Civil rights and COVID-19

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

I have a no-mask relative. He got covid over a month ago, gave it to his wife who had to be hospitalized and both are still gasping for air and wishing he took better care. I wear two when I need to. Not a problem. Especially when I consider the possible alternative. 47 covid deaths here today. So no thanks I'll stick with science on this one.

ps I see your great Swedish 'herd immunity' promotion didn't do so well and had to be significantly 'tweeked' as the death rate rose to 'highest in Europe'. 14,000+ deaths as of April 28.  Surprise, surprise.

Aristotleded24

NDPP wrote:
I have a no-mask relative. He got covid over a month ago, gave it to his wife who had to be hospitalized and both are still gasping for air and wishing he took better care.

I'm sorry that happened. I hope this relative and his wife can make a full recovery, and that we are able to learn more in order to help people in their position.

Aristotleded24

The hammer comes down:

Quote:

The organizers of a rodeo held earlier this month near Bowden, Alta., to protest provincial COVID-19 restrictions have been summoned to make a court appearance for putting on the event. 

Ty Northcott posted on his Facebook page Tuesday that officials served him papers on Monday for his role in May 1-2 event, which he dubbed "No more lockdowns rodeo rally."

RCMP confirmed to CBC News that Mounties on behalf of Alberta Health Services served papers to Ty and Gail Northcott requiring them to appear in Red Deer provincial court on May 17.

They were charged with a violation under Section 73(1) of the Public Health Act.

In a statement to CBC News, AHS said its officials worked with the Bowden Agriculture Society, Red Deer County and the Olds RCMP to confirm the rodeo event was in violation of orders issued by Alberta's chief medical officer of health.

So far, no cases of COVID-19 have arisen from the event. AHS noted that symptoms may take up to 14 days to appear after exposure.

So you have a certain segment of the population that is determined to not follow health regulations, and they have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. This presents a huge problem with enforcement. The government will eventually have to choose between one of 2 options. It can withdraw the regulations, go back to the drawing board, and redo its covid strategy with more meaningful public consultation. The second option it has is to crack down on these people. So if the government decides that dialogue is not its preferred option, how far should this crackdown go? Is a full on military assault on these lawbreakers, even at the expense of some lives, an acceptable price to pay if that is the only way the government can contain these protests?

Aristotleded24

Are the wheels about to come off the bus?

Quote:

Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard is a witness for the Manitoba government in this hearing. Questioned under oath by Justice Centre lawyers on Monday May 10, Dr. Bullard acknowledged that the PCR test has significant limitations. The head of Cadham Provincial Laboratory in Winnipeg, Dr. Bullard admitted that PCR test results do not verify infectiousness, and were never intended to be used to diagnose respiratory illnesses.

Dr. Bullard testified that PCR tests can be positive for up to 100 days after an exposure to the virus, and that PCR tests do nothing more than confirm the presence of fragments of viral RNA of the target SARS CO-V2 virus in someone’s nose. He testified that, while a person with Covid-19 is infectious for a one-to-two week period, non-viable (harmless) viral SARS CO-V2 fragments remain in the nose, and can be detected by a PCR test for up to 100 days after exposure.

Dr. Bullard testified that the most accurate way to determine whether someone is actually infectious with Covid is to attempt to grow a cell culture in the lab from a patient sample. If a cell culture will not grow the virus in the lab, a patient is likely not infectious. A study from Dr. Bullard and his colleagues found that only 44% of positive PCR test results would actually grow in the lab.

Dr. Bullard’s findings call into question the practice used in Manitoba (and elsewhere in Canada) of the results of classifying positive PCR tests as “cases,” which implies infectivity. Equating positive PCR tests to infectious cases, as so many provinces have done over the course of the past 13 months, is incorrect and inaccurate, according to this Manitoba Government witness.

Courts in Portugal, Belgium, Austria, and Finland have all tossed lockdown and mask mandates based on the weak evidence that has been used for them. There are active court cases in Canada arguing over this evidence right now. Hopefully our judges are as enlightened as their European counterparts.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

NDPP wrote:
I have a no-mask relative. He got covid over a month ago, gave it to his wife who had to be hospitalized and both are still gasping for air and wishing he took better care.

I'm sorry that happened. I hope this relative and his wife can make a full recovery, and that we are able to learn more in order to help people in their position.

It's hard to learn when you don't listen to what others are saying to you.

Aristotleded24

Why this recent Canadian military purchase?

Quote:

Parliamentary Press Gallery journalist Glen McGregor has tweeted a portion of a “Notice of Proposed Procurement” that suggests that the Department of National Defence intends to purchase 36,000 canisters of a “Riot Control Agent” also described in the document as “Tear Gas”.

The document also notes: “To be delivered to Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot, Dundurn, Saskatchewan by 31 March 2021”.

While the portion of the document visible in the tweet does not include a price, it could be calculated that at about US$26 a canister, the total cost could be more than $1 million.

It’s a matter of speculation of why the military would be ordering tear gas.

That’s especially the case given the Toronto Star recently reported: “It is now banned in wartime, but use against civilians, at least in the U.S., has become commonplace.”

That article further explains that the use of tear gas has been restricted in warfare by the Chemical Weapons Convention since 1997.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

A Canadian version of Jade Helm perhaps?

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:
A Canadian version of Jade Helm perhaps?

This directly from the Government of Canada website:

Quote:
OTICE OF PROPOSED PROCUREMENT

The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the items detailed below:

Item 1:

Riot Control Agent

GSIN: N1365A – Chemical Agent, Tear Gas

NSN: 1365-00-690-8656

NCAGE: 81349

Quantity: 36,000 Capsules

Unit of Issue: Each

To be delivered to Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot, Dundurn, Saskatchewan by 31 March 2021.

The Riot Control Agent is required for training purposes only. It is required to train Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the use of the respirator against basic chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence (CBRND).
DND has been using this agent for over 30 years. This is a regular replenishment, and should provide stock for approximately 5 to 7 years.

What the hell kind of "training purposes" does the government envision using this for?

kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

What the hell kind of "training purposes" does the government envision using this for?

This is a decades old program but somehow it is now part of a COVID conspiracy. The document is self explanatory they train our paramilitaries in how to use their equipment so that when they are in the field teargassing citizens they don't inadvertently hurt themselves.

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Someone please bring this campaign to Canada:

Quote:

No Vaccine Passports

No Mask Mandates

No Emergency Law

Open Schools Up 100%

Freedom of commerce, worship, petition

Resulting in much higher than necessary amount of sickness and death. No thanks, doofus.

A fine example of the calm, rational, respectful, evidence-based approach to discussing issues that the left is known for right here.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So you have a certain segment of the population that is determined to not follow health regulations, and they have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. This presents a huge problem with enforcement. The government will eventually have to choose between one of 2 options. It can withdraw the regulations, go back to the drawing board, and redo its covid strategy with more meaningful public consultation. The second option it has is to crack down on these people. So if the government decides that dialogue is not its preferred option, how far should this crackdown go? Is a full on military assault on these lawbreakers, even at the expense of some lives, an acceptable price to pay if that is the only way the government can contain these protests?

I think big fat fines will suffice. No need to bring in the military when you can seize property. 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Someone please bring this campaign to Canada:

Quote:

No Vaccine Passports

No Mask Mandates

No Emergency Law

Open Schools Up 100%

Freedom of commerce, worship, petition

Resulting in much higher than necessary amount of sickness and death. No thanks, doofus.

A fine example of the calm, rational, respectful, evidence-based approach to discussing issues that the left is known for right here.

You can't be debated because you set up unrealistic expectations, like Covid being wiped out permanently, and expect us to defend them.  Covid restrictions are not a guarantee anymore than seatbelts are a guarantee. New varients may or may not be more or less deadly. All we know is that as long as it keeps circulating there will be varients. 

It comes down to you don't think the restrictions are validated by the danger of Covid. The grand majority of people here disagree with you. It's a value call not something that can be "proven" either way because for every example you bring up of places opening up without any problems there are more that experience the opposite.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So you have a certain segment of the population that is determined to not follow health regulations, and they have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. This presents a huge problem with enforcement. The government will eventually have to choose between one of 2 options. It can withdraw the regulations, go back to the drawing board, and redo its covid strategy with more meaningful public consultation. The second option it has is to crack down on these people. So if the government decides that dialogue is not its preferred option, how far should this crackdown go? Is a full on military assault on these lawbreakers, even at the expense of some lives, an acceptable price to pay if that is the only way the government can contain these protests?

I think big fat fines will suffice. No need to bring in the military when you can seize property.

Any fines that have been challenged in court have been tossed.

Aristotleded24

Speaking of fines:

Quote:
Fined for leading the Muslim Eid Prayer, Mississauga 2021. At the completion of the prayer, the Imam was fined under the reopen Ontario act. Worshipers who attended to pray were not fined.

Aristotleded24

Restaurant patrons to health officials: get out!

Pastor to law enforcement: out Nazi!

A quick glance at the comments shows the commenters largely against the government's actions.

Aristotleded24

Twitter encourages people to listen to the experts:

Quote:
Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world (latest count of citations: 25,290) has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post. 

Keep in mind, too, that Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject..

So here we have some geeks at Twitter curating science, in areas totally outside the specialization of web nerds, in a way that skews public understanding of the scientific debate. Dr. Kulldorff’s censorship directly coincides with Anthony Fauci making a political push to retain social distancing and mask restrictions and forced separation for children until they are vaccinated. He was all over Sunday TV shows doing that.

Aristotleded24
Aristotleded24

Here is something else about the restrictions that don't make sense. Supposedly any gathering of large groups is dangerous and spreads covid. It is impossible to organize any large gathering these days without going onto the Internet. In other words, whenever there is a rally (such as the demonstrations that have been held in major Canadian cities today), there is ample notice ahead of time. Why are the authorities not being proactive, shutting down the rallies before they start, and telling everyone to go home? Surely that would be the logical thing if gathering is as dangerous as we are being told it is. It's equivalent to a police officer photographing a licence plate of someone speeding through a school zone and sending a ticket in the mail rather than stopping the driver before the driver runs over a child.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Maybe because many on the police force feel the same way you do and agree with the anti-masker, anti-COVID restrictions protesters. They sure had no problem kettling and arresting G20 protesters in 2010 or using heavy armed tactics with Indigenous blockade protesters.

Aristotleded24

Laine, why the disdain and contempt for the viewpoint that lockdowns and mask mandates don't work and should be lifted? Is it your contention that people should not have those views or that they should not be free to express them? What is your issue with people who don't agree with what the government and the medical officers of health are saying and expressing that view?

You'll also note that I said "demonstrations" and that I did not specify which demonstrations I was talking about. According to the major media outlets, many people demonstrated in support of Palestinian solidarity, yet somehow that is okay. I'm also not aware of any police violence directed against Palestinian solidarity protests, but if that happened I'd love to know about it. The fact that the lockdown advocates are not denouncing these events as superspreader events tells me that the lockdown agenda is more about trying to control which activities should be allowed and which ones should not.

Either:

Gathering in large groups is dangerous and spreads covid. If so, shut down all gatherings, whether it be a rodeo in Alberta, an anti-mask rally, an anti-lockdown protest, Palestinian solidarity protest, or supporters of Israel when they have a counter-protest.

OR

Gathering in groups is not dangerous. People should be free to go to church, mosque, synagogue, temple, visit their family and friends with no restrictions, no capacity limits on businesses, open gyms and restaruants, and people can live their lives as normal.

Viruses don't care about politics, they just like to spread. If it's really about public health, pick one of those 2 options. There is no middle ground between them.

Aristotleded24

Actually, there is something else I need to addres with this:

laine lowe wrote:
Maybe because many on the police force feel the same way you do and agree with the anti-masker, anti-COVID restrictions protesters. They sure had no problem kettling and arresting G20 protesters in 2010 or using heavy armed tactics with Indigenous blockade protesters.

The disdain for people who disagree with covid restrictions that is being fomented in the media is not going to stop there. The government and the media is essentially priming the public to hate groups the government deems a risk to security. What do you think is going to happen when conflicts between Indigenous Canadians and the government becomes even more intense now? A population primed to be this afraid of threats to security is not only going to support government strong-arm tactics against these protesters, but they will openly beg the government to go even further.

Also, Ontario and Quebec put in place some pretty large scale restrictions on individual movement during the pandemic, from stay-at-home orders in the former to curfews in the latter. Guess which groups of people the police are going to target for enforcement? If the police already target select groups for enforcement, why give them more laws and more power to enforce?

Aristotleded24

As this is a civil liberties thread, we have to mention the censorship of Canadian physicians:

Quote:

On April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”

This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.

The Toronto Sun weighs in:

Quote:

There are certainly zany theories doing the rounds that, if they were adopted by the population at large, could lead to some harmful practices. But the CPSO statement is not limited to such things.

This regulator is also clearly saying that they will punish any doctors who speak out on the increasingly documented harms of lockdowns. This is troubling.

Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.

Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?

Here is how some physicians have responded:

Quote:

As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients. 

When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:

...

2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:

...

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:

...

We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So you have a certain segment of the population that is determined to not follow health regulations, and they have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. This presents a huge problem with enforcement. The government will eventually have to choose between one of 2 options. It can withdraw the regulations, go back to the drawing board, and redo its covid strategy with more meaningful public consultation. The second option it has is to crack down on these people. So if the government decides that dialogue is not its preferred option, how far should this crackdown go? Is a full on military assault on these lawbreakers, even at the expense of some lives, an acceptable price to pay if that is the only way the government can contain these protests?

I think big fat fines will suffice. No need to bring in the military when you can seize property.

Any fines that have been challenged in court have been tossed.

And you think because of that they will bring in the military?

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So you have a certain segment of the population that is determined to not follow health regulations, and they have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. This presents a huge problem with enforcement. The government will eventually have to choose between one of 2 options. It can withdraw the regulations, go back to the drawing board, and redo its covid strategy with more meaningful public consultation. The second option it has is to crack down on these people. So if the government decides that dialogue is not its preferred option, how far should this crackdown go? Is a full on military assault on these lawbreakers, even at the expense of some lives, an acceptable price to pay if that is the only way the government can contain these protests?

I think big fat fines will suffice. No need to bring in the military when you can seize property.

Any fines that have been challenged in court have been tossed.

And you think because of that they will bring in the military?

No, I am asking how far people think the government should go to contain these illegal gatherings if people continue to break the rules. If the worst that happens to them is a fine that will be tossed in court, they are going to continue to gather, so the fines will not stop the gatherings.

The other option is to roll back the restrictions and start from scratch. Any takers for that option? Or do we just want to continually crack down on people gathering?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As this is a civil liberties thread, we have to mention the censorship of Canadian physicians:

Quote:

On April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”

This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.

The Toronto Sun weighs in:

Quote:

There are certainly zany theories doing the rounds that, if they were adopted by the population at large, could lead to some harmful practices. But the CPSO statement is not limited to such things.

This regulator is also clearly saying that they will punish any doctors who speak out on the increasingly documented harms of lockdowns. This is troubling.

Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.

Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?

Here is how some physicians have responded:

Quote:

As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients. 

When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:

...

2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:

...

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:

...

We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.

I don't see the problem.  Doctors are not free agents. I'm not a fan of the CPSO as they usually protect doctors guilty of malpractice. In this case they seem to be doing the right thing and protecting the public instead of doctors. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As this is a civil liberties thread, we have to mention the censorship of Canadian physicians:

Quote:

On April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”

This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.

The Toronto Sun weighs in:

Quote:

There are certainly zany theories doing the rounds that, if they were adopted by the population at large, could lead to some harmful practices. But the CPSO statement is not limited to such things.

This regulator is also clearly saying that they will punish any doctors who speak out on the increasingly documented harms of lockdowns. This is troubling.

Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.

Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?

Here is how some physicians have responded:

Quote:

As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients. 

When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:

...

2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:

...

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:

...

We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.

I don't see the problem.  Doctors are not free agents. I'm not a fan of the CPSO as they usually protect doctors guilty of malpractice. In this case they seem to be doing the right thing and protecting the public instead of doctors. 

I was talking about the vaccine with one of my former co-workers. His doctor told him that it usually takes many years for a vaccine to be considered safe. Presumably this doctor had a good reason to say that, and has advised other patients likewise based on their individual risk. This could be considered "spreading vaccine misinformation." Do you think this doctor should be sanctioned for this? That could certainly happen under the CPSO guidelines listed. Essentially what this means is that doctors, rather than looking out for their individual patients, instead act as salespeople for certain treatments and procedures the goverenment deems necessary regardless of the benefit to the patient. Even pre-pandemic, often when you went to visit the doctors, it felt like the questions they asked you were designed to determine which medication the doctor was going to prescribe. This makes it far worse.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I was talking about the vaccine with one of my former co-workers. His doctor told him that it usually takes many years for a vaccine to be considered safe. Presumably this doctor had a good reason to say that, and has advised other patients likewise based on their individual risk. This could be considered "spreading vaccine misinformation." Do you think this doctor should be sanctioned for this? That could certainly happen under the CPSO guidelines listed. Essentially what this means is that doctors, rather than looking out for their individual patients, instead act as salespeople for certain treatments and procedures the goverenment deems necessary regardless of the benefit to the patient. Even pre-pandemic, often when you went to visit the doctors, it felt like the questions they asked you were designed to determine which medication the doctor was going to prescribe. This makes it far worse.

Just because someone is a doctor doesn't make them responsible or free from politics. Doctors discouraging people from taking the vaccine should be sanctioned during a pandemic. It is irresponsible and I suspect the doctor was driven by politics and using his title to give himself an air of authority. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I was talking about the vaccine with one of my former co-workers. His doctor told him that it usually takes many years for a vaccine to be considered safe. Presumably this doctor had a good reason to say that, and has advised other patients likewise based on their individual risk. This could be considered "spreading vaccine misinformation." Do you think this doctor should be sanctioned for this? That could certainly happen under the CPSO guidelines listed. Essentially what this means is that doctors, rather than looking out for their individual patients, instead act as salespeople for certain treatments and procedures the goverenment deems necessary regardless of the benefit to the patient. Even pre-pandemic, often when you went to visit the doctors, it felt like the questions they asked you were designed to determine which medication the doctor was going to prescribe. This makes it far worse.

Just because someone is a doctor doesn't make them responsible or free from politics. Doctors discouraging people from taking the vaccine should be sanctioned during a pandemic. It is irresponsible and I suspect the doctor was driven by politics and using his title to give himself an air of authority.

So you are effectively advocating against doctors using independent thinking skills and that they should recommend or prescribe whatever treatments they are told to regardless of the situation of the individual patient. Thank you for clarifying that. This from someone who has repeatedly advocate we "listen to the doctors" unless the doctor in question happens to give medical advice with which you disagree.

kropotkin1951

I protested the TMX pipeline being built to Burnaby. I was given a summons to appear in court for peacefully refusing to move aside from the gate. The police marched me off and processed me for criminal contempt of court. I was given a $500 fine and any arguments that were attempted to be made based on the Charter or environmental necessity were ruled irrelevant because once a Judge says stop you are then in criminal contempt of the court and it makes no difference why you were protesting or striking. I was arrested early in the process when it was only fines. Since people were continuing the Judge has escalated the sentence to three weeks in jail for doing the same thing as I did ( as a repeat offender in the same case I would get more). That is how we deal with protest in Canada, I don't know what libertarian dreamland you think you live in where you had the right to protest until COVID hit.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I protested the TMX pipeline being built to Burnaby. I was given a summons to appear in court for peacefully refusing to move aside from the gate. The police marched me off and processed me for criminal contempt of court. I was given a $500 fine and any arguments that were attempted to be made based on the Charter or environmental necessity were ruled irrelevant because once a Judge says stop you are then in criminal contempt of the court and it makes no difference why you were protesting or striking. I was arrested early in the process when it was only fines. Since people were continuing the Judge has escalated the sentence to three weeks in jail for doing the same thing as I did ( as a repeat offender in the same case I would get more). That is how we deal with protest in Canada, I don't know what libertarian dreamland you think you live in where you had the right to protest until COVID hit.

Of course that shows that things were bad before covid. Now that open contempt against dissidents is being fomented by governments and media, do you think things aren't going to get much worse than they are now? Do you think fossil fuel and other corporate interests are not looking at the current government response to covid and thinking what they can learn from the current crisis to crack down even further on people who protest their activities?

Aristotleded24

Meanwhile in BC:

Quote:

Late last year, Dr. Michael Vance received a letter from a fellow physician accusing B.C. health officials of "terrorizing the general populace" with public health measures related to COVID-19.

Dr. Stephen Malthouse, a family doctor on Denman Island whose musings on the pandemic have gone viral in conspiracy-minded circles, urged his colleagues to "stand up and speak out" against restrictions meant to control the spread of COVID-19. 

Malthouse had attached a copy of a widely circulated open letter he'd written in October, which claims the virus is no more deadly than the flu.

Vance, a family doctor in Nelson, was appalled.

"We're getting it at our office where we're under stress and we're working and busy and dealing with COVID for the past year. It's a slap in the face to see these conspiracy theories," he told CBC News.

Vance was so upset, he filed a complaint in December with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., writing that he has a professional duty to report doctors who pose a danger to the public. He called for Malthouse to be stripped of his licence.

"All it really was was an essay full of lies," Vance said of the letter, noting that the sources Malthouse cites include YouTube videos and anti-vaccine websites.

Vance is one of four B.C. physicians who've spoken with CBC News about filing complaints against Malthouse related to his writings. All of them say they're frustrated with the lack of concrete action they've seen from the college.

Shameful disgusting bullying behaviour on the part of the physicians who are filing complaints. The proper way to handle professional disagreements is to talk to your colleague, not ask some higher authority to punish them like a helpless child running to the teacher because another child was mean.

There is a great deal of public unease with lockdown restrictions, and some people are losing trust in the medical community because of it. Do these doctors imagine that this is going to help reverse that trend?

Aristotleded24

Interesting news from Switzerland. When I translate into English, I see:

Quote:
Martin Ackermann, the head of the Swiss National Covid-19 Science Task Force and "any other parties to the crime," has been charged with intentionally and successfully frightening the population in accordance with Article 258 of the Criminal Code.
The criminal complaint was filed by five associations and seven private individuals, as they wrote in a statement on Friday. These include associations such as the "Friends of the Constitution" and the youth movement "Mass-Voll".

The plaintiffs accuse Martin Ackermann of, among other things, the following offences:

Repeated publication of implausible predictions of horror concerning the use of intensive care beds, with the aim of frightening the public and enforcing tougher measures.
    Repeated and systematic manipulation of past intensive bed data, ostensably with the aim of making the current situation appear more dramatic.
    False statements regarding hospitalizations and deaths. On the occasion of the Federal Council's press conference on 27.10.2020, Martin Ackermann says about the current situation: "Switzerland today has more hospitalisations and deaths per day than in mid-March. And the numbers continue to rise." The statement was wrong at the time. However, the figures were later revised upwards due to (in itself debatable) late entries. Constantly changing reasons for tightening up or maintaining the measures, depending on which indicator fits best into the desired narrative.

Pondering

So you are effectively advocating against doctors using independent thinking skills and that they should recommend or prescribe whatever treatments they are told to regardless of the situation of the individual patient. Thank you for clarifying that. This from someone who has repeatedly advocate we "listen to the doctors" unless the doctor in question happens to give medical advice with which you disagree.

If there is a specific medical reason for an individual patient not to take the vaccine then of course the doctor should inform the patient. That is quite different from contradicting public health recommendations. 

I don't advocate listening to any doctor just because they have a title. I don't agree with many of the WHO releases. I do understand the basic science of how Covid-19 is transmitted which is not in dispute. It passes through touch but the primary form of transmission is arosol which I think has been self-evident for a very long time. 

Not enough attention is being paid to the likelihood that we will have repeat events like this one due to climate change and other factors. The pandemic has been badly managed from the get go. It appears we learned nothing from SARS. Precautions that should have been taken were not, while hygiene theatre continues to this day. 

There are things I agree with you about particularly in the area of government failures being responsible for the length and severity of the restrictions. It isn't rocket science. Montreal is doing better because they improved contract tracing dramatically and focused on tracing the varients. They still aren't doing what is really needed.

Shutdown hot spots the moment they are identified leaving everyone else free to go about their business. Workers in dangerous workplaces like meat packing plants should have been immunized quickly. You have to get the carriers.

It takes short severe lockdowns to give time to trace. That would be much cheaper than what we have experienced and much easier to bear.  I think we may still have a problematic fall if we fail to control travel as we have so far.  I am sure we agree that the quarantine hotels were ridiculous. They aren't criminals that should be assumed to be untrustworthy. Tell people there could be a spot check at their home at anytime and the penalty is jail time if they are not there then let them go home. 

What has and hasn't been allowed in travel has been nonsensical and punitive. People went on vacations but families couldn't be united.  We are treating migrant workers horribly. The list goes on.

I want effective restrictions based on science but I also want buildings to be retrofitted with ventilation in mind rather than how well sealed they are. I want the patents on the vaccines to be lifted. I want effective treatments to be made affordable. 

I think the government has failed miserably to educate rather than propagandize. People still don't understand what is and isn't safe and it isn't any wonder because the restrictions are often nonsensical. They have done businesses no favors by jerking them around so much. 

All along meeting outdoors while keeping distance could have been a safe outlet for people especially children and teens.  Cops could have let it be known to teens that as long as they kept their distance from one another they wouldn't bother them. Instead the government banned everything social or entertaining while keeping schools and workplaces open. It would have been safer to form small community bubbles again while educating people on transmission risks.

I do think more should have been left up to individuals once informed so they could make their own value judgement. I think it is perfectly valid for someone to say I would rather take my chances and see my grandchildren as long as they are well-informed of the risk. 

The "just don't overwhelm the hospitals" approach is what made this longer and harder than it had to be. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
If there is a specific medical reason for an individual patient not to take the vaccine then of course the doctor should inform the patient. That is quite different from contradicting public health recommendations.

How do you know the public health recommendations work? What if they are wrong? How do you challenge them? If you take a look in the thread I started about covid media failures, one of the links is to an hour-long presentation by 3 doctors talking about their experience of the pandemic. They paint a much different picture than has been painted in the media. One of the doctors even explicitly says that public health isn't acknowledging their feedback, and the pressure for doctors, nurses, and health professionals to stand in line and follow the narrative is overwhelming.

Pondering wrote:
The "just don't overwhelm the hospitals" approach is what made this longer and harder than it had to be.

We're too late to avoid overwhelming hospitals. Ontario alone has a major baclkog that is going to take years and cost billions to address. Many people caught up in that will die waiting, and they would have survived had the government not shut down medical procedures.

Speaking of overwhelmed, if the system was truly at capacity, why did the field hospital in Toronto stay empty for at least one month? Presumably patients could have been accomodated there.

Aristotleded24

Remember this little gem from way back? We should have heeded the warning back then. Of course the media wouldn't have gone after a son of a former Prime Minister constantly held up as one of the greats. Can you imagine the media reaction had Harper said something like this?

Pondering

How do you know the public health recommendations work? What if they are wrong? How do you challenge them? If you take a look in the thread I started about covid media failures, one of the links is to an hour-long presentation by 3 doctors talking about their experience of the pandemic. They paint a much different picture than has been painted in the media. One of the doctors even explicitly says that public health isn't acknowledging their feedback, and the pressure for doctors, nurses, and health professionals to stand in line and follow the narrative is overwhelming.

We have known for centuries how people catch viruses from one another. We don't know how effective public health measures will be. No one has a crystal ball. The health care system isn't going to argue with individual doctors about their theories and opinions. Sure there are valid debates on the details but not the basic facts on transmission. On that there is overwhelming consensus throughout the world. 

Yes our hospitals have been overwhelmed so you are making my point for me. Without restrictions they would have collapsed not just had to delay procedures.

A field hospital is only useful if there is staff to treat patients and is a sign that restrictions haven't been strict enough that they are even there. 

NDPP

The overlap between lockdown agitators and hate groups is a threat to us all

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-the-overlap-between-...

"The principal actors of the anti-lockdown movement have either been or rubbed elbows with some significant haters on the scene...The fact that an anti-public health agenda aimed at undermining the Canadian economy and the health and well-being of Canadians has been taken up by a rogues' gallery with a long track record in disinformation and promotion of hatred should give us all pause."

Pondering

Excellent article.

Indeed, since the beginning of the global outbreak, conspiratorial anti-establishment movements have only gained momentum, finding common cause in opposing mask mandates and lockdown measures and sucking up oxygen by undermining valid criticisms of government health orders....

Ekos Research has found that 8 per cent to 20 per cent of Canadians have views that could be characterized as being distorted via disinformation, with men, minorities and lower-income individuals more likely to be disinformed.

Macho macho man (not referring to you A24, I know you are not like that)

Aristotleded24

NDPP wrote:
The overlap between lockdown agitators and hate groups is a threat to us all

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-the-overlap-between-...

"The principal actors of the anti-lockdown movement have either been or rubbed elbows with some significant haters on the scene...The fact that an anti-public health agenda aimed at undermining the Canadian economy and the health and well-being of Canadians has been taken up by a rogues' gallery with a long track record in disinformation and promotion of hatred should give us all pause."

Have any of these journalists or politicians calling anti-lockdowners hatemongers done the courtesy of even reaching out to one of those groups and asking for their perspective? Usually journalism is supposed to seek out as much information as possible before passing judgement.

Pondering

Have any of these journalists or politicians calling anti-lockdowners hatemongers done the courtesy of even reaching out to one of those groups and asking for their perspective? Usually journalism is supposed to seek out as much information as possible before passing judgement.

We already have the information. The people the author pointed out are well-known for their hateful views. Concerning others, I don't need to be informed by people claiming to be Santa Claus. That is the equivalent of the views of the anti-vaxers. They have no knew talking points. No new facts. There isn't anything to discuss with you or them. It's beating a dead horse. 

The only discussion to be had is how to help  people who are being disinformed and hoodwinked by charlatans. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Have any of these journalists or politicians calling anti-lockdowners hatemongers done the courtesy of even reaching out to one of those groups and asking for their perspective? Usually journalism is supposed to seek out as much information as possible before passing judgement.

We already have the information. The people the author pointed out are well-known for their hateful views. Concerning others, I don't need to be informed by people claiming to be Santa Claus. That is the equivalent of the views of the anti-vaxers. They have no knew talking points. No new facts. There isn't anything to discuss with you or them. It's beating a dead horse. 

The only discussion to be had is how to help  people who are being disinformed and hoodwinked by charlatans. 

By that logic, the videos of Palestinian activists physically assaulting Israeli counter-protesters over the weekend show how hateful that movement is.

Highlighting the worst elements of any movement and elevating them as speaking for the group is a very common tactic that different groups will use to discredit each other. People are selective about applying that technique based on which groups they agree with.

Of course, the irony is that Fisman, as a white guy, would know a great deal about racial hatred based on his personal experiences.

JKR

We seem to be living in an era of mass group paranoias.

Pondering

You are mischaracterizing the article:

The pandemic, then, has undoubtedly been a syndemic of infection and fear, preyed upon by well-known internet influencers who sat at the core of hate networks that existed before the first outbreak. Now, we have to reckon with a syndemic of infection and hate in a system too vulnerable to both – or face very real consequences.

The article is referring specifically to leaders and influencers in the movement not everyone within it. It does not claim the movements are all the same just that there is significant cross over. 

You are not in good company.  That doesn't make them wrong, but it does make them suspect and on closer examination with good reason because all the arguments thrown up by the anti-restrictions crowd have been addressed repeatedly. 

You require a much higher bar for restrictions. The only "proof" you will accept is the health care system collapsing in Canada. Delayed procedures aren't enough for you. Military being called in to provide care isn't enough for you.  A rise in cases inevidably leads to rises in hospitalizations X days later. That has been proven time and time again in Canada. 

The simple truth is most people consider the restrictions justified even if there may be individual restrictions they disagree with and even if they break the rules themselves sometimes. 

We understand that there are harms caused by various restrictions and that some measures are even counter-productive but over all we accept that some precautions are required to stop the pandemic. 

 

Aristotleded24

Roussin announces that a stay-at-home order is coming to Manitoba while pretending that the decision hasn't already been made:

Quote:

Manitoba's new COVID-19 cases continue to stay well above 400 and if no downturn shows soon, tighter restrictions could be on the way once more, the chief provincial public health officer warned Monday.

"We'll continue to follow these numbers through the week to see if we get any indication of a peak occurring. But we don't take things off the table if we're going to protect Manitobans," Chief Provincial Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin said when asked if a stay-at-home order is on the horizon.

"We wouldn't remove any options."

Aristotleded24

This is interesting:

Quote:
A few days after Alberta Health Services said a drive in movie activity could not take place on the Tsuut'ina Nation, that nation's chief and council say it will go ahead and it will be safe for spectators.

The Grey Eagle Drive In, organized by The Event Group, was originally supposed to screen Dirty Dancing Friday night, but the province stepped in to cancel the performance, citing concerns about the public gathering.

Now the group says the show will go on, with a screening of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens on Wednesday.

Officials say they've acquired the approval of the chief and council of the Tsuut'ina Nation, who say they have the authority to determine what activities take place on their lands.

Pages