasis. There's a reason we don't let them run the country or the provinces.

It's of course possible that the Chief Medical Officers have their own biases, yeah. What benefit does promoting lockdowns have for them though? Right wing think tanks are often funded by big corporate interests, they essentially get paid to tell people that austerity is good and that what's good for corporations is good for the rest of us.

It's pretty simple really, if you're going to impose mandates/restrictions on others it is the responsibility of those imposing them to prove they work. You support them, so show your work. I'm not asking for anything but to be left alone.

Cool. But that's not what I asked about. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was asking for the sources for a claim that you made.

Well, rightfully so on masks imo, they are a symbol, they don't work (the ones most ppl are wearing). Once again, I've yet to see a credible study supporting mask mandates and masking children in school, especially with non medical masks.

Irrelevant to what I said but you made a comment that, from my understanding, was arguing that people could be trusted to take precautions on their own, which I don't think will happen. But since we're here: masks do help. Yes, non-medical masks don't do a whole to protect you from catching it, but they do help prevent infected people from spreading it.

 

[Miller Time]

Several omissions? The study looks pretty solid to me.
.

this explains a lot about your takes...

 

[llamateizer]

Several omissions? The study looks pretty solid to me.


Well I disagree that the Great Barrington Declaration is borderline fraudulent, but that's another conversation. You think letting the Chief Medical Officers of the provinces promote lockdowns is better and they don't skew towards their own biasis. There's a reason we don't let them run the country or the provinces.


I read them awhile ago, if I can dig them up I will post them. Seems like the search engine is polluted with people trying to discredit the JHU article. I had them open not too long ago, so I should be able to track them down.

Link of the study: https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

- The paper is a systematic review performed by three very highly-regarded economists who have also been extremely anti-lockdown since March 2020
- hasn't been peer-reviewed
- Study author Steve Hanke, PhD, is the founder of the institute.
- Of the 34 papers ultimately selected, 12 were "working papers" rather than peer-reviewed science. And 14 studies were conducted by economists rather than public health or medical experts

Why would economist talks about health impact?
regarding all those argument above, the study is worth nothing.

The question was how can we show that lockdown did not reduced infection?
the question should be did the lockdown reduced infection

It's as legit as saying TVA nouvelles is the best source of information per PKP surveys

It's biased and loses its scientific value.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

They certainly do, you can't find a single source that proves their success, I'm seeing a pattern here.

Is the government of Alberta a valid source? They opened everything up last summer only to see a huge spike in numbers. That can’t be accounted for by vaccination rates… it’s the same Province. The difference was that they dropped mandates and numbers went through the roof. Kenney had to furiously backpedal and they wound up in lockdowns - again.

Again you are objectively wrong here. This isn’t opinion, it’s what happened. Kenney himself apologized for how he handled it.

 

[MXD]

For whatever reasons, the 911 is flooded with calls in my area.

 

[ClasslessGuy]

For whatever reasons, the 911 is flooded with calls in my area.

It's related to the prostest.

 

[dinodebino]

For whatever reasons, the 911 is flooded with calls in my area.

In Hull????

 

[MXD]

It's related to the prostest.

No one would've guessed, lol.

 

[MXD]

In Hull????

Yep. Not quite sure if it's the bunch in Ottawa or les anciens nonos de la Meute or, like, all together for the whole 819-613 area.

 

[Licou]

Yep. Not quite sure if it's the bunch in Ottawa or les anciens nonos de la Meute or, like, all together for the whole 819-613 area.

Isn't that illegal? If they piss off the police enough they could start getting tickets or prison time.

 

[ClasslessGuy]

Isn't that illegal? If they piss off the police enough they could start getting tickets or prison time.

Yes it is,

They also blocked the airport all morning

 

[MXD]

Isn't that illegal? If they piss off the police enough they could start getting tickets or prison time.

It's not only illegal, it's dangerous. Because there are actual emergencies out there, other than children tantrums.

 

[Licou]

Yes it is,

They also blocked the airport all morning

Huh... They will be loosing public sympathy pretty fast with stunts like these and blocking the Windsor bridge.

Idiots.

 

[Lshap]

Several omissions? The study looks pretty solid to me.


Well I disagree that the Great Barrington Declaration is borderline fraudulent, but that's another conversation. You think letting the Chief Medical Officers of the provinces promote lockdowns is better and they don't skew towards their own biasis. There's a reason we don't let them run the country or the provinces.


I read them awhile ago, if I can dig them up I will post them. Seems like the search engine is polluted with people trying to discredit the JHU article. I had them open not too long ago, so I should be able to track them down.

So which part of the twitter thread has it wrong? What about the part that actually shows business closures helped? How about the distinction between shelter in place orders and other measures?



It's of course possible that the Chief Medical Officers have their own biases, yeah. What benefit does promoting lockdowns have for them though? Right wing think tanks are often funded by big corporate interests, they essentially get paid to tell people that austerity is good and that what's good for corporations is good for the rest of us.



Cool. But that's not what I asked about. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was asking for the sources for a claim that you made.



Irrelevant to what I said but you made a comment that, from my understanding, was arguing that people could be trusted to take precautions on their own, which I don't think will happen. But since we're here: masks do help. Yes, non-medical masks don't do a whole to protect you from catching it, but they do help prevent infected people from spreading it.

Medical experts point out risk, no matter how minimal. That's their job. It's not their job to balance medical risk with economic risk - that's the job of politicians, who have to juggle both risks and find a middle ground. Medical science lives in the tiniest of percentages, so they'll be forever prioritizing caution because risk will never be zero.

I had no problem with the principle behind the Great Barrington Declaration, even though it had an obvious bias. At the time, its recommendations were premature, but it was valuable to at least acknowledge the societal impact of the many restrictions.

 

[waffledave]

It's not only illegal, it's dangerous. Because there are actual emergencies out there, other than children tantrums.

They are already purposely blocking emergency vehicles, so it's no surprise.

If these guys were indigenous it would have ended on the first day.

They would have sent in the SWAT teams to beat them with batons like when indigenous protestors blocked a train.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

So which part of the twitter thread has it wrong? What about the part that actually shows business closures helped? How about the distinction between shelter in place orders and other measures?



It's of course possible that the Chief Medical Officers have their own biases, yeah. What benefit does promoting lockdowns have for them though? Right wing think tanks are often funded by big corporate interests, they essentially get paid to tell people that austerity is good and that what's good for corporations is good for the rest of us.



Cool. But that's not what I asked about. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was asking for the sources for a claim that you made.



Irrelevant to what I said but you made a comment that, from my understanding, was arguing that people could be trusted to take precautions on their own, which I don't think will happen. But since we're here: masks do help. Yes, non-medical masks don't do a whole to protect you from catching it, but they do help prevent infected people from spreading it.

Is the government of Alberta a valid source? They opened everything up last summer only to see a huge spike in numbers. That can’t be accounted for by vaccination rates… it’s the same Province. The difference was that they dropped mandates and numbers went through the roof. Kenney had to furiously backpedal and they wound up in lockdowns - again.

Again you are objectively wrong here. This isn’t opinion, it’s what happened. Kenney himself apologized for how he handled it.

I’m not going to get into this LG. I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore? That lockdowns delay cases? Ok, we agree? What is the net positive of that?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I’m not going to get into this LG. I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore? That lockdowns delay cases? Ok, we agree? What is the net positive of that?

Right, I forgot... you need to see that water is wet.

Here's Jason Kenney with his 'Best Summer Ever' moment:


Here he is realizing that it was really 'The Summer of George':

'I apologize': Kenney says Alta. wrong for COVID-19 pandemic to endemic shift, not sorry for Open for Summer plan

"I know that we had all hoped this summer that we could put COVID behind us once and for all, that was certainly my hope and I said that very clearly," said Kenney. "It is now clear that we were wrong, and for that I apologize."

He then put Alberta into lockdown and implemented the passport. Because he HAD to. Same thing happened in Saskatchewan. They opened up completely and got smoked.

 

[waffledave]

Busy with work this week but wanted to share -

My wife's job is to get financing for academic researchers, so she talks to a lot of researchers and scientists daily. There was a big academic conference yesterday or the day before regarding COVID, and it seems the consensus is that the virus is becoming more transmissible but less lethal and this is the direction they expect things to go.

There will always be new variants that emerge that require masking/other measures but in general this direction should continue over the longer term.

There is still a fairly high degree of risk with getting infected, especially with the recent studies showing high incidences of heart disease 1 year following a COVID infection, but this is quite rare if you get infected while vaccinated. So, they expect that national health agencies will start recommending to scale back mitigation measures, especially in areas with high vaccination numbers.

They also suggested governments will need to start investing heavily in healthcare specifically to deal with long-term health complications of having fought off a COVID infection prior to vaccination, as the toll it takes on your heart and arteries, and potentially other organs, was apparently poorly understood and is only coming to light now.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Right, I forgot... you need to see that water is wet.

Here's Jason Kenney with his 'Best Summer Ever' moment:


Here he is realizing that it was really 'The Summer of George':

'I apologize': Kenney says Alta. wrong for COVID-19 pandemic to endemic shift, not sorry for Open for Summer plan

"I know that we had all hoped this summer that we could put COVID behind us once and for all, that was certainly my hope and I said that very clearly," said Kenney. "It is now clear that we were wrong, and for that I apologize."

He then put Alberta into lockdown and implemented the passport. Because he HAD to. Same thing happened in Saskatchewan. They opened up completely and got smoked.

You are just repeating the same thing again and again. This isn’t the revelation you think it is. Anyone paying attention already knows about this. I notice when u think you’ve got something you’ll post it, but crickets on the evidence of the confederate/nazi flag nonsense.