Everything COVID19 - PART 4

[FormentonTheFuture]

The virus actuallly is propagated in the communities when people are taking the public transit, especially Uber, Lyft or Taxis. The hospitals built their own infrastructure, where it is impassible to park and the wait list to get a parking spot could go for years to obtain. And the spots are usually reserved to the top doctors and surgeons who are useless in this pandemic. If you look at Ottawa, nurses, who work with covid patients in three hospitals. They do not have the parking spots and forced to take cheap Uber and Lyft. Also taking Uber and Lyft are the PSW in extensive care and retirement homes. They are underpaid by owners, can not afford a car. Many are recent immigrants, live in places like Caldwell and other projects and picking the virus from Uber and Lyft back seats after covid nurses and transport it to their work places. It is a miracle that only 20 patients now are in the extensive care for example in the General right now. Taxi, Uber and Lyft drivers are also suffered the biggest casualties against the virus. After the retirement homes and health care workers.

Parking is free and readily available for employees at all hospitals right now.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

The media.

What kinds of things do you consider to be included in "the new normal"?

The way I interpreted it, I thought almost any law or societal norm related to public health and safety is what falls under your question.

One example of a change that happened back in the distant past is the widespread adoption of seatbelts. Back in the 70's, no one wore seatbelts -- I don't think the car we had as a kid even had them in the back seat. Then, somewhere around 1980, there was a huge push ... seatbelt laws were created, there were government ads on the radio, the media published stories documenting the research, and the police handed out tickets.

Lots of people hated it and grumbled. There were a few that I knew personally who just flat out would not wear them.

But over time it became accepted -- ie it went from being the "new normal" to just "normal". Today most people put their seatbelt on without thinking, and irregardless of how far they are going to drive.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the media could have effected that change by itself.

 

[dumbdick]

What kinds of things do you consider to be included in "the new normal"?

The way I interpreted it, I thought almost any law or societal norm related to public health and safety is what falls under your question.

One example of a change that happened back in the distant past is the widespread adoption of seatbelts. Back in the 70's, no one wore seatbelts -- I don't think the car we had as a kid even had them in the back seat. Then, somewhere around 1980, there was a huge push ... seatbelt laws were created, there were government ads on the radio, the media published stories documenting the research, and the police handed out tickets.

Lots of people hated it and grumbled. There were a few that I knew personally who just flat out would not wear them.

But over time it became accepted -- ie it went from being the "new normal" to just "normal". Today most people put their seatbelt on without thinking, and irregardless of how far they are going to drive.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the media could have effected that change by itself.

Interestingly, if we all switched to a five point racing harness instead of seatbelts we could save even more lives. We'd be sitting here in 20 years wondering why it didn't come sooner. Banning smoking would probably save > 10K Canadian lives a year.

Newborns used to ride everywhere in cars in their parents' arms. Passengers strolled onto planes like they were getting in a taxi.

Funny how nothing is broken until it changes and then we wonder how it ever existed any other way.

 

[Stylizer1]

Unless you are unable to afford a mask, I don't understand why people choose to not wear one in public. There's no drawback to wearing it and it could help end this sooner if you do.

I don't think that's true. How often do people actually come within 6 feet of a stranger? People generally keep there distance by default. Of the people I know who had covid they all showed clear signs of being sick.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Interestingly, if we all switched to a five point racing harness instead of seatbelts we could save even more lives. We'd be sitting here in 20 years wondering why it didn't come sooner. Banning smoking would probably save > 10K Canadian lives a year.

Newborns used to ride everywhere in cars in their parents' arms. Passengers strolled onto planes like they were getting in a taxi.

Funny how nothing is broken until it changes and then we wonder how it ever existed any other way.

Good examples.

And if you think about how some things make the transition into "normal" while other things do not, it's a fairly complex process ... which was really the point of my original question to @Stylizer1 ... "who dictated the old normal?". When you answer that question, you will also answer the question as to "who will dictate the new normal?".

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Good examples.

And if you think about how some things make the transition into "normal" while other things do not, it's a fairly complex process ... which was really the point of my original question to @Stylizer1 ... "who dictated the old normal?". When you answer that question, you will also answer the question as to "who will dictate the new normal?".

Compliance is sometimes a deciding factor to whether or not something is the new normal.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Compliance is sometimes a deciding factor to whether or not something is the new normal.

For sure.

But as I mentioned in my seatbelt example, there were a number of people who were opposed to the law. And some of them defied it openly.

If this had been a large enough group, you could imagine seatbelts actually being an election issue and a candidate including a promise to repeal the seatbelt law as part of his/her platform.

But the overall public sentiment was that the law was reasonable and justified, so that never happened.

Which is also a big component of my answer as to who dictates the new normal -- in the long run, public sentiment will largely determine it.

 

[Stylizer1]

What kinds of things do you consider to be included in "the new normal"?

The way I interpreted it, I thought almost any law or societal norm related to public health and safety is what falls under your question.

One example of a change that happened back in the distant past is the widespread adoption of seatbelts. Back in the 70's, no one wore seatbelts -- I don't think the car we had as a kid even had them in the back seat. Then, somewhere around 1980, there was a huge push ... seatbelt laws were created, there were government ads on the radio, the media published stories documenting the research, and the police handed out tickets.

Lots of people hated it and grumbled. There were a few that I knew personally who just flat out would not wear them.

But over time it became accepted -- ie it went from being the "new normal" to just "normal". Today most people put their seatbelt on without thinking, and irregardless of how far they are going to drive.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the media could have effected that change by itself.

Seat belts are a little different. The amount of horrific deaths per year over 50+ years lead to a change that resulted in lowering deaths. This is year one of a virus that by all accounts is not as serious as say something like the spanish flu and some would say the regular flu. Because of that should the new normal be line ups at every business, reduced class sizes, mandatory temperature checks, etc. The media and the governments are telling us about this new normal and people are trying to go back to the way it was. Who has the authority to tell a free person how they should live their lives? Not everyone needs the government to control their decision making. Just because the response was to shut everything down doesn't mean we need to change anything we were doing before. IF we had wet markets in Canada and IF it was determined that that is where the virus came from then we could out law them.

There should be no new normal.

This situation has done nothing but make people fear something that is invisible like terrorist cells.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Seat belts are a little different. The amount of horrific deaths per year over 50+ years lead to a change that resulted in lowering deaths. This is year one of a virus that by all accounts is not as serious as say something like the spanish flu and some would say the regular flu. Because of that should the new normal be line ups at every business, reduced class sizes, mandatory temperature checks, etc. The media and the governments are telling us about this new normal and people are trying to go back to the way it was. Who has the authority to tell a free person how they should live their lives? Not everyone needs the government to control their decision making. Just because the response was to shut everything down doesn't mean we need to change anything we were doing before. IF we had wet markets in Canada and IF it was determined that that is where the virus came from then we could out law them.

There should be no new normal.

This situation has done nothing but make people fear something that is invisible like terrorist cells.

Okay well that's a little different question -- not "who should dictate the new normal", more "what should the new normal be?" (and your position is that it should be the same as the old normal).

My answer was really that it's a very complex process as to how we come to a "normal" state and that it goes beyond either just the media or the government. In the long run, what we accept as a society is usually dictated by the preferences and choices of the majority of the population.

Now - it certainly is true that the government and the media can influence public opinion. But only to a certain extent... when the government tries to shove something down peoples throats that they just clearly don't like or believe it fails.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Compliance is sometimes a deciding factor to whether or not something is the new normal.

The new normal paradigm will include both compliant and non compliant individuals.

 

[Masked]

I don't think that's true. How often do people actually come within 6 feet of a stranger? People generally keep there distance by default. Of the people I know who had covid they all showed clear signs of being sick.

It seems like whenever I go to a store these days there's always some fool who has no issues coming within six feet of me.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't think that's true. How often do people actually come within 6 feet of a stranger? People generally keep there distance by default. Of the people I know who had covid they all showed clear signs of being sick.

There are a bunch of examples of people on Youtube putting 6 foot rings around them and trying to go about their day, you'd be surprised how often people actually come within 6 feet of a stranger.

 

[The Lewler]

The march towards opening will continue .

Georgia not spiking . Florida not spiking.

Kawasaki type syndrome in kids extremely rare . Treatable most of the time in those very rare cases .

Flu way more deadly to people under 25 than covid .

Not going to be sufficient to stop getting back to normal and opening schools in the fall .

 

[JD1]

So a couple points;
1. Eating a hamburger while driving isn't contagious, on the off chance you do crash, the person you hit won't then be likely to spread that crash to another 2 to 3 people who will in turn each spread it to another 2-3 people and so on.
2. People were vaccinated to the flu you had, so the likelihood of you spreading it was mitigated. We are currently in a lockdown because of how much this is spreading due to the lack of mitigation, so you wearing a mask is helping to mitigate it is in place of vaccines, so maybe if everyone actually wore masks, we could get out this lockdown quicker.

About 20 years ago i was on bank at riverside, stopped, with my signal on to turn left into the gas station that used to be there. I was behind another guy also waiting to turn left into the gas station. Along comes an asshole, eating a burger and fries while driving, hits me, i hit the guy in front of me. The asshole had a burger and fry mess all over his car. So, there goes that analogy. Ha.

Sadly, by the time it was all cleared up and i was on my way, i missed my hockey game at the RA centre. On a good note, i got there just in time for post game beers.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

So, there goes that analogy. Ha.

Bummer about the crash. Distracted driving is so frustrating to see result in a collision — one person's actions have a direct impact on others'.

Here's why the quoted bit is wrong and the analogy is still relevant: you're referring to a linear impact. One person crashes into one person. Even if we assume a collision where the lineup of cars having this domino effect reaches the size of the lineup to get out of CTC after a playoff game, that's a linear impact. Comparatively, COVID-19 has an exponential impact. For your analogy to work, the car that hit you would've had to cleave your car into two cars, which each would have hit and split a new car, and so forth.

 

[JD1]

Bummer about the crash. Distracted driving is so frustrating to see result in a collision — one person's actions have a direct impact on others'.

Here's why the quoted bit is wrong and the analogy is still relevant: you're referring to a linear impact. One person crashes into one person. Even if we assume a collision where the lineup of cars having this domino effect reaches the size of the lineup to get out of CTC after a playoff game, that's a linear impact. Comparatively, COVID-19 has an exponential impact. For your analogy to work, the car that hit you would've had to cleave your car into two cars, which each would have hit and split a new car, and so forth.

Ya i get it. It just reminded me of that incident which i hadn't thought of in probably a decade.

A big mac makes a hell of a mess inside a car that goes bang lol

 

[dumbdick]

Seat belts are a little different. The amount of horrific deaths per year over 50+ years lead to a change that resulted in lowering deaths. This is year one of a virus that by all accounts is not as serious as say something like the spanish flu and some would say the regular flu. Because of that should the new normal be line ups at every business, reduced class sizes, mandatory temperature checks, etc. The media and the governments are telling us about this new normal and people are trying to go back to the way it was. Who has the authority to tell a free person how they should live their lives? Not everyone needs the government to control their decision making. Just because the response was to shut everything down doesn't mean we need to change anything we were doing before. IF we had wet markets in Canada and IF it was determined that that is where the virus came from then we could out law them.

There should be no new normal.

This situation has done nothing but make people fear something that is invisible like terrorist cells.

I think you're raising some good questions. I don't look at it as extremely as you do, but it's amazing how quickly a lot of liberties could be permanently lost in times of a crisis. It's like 9/11. When you look back on it, a lot of stuff changed and a lot of it was over-reaction. The Patriot Act and the endless wars with huge civilian casualties come to mind. I think most Americans would happily take a do-over on Afghanistan and Iraq, and would question whether it actually made them or the world any safer. Do we have ISIS if we don't have those wars? I think probably not.

But there are idealogues who jump in during these times and can really slant the course of history.

Right now, does the government have the legal authority to tell you that you can't convene with other people on your property? Should they have that right? In normal times, I think the public would be very concerned if the government wanted this power. Right now, they'll hand over the rubber stamp. Crazy times, indeed.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Doctors raise alarm about health effects of continued coronavirus shutdown: 'Mass casualty incident'

I don't think enough light has been shed on the side effects of continued lockdowns.

 

[Masked]

Doctors raise alarm about health effects of continued coronavirus shutdown: 'Mass casualty incident'

I don't think enough light has been shed on the side effects of continued lockdowns.

You're linking to Fox News.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

You're linking to Fox News.

Is the document linked in the article fake?

 

[maclean]

I think you're raising some good questions. I don't look at it as extremely as you do, but it's amazing how quickly a lot of liberties could be permanently lost in times of a crisis. It's like 9/11. When you look back on it, a lot of stuff changed and a lot of it was over-reaction. The Patriot Act and the endless wars with huge civilian casualties come to mind. I think most Americans would happily take a do-over on Afghanistan and Iraq, and would question whether it actually made them or the world any safer. Do we have ISIS if we don't have those wars? I think probably not.

I wish you were right but I think a majority of Americans would do it again. But the comparison is interesting because you had Americans backing a war (a couple wars) that resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties over an incident that took under 3000 lives, now you have a disease that has led to nearly a 100 000 deaths in the US and people are protesting having to do anything about it. Sometimes the extent of people's subjectivity is staggering.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Is the document linked in the article fake?

The letter by the "doctors"? Hell yes. Propaganda at it's most basic level.

 

[Micklebot]

The US and other countries who rely on for profit hospitals are in a wierd place where a pandemic that threatens to overrun capacity if left unchecked is resulting in mitigation regulations that threaten those very hospital's ability to be financially stable.

Doctors who are not part of the front line against the pandemic may very well have significant financial incentives to want restrictions to end, thus making them potentially far from being neutral arbiters.

The letter from those doctors is annecdotal, but that doesn't make them invalid. An in depth peer reviewed study would nice to have on the competing impacts of COVID restrictions.

It's also worth noting that some of the financial impacts they raise can be mitigated by stimulous and social safety net packages. The answer to whether or not we should have restrictions doesnt happen in a vacuum, we can and should be addressing the negative repercussions as they appear to the best of our abilities. Failure to do so doesn't mean we shouldn't have had the restrictions, it means we failed to address second order effects.

 

[Stylizer1]

I think you're raising some good questions. I don't look at it as extremely as you do, but it's amazing how quickly a lot of liberties could be permanently lost in times of a crisis. It's like 9/11. When you look back on it, a lot of stuff changed and a lot of it was over-reaction. The Patriot Act and the endless wars with huge civilian casualties come to mind. I think most Americans would happily take a do-over on Afghanistan and Iraq, and would question whether it actually made them or the world any safer. Do we have ISIS if we don't have those wars? I think probably not.

But there are idealogues who jump in during these times and can really slant the course of history.

Right now, does the government have the legal authority to tell you that you can't convene with other people on your property? Should they have that right? In normal times, I think the public would be very concerned if the government wanted this power. Right now, they'll hand over the rubber stamp. Crazy times, indeed.

Things that made sense after 9/11 was to lock cockpit doors and prohibit certain things allowed on planes. Over throwing Iraq and Afghanistan and the domino effect to other countries in the region was not.

The actions of governments go unchecked all the time. Our government thinks in this global lockdown it was perfect timing to outlaw firearms. Because of their actions they drove the country deeper into debt.

 

[dumbdick]

Things that made sense after 9/11 was to lock cockpit doors and prohibit certain things allowed on planes. Over throwing Iraq and Afghanistan and the domino effect to other countries in the region was not.

The actions of governments go unchecked all the time. Our government thinks in this global lockdown it was perfect timing to outlaw firearms. Because of their actions they drove the country deeper into debt.

Why does banning assault weapons drive the country in debt? Seems like no-brainer policy to me. I believe that legislation also began before Covid became a thing.