Covid projections

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
eastnoireast
Covid projections

      ~

eastnoireast

thus far, the covid clusterfuck has been unfolding much as i thought it would.

so here are my projections going forward.

1) we've so far felt about 10% of the total impacts of covid itself, societal repercussions, and the accelerated concentration of money and power.

2) the vaccines will turn out to be somewhat useful in particular situations, and result in significant side effects, both in messing up immune systems of recipients and their offspring, as well as other "who coulda known?" broader health impacts.

3) the vaccine companies will be exempted from any legal or financial repercussions.

4) no one will admit it, but covid will continue to circulate hard for a couple years, and wane, like pandemics do, when the host species develops resistance and the virus mutates to less-lethal.  and yes, when many have died.

5) the total direct covid death count will, in the end, be less than a) the death count from lockdowns and not supporting people, and b) the ongoing deaths from individual other preventable diseases.

6) fundamental positive changes to safety nets, lifestyles, environmental degradation, inequality, and respect for natural systems we are all part of will largely not happen.

7) the war machine will continue unabated.

8) ordinary people will become a little more informed and politically savvy. 

9) the right will ascend, in part because they are the only ones asking obvious questions

10) the left will learn nothing. 

 

Aristotleded24

That is a truly scary thing to contemplate. It is clear that the left learned nothing from Brexit or the 2016 election of Trump, and the debate around lockdown/no lockdown seems to break down along simliar lines. In the United States, the likelihood of people taking precautions also breaks down along party lines. It's true that threats to public health don't care how you vote in an election, but you can predict how likely someone is to follow health guidance by which party that person votes for, that is a truly dangerous place to be.

Aristotleded24

eastnoireast wrote:
9) the right will ascend, in part because they are the only ones asking obvious questions

10) the left will learn nothing.

I've been thinking about how for decades the right has caricatured the left as being in favour of a big intrusive nanny state that wants to tell people how to live their lives. Given how most of the left has responded in favour of these lockdowns, they are going pretty far out of their way to validate that caricature. Especailly the "war on Christmas" trap that the left walked right into. Many Democratic officials are telling people to not gather in homes at Christmas, while also ironically attending big parties themselves. How can they be so tone deaf as to not understand the level of resentment that is going to generate? It also seems that the left is too stupid to understand that the social distancing measures they support will be turned around in order to squash causes the left supposedly cares about. Not to mention the economic fallout from the lockdowns, and also the impact of covid enforcement on the very marginalized groups that the left pretends to care about. The "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!" response by most of the left to any objections or questioning about the social distancing methods is also concerning.

Even climate activitst have weighed in on this topic. If the left continues to dig in its heels and support lockdowns, and it turns out the lockdowns were not necessasry, people might start thinking, "well they lied to us about coronavirus being a big threat, they are probably lying to us about climate change being a threat." That would not be good at all.

eastnoireast

Aristotleded24 wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:
9) the right will ascend, in part because they are the only ones asking obvious questions

10) the left will learn nothing.

I've been thinking about how for decades the right has caricatured the left as being in favour of a big intrusive nanny state that wants to tell people how to live their lives. Given how most of the left has responded in favour of these lockdowns, they are going pretty far out of their way to validate that caricature. Especailly the "war on Christmas" trap that the left walked right into. Many Democratic officials are telling people to not gather in homes at Christmas, while also ironically attending big parties themselves. How can they be so tone deaf as to not understand the level of resentment that is going to generate? It also seems that the left is too stupid to understand that the social distancing measures they support will be turned around in order to squash causes the left supposedly cares about. Not to mention the economic fallout from the lockdowns, and also the impact of covid enforcement on the very marginalized groups that the left pretends to care about. The "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!" response by most of the left to any objections or questioning about the social distancing methods is also concerning.

Even climate activitst have weighed in on this topic. If the left continues to dig in its heels and support lockdowns, and it turns out the lockdowns were not necessasry, people might start thinking, "well they lied to us about coronavirus being a big threat, they are probably lying to us about climate change being a threat." That would not be good at all.

the climate activist link is not supporting your argument, from what i can tell, they are calling out the right wing think tank. 

regardless, the gaps of logic, and somewhat arbitrary application of covid restrictions are apparent to ordinary people, even those who are like "just wear the fuckin mask",  like the guy pumping dead dino juice into my fuel jugs this week. 

workers, 2 wks on/2 wks off, rotating to alberta and then back to atlantic canada, they only have to isolate for 5-6 days, but whole sectors of local small buisnesses hammered shut.   hey, one month on/one month off would cut that risk in half, no?

i am less in favour of lockdowns than i am of travel restrictions, which can be much more targeted, and often just slow movement down; and had i been a benevolent dictator there would have been more of those, and sooner, the goal being to slow the spread, not stop it - that horse left the barn before we even knew it was a horse (that's an apocalypse reference), given that it was apparently spreading in u.s. and italy in december or possibly earlier.

travel restrictions can be "bans" (which are less ban-y that they appear), or just enforced and supported quarentines on entry.  they impose far less overall pain on a society, and arguably would be more effective if done right.

although i think it's ultimately a losing battle, i don't have a problem with governments and society slowing covid down; not an easy thing and not without pain.   when i go to the big city i largely isolate when i get back to the sticks, and have been doing that for months, tho it is not required.   etc.  

but, the elites benefit from covid, so they have no inclination to manage it well.   the whole cognitive dissonance around our bungled and largely useless response to this - and wait till february - will become more apparent to the masses, if not the left.  at which point the masses say fuck the nanny state, and drift rightward, and things get worse.

 

 

Aristotleded24

eastnoireast wrote:
but, the elites benefit from covid, so they have no inclination to manage it well.   the whole cognitive dissonance around our bungled and largely useless response to this - and wait till february - will become more apparent to the masses, if not the left.  at which point the masses say fuck the nanny state, and drift rightward, and things get worse.

Absolutely. The bill for covid in this country is coming due at some point. It will come in the form of CERB repayments, failed businesses, rents and mortgages that have to be paid, and businesses going under. I am shocked at how the left has handled it. Notiwthstanding the pain this will cause to average people, if the left ends up in the political wilderness over this it will be well deserved.

That said, there is one ray of hope that I do see, and that is when Biden becomes President. Not because I expect him to fix everything, but because of timing. Despite surges in recent days, I do believe overall this pandemic wave is beginning to flatten and burn out worldwide. It certainly is burning out in many parts of Europe. I expect the new case numbers will clearly be trending downwards across the board by that time. Remember, according to some, Donald Trump is the cause of all the world's problems, and he will be gone by then. What better way to show that than for an incoming Biden Administration to capitalize on this trend and play up how wonderful everything is now that the Democrats are in charge? I'm also convinced that this timing is why the vaccines are being pushed to be released now, in order to credit the vaccines with achieving something that was natrually happening on its own.

Aristotleded24

The covid panic has played out exactly as The Simpsons predicted, right up to the panicked crowds rushing out for vaccines in greater numbers than the number of vaccines that are available.

Aristotleded24

eastnoireast wrote:
9) the right will ascend, in part because they are the only ones asking obvious questions

10) the left will learn nothing.

In the United Kingdom, it is actually the left that is clamouring for more restrictions. These are the same people who refused to accept the fact that they lost the Brexit refrendum, did everything they could to thwart Brexit, boasted about bringing down Boris Johnson and forcing an election over Brexit, and being utterly shocked that he won on the slogan "get Brexit done." It seems that rather than actually speaking for marginalized people that the left wants to act as a self-appointed moral authority to decide what is right and wrong for the entire population.

kropotkin1951

So when did "the left" become an acceptable strawman for discussions on babble. Brexit support crossed the right left divide so who the fuck are "the left" that you want to vilify in this and almost every other post you make on this board, intended to discuss issues from a progressive or "left" perspective.

Aristotleded24

About the same time that many on the left, including this online community, swallowed the propaganda about covid being the new plague without questioning the narrative or applying any critical thinking.

And yes, there are people on the left whose views on the pandemic are simliar to mine. One of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Sunetra Gupta, claims to be on the left-wing of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, and her veiws on covid mitigation are greatly influenced by the impact of mitigation measures on the global poor. These lefties are not as vocal, and other than perhaps Bill Maher (if he counts) I'm having a hard time thinking of any prominent leftists who are questioning what we are hearing.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 I've been thinking about how for decades the right has caricatured the left as being in favour of a big intrusive nanny state that wants to tell people how to live their lives. Given how most of the left has responded in favour of these lockdowns, they are going pretty far out of their way to validate that caricature. Especailly the "war on Christmas" trap that the left walked right into. Many Democratic officials are telling people to not gather in homes at Christmas, while also ironically attending big parties themselves. How can they be so tone deaf as to not understand the level of resentment that is going to generate?  

Democrats are not on the left. Liberals and Conservatives are not on the left. The NDP is barely on the left. This is the first I have heard of tying Covid restrictions into the war on Christmas, which is a non-issue anyway. Social conservatism has lost the war. Not only Democrats, but also stars and I think both Liberals and Conservatives have flouted the laws they themselves enacted or declare their support for. It is nothing new for the wealthy and connected to exempt themselves from the rules set for the rest of us. That doesn't make the laws or rules wrong. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 It also seems that the left is too stupid to understand that the social distancing measures they support will be turned around in order to squash causes the left supposedly cares about.  

"Supposedly" cares about? "Stupid".  "The left" is aware of the negative fall-out on the most vulnerable and of the threat of encouraging government over-reach etc. It doesn't change the facts of Covid-19. Covid 19 does not respond to political arguments. Our health care system has a limited capacity to care for people. That is a fact. Covid-19 is highly contagious and leads to a known percentage of hospitalizations and deaths following infection. It is very easy to track a rise in infections followed weeks later by a rise in hospitalizations followed by deaths. If infections are on an upward trajectory it is not fortune-telling to caculate approximately when the system will break. Transmission is human to human. The only means of stopping continued growing spread is to impose restrictions. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Not to mention the economic fallout from the lockdowns, and also the impact of covid enforcement on the very marginalized groups that the left pretends to care about. The "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!" response by most of the left to any objections or questioning about the social distancing methods is also concerning.  

You are the one who is not listening. Your points are responded to over and over and over again. Then one more time. We are listening. Your arguments are all over the place from attacking restrictions as ineffective to insisting we aren't considering the collateral damage. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Even climate activitst have weighed in on this topic. If the left continues to dig in its heels and support lockdowns, and it turns out the lockdowns were not necessasry, people might start thinking, "well they lied to us about coronavirus being a big threat, they are probably lying to us about climate change being a threat." That would not be good at all. 

That will never happen because contrary to your claims restrictions have been proven to work time and time again throughout the world. We can watch what is happening in our own communities and listen to our own health care providers, nurses, people on the front line. The need for restrictions is based on the facts of Covid-19 which we have witnessed throughout the world and is supported by local health care workers in our own communities. 

It is no surprise that more people on the right have a problem with it. I don't care at all what free market worshipers and social conservatives think. Why should "the left" try to placate the right? The right couldn't care less about unity. 

I don't consider Liberals on the left. They are centrist at best. Conservatives are a minority. Even they know they can't win a majority and probably not even a minority. While various groups may quibble about which restrictions should apply to what most Canadians support restrictions in general and many want more. 

There is no way to appease "the right" so I don't see any point in trying to. The "nanny state" is typlified by people who want to assert government control of gender identity, sexual preferences, and women's reproductive health.   

People's views on both Covid-19 and climate change are based on what they know and believe about each issue not on their political persuasion. It just so happens that the right are more sceptical because many have a limited education so are susceptible to lying right wing politicians. Others fall for the economic lies, also from the right-wing. 

The right is very slowly, too slowly, shrinking because their base is rooted in religion and individualism whereas the left is rooted in science and community well-being. 

Covid-19 isn't pushing people to the right. It is pushing people to the left. 

From November 27th.

According to new polling from Ipsos, over seven out of 10 Canadians indicated support for a four-week shutdown of non-essential businesses in order to combat Canada’s growing numbers of new COVID-19 cases, while another 87 per cent say they intend to continue taking health precautions seriously until the spring.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7487257/coronavirus-ipsos-polling-fatigue/

While scientists, medical professionals, and politicians are often wrong on the details of Covid-19 or on the best response the basic facts are accepted by the grand majority.

Basic facts are, Covid-19 is a highly contagious virus (more than the flu, less than measles). Many people who get it require hospitalization. Our hospitals cannot cope with the influx without restrictions that slow the virus down.

How to cope with those facts is up for debate. The facts themselves are not. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
 It also seems that the left is too stupid to understand that the social distancing measures they support will be turned around in order to squash causes the left supposedly cares about.  

"Supposedly" cares about? "Stupid".

You didn't actually read the link that I posted. It's a story about how Amazon is using social distancing rules to thwart union organizing in its plants, plants which have been huge drivers of covid spread. I thought for sure that a nominally pro-labour discussion board would have weighed in on that, but the fact that nobody else added a comment disturbs me greatly.

Pondering wrote:
"The left" is aware of the negative fall-out on the most vulnerable and of the threat of encouraging government over-reach etc.

I've seen zero evidence of that, and just the opposite. It's broadly the left that is encouraging government over-reach.

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Not to mention the economic fallout from the lockdowns, and also the impact of covid enforcement on the very marginalized groups that the left pretends to care about. The "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!" response by most of the left to any objections or questioning about the social distancing methods is also concerning.  

You are the one who is not listening. Your points are responded to over and over and over again. Then one more time. We are listening. Your arguments are all over the place from attacking restrictions as ineffective to insisting we aren't considering the collateral damage.

Almost everyone on these boards who support these restrictions has income that will not be disrupted by the pandemic. Furthermore, no matter how much I point out the level of misery the social distancing measures cause, up to and including possibly costing people their lives, that is either dismissed or ignored. None of that causes people to stop and think, "maybe this approach is a bit unbalanced and we should think of something different." Quite shocking from a left that normally preaches the virutes of compassion, empathy, and listening to diverse viewpoints. Instead, we get brow-beating about how if we don't listen, grandma is going to die.

Even the fact that the government is limiting by law the number of people one can visit in private residences. In a truly free society, that would be off the table in any circumstance, but it's shocking to find support for that idea on these forums. But hey, if a restaurant goes under, and its owner commits suicide because of that, that's an acceptable price to pay to save lives, isn't it?

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Even climate activitst have weighed in on this topic. If the left continues to dig in its heels and support lockdowns, and it turns out the lockdowns were not necessasry, people might start thinking, "well they lied to us about coronavirus being a big threat, they are probably lying to us about climate change being a threat." That would not be good at all. 

That will never happen because contrary to your claims restrictions have been proven to work time and time again throughout the world.

No they have not. If you go to the Worldometers page and sort by deaths per capita, most of the countries near the top in that category had strict lockdowns. Australia was hailed as a success in handling its pandemic in the early days, but it had to lock down a second time, and the transmission of the virus continued to rage in the face of escalating restrictions. Germany, Japan, and South Korea, all countries that were initially considered as successes, are either currently experiencing or coming out of waves that are far larger than the initial waves. Even New Zealand had a resurgence. The northeastern United States did stronger social distancing measures than most of the rest of the United States, and still leads the nation in deaths per capita from covid. Meanwhile, with the lockdowns, you are basically forcing people to put their lives on hold for God knows how long waiting, and I think life is to short to waste like that.

Pondering wrote:
People's views on both Covid-19 and climate change are based on what they know and believe about each issue not on their political persuasion. It just so happens that the right are more sceptical because many have a limited education so are susceptible to lying right wing politicians. Others fall for the economic lies, also from the right-wing.

The whole "anybody who isn't a left-winger is stupid" trope that the left pulls out. The fact is, for decades the high-school educated working class has drifted away from the left. Which is stunning because, if the left is to be concerned about the welfare of ordinary people, it doesn't get more ordinary than that. I think this is a big reason why the right is more successful in politics. With people on the left having more education, the attitude seems to be, "we know what we are talking about and these people should listen." With the right having backgrounds in businesses, the attitude seems to be, "we need to meet these people where they are and sell them on what we want to do." Which of these approcahes seem to be more successful? Just in Winnipeg I saw the left lose 2 mayoral races that should have been slam dunk victories alone.

Pondering wrote:
From November 27th.

According to new polling from Ipsos, over seven out of 10 Canadians indicated support for a four-week shutdown of non-essential businesses in order to combat Canada’s growing numbers of new COVID-19 cases, while another 87 per cent say they intend to continue taking health precautions seriously until the spring.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7487257/coronavirus-ipsos-polling-fatigue/

While scientists, medical professionals, and politicians are often wrong on the details of Covid-19 or on the best response the basic facts are accepted by the grand majority.

When  you propagandize a population repeatedly with particular talking points without allowing any alternative points of view, of course people are going to buy into what the propaganda is. That's manufacturing consent 101. If you are going to appeal to public opinion, then you should have supported police action to forcibly end the rail blockades we had last winter, because that was the overwhelming public sentiment at the time.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Aristotlded, your comments about participants on this board not being impacted by COVID is uncalled for. The subtext to me reads that we are somehow all champagne sipping socialists who have no idea of what it is to deal with the impacts of this pandemic.

You make it sound like we (people participatng on this forum) have no critical thinking skills. You constantly bring up canards of all the other horrible things that are happening in society that you seem to think concern for has been displaced by COVID panic. That is far from the truth.

If anything, the COVID crisis has shed a light on many of the socio-economic problems of our society. It has finally opened up dialogue for such issues as raising the minimum wage and investigating guaranteed income support programs. It has also opened a spotlight on how we need to reform the function of elderly and long term home operations and foreign migrant worker operations. These have been issues that the left have been struggling to bring to attention and now we have it. So given all that, what is your problem?

JKR

Opinion: People are capable of profound stupidity, and some people have not just been profoundly stupid in 2020, but wilfully and proudly so.; Vancouver Sun; Pete McMartin​; Dec 31, 2020

Quote:

What lessons should we take from 2020?

I’d suggest these:

1. People are capable of profound stupidity, and some people have not just been profoundly stupid in 2020, but wilfully and proudly so. They’ve revelled in it. They’ve taken an adolescent contrarian glee in it. They believe prejudices fuelled by internet myths are just as valid as those views based on empirical observation. They consider paranoia and conspiracy theories as alternative forms of astute counter-intuitiveness.

Further, by confusing self-entitlement with “rights,” these people took selfishness to new, reckless, criminal heights. Their characterizations of mandated mask-wearing and social-distancing as attempts by ‘Big Government’ to trod on their personal freedoms were laughable. Not so laughably, they endangered lives.

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
Aristotlded, your comments about participants on this board not being impacted by COVID is uncalled for.

And for months, people have said to me direclty or indirectly that since I don't agree with the dominant consensus on how to handle covid that somehow I don't care about people with covid. I've also seen it suggested that anyone who wants to engage in normal human activities that we enjoyed pre-pandemic is selfish. I think that's uncalled for. If we're going to start talking about behaviour that's uncalled for, there has been plenty of it to go around.

laine lowe wrote:
You make it sound like we (people participatng on this forum) have no critical thinking skills. You constantly bring up canards of all the other horrible things that are happening in society that you seem to think concern for has been displaced by COVID panic. That is far from the truth.

That concern means very little to me when the person expressing the concern simply waves it away as a necessary evil to deal with the pandemic.

laine lowe wrote:
If anything, the COVID crisis has shed a light on many of the socio-economic problems of our society. It has finally opened up dialogue for such issues as raising the minimum wage and investigating guaranteed income support programs. It has also opened a spotlight on how we need to reform the function of elderly and long term home operations and foreign migrant worker operations. These have been issues that the left have been struggling to bring to attention and now we have it. So given all that, what is your problem?

There may be a dialogue, but I do not see any trends to suggest that these issues will be dealt with. I am in broad agreement with the predictions that eastnoireast made to open this thread. On the issue of minimum wage, income support programs, elder care homes, and the conditions of migrant workers, I am absolutely 100% in agreement. In fact I have even posted in support of those very issues in threads where they came up throughout the pandemic. If it had been a simple matter of, "the pandemic has highlighted the need to address these issues," I would have no problem. But we have even gone steps farther to suggest that large scale restrictions on people's restrictions that I never thought I would see anyone support. It boggles my mind why anyone who lived through the Harper years would want Premiers who sat in his Cabinet to exert power to keep people from opening their businesses, having contact with people they choose, or even snitching on people if they have too many people at parties. I thought the left understood why that was a dangerous practice on the issue of welfare fraud.

Or even take the issue that there should be no joy during a pandemic, and the only thing that matters is stopping covid. I'm still upset about that church serving a First Natiosn population in Prince Albert that was fined because of the covid outbreak. Maybe the church didn't follow all the rules, and people got sick. Are we really going to begrudge people for experiencing what might have been their only source of joy this year? There are issues with overcrowding, poverty, and health issues like diabetes that need to be addressed. Say we call for a fine for this church. Does that make people feel better? Will that do a single thing to address any of the other issues that First Nations face? Or will they be forgotten once this subsides.

I also have a huge problem with the stigma surrounding covid. We have elevated it to such a level of threat that it is no longer a disease to be managed, but an evil that must be purged. If someone gets sick, it's no longer unforutnate, but it's now someone's fault for acting irresponsibly and either catching it or giving it to someone else. Do you think that is an effective public health strategy? What if the next church decides to have a singing event and an outbreak happens there? I'm worried that people at that event who get sick might think, "I'm not going to get tested because I don't want to get myself, my family, my pastor, etc in trouble." Would that not contribute to spread of covid that is even harder to detect? None of this makes any sense to me.

My main problem is that I would categorize public heatlh interventions into 2 broad categories: those that tilt the balance of power away from the powerful to the people (stronger union rights, sick pay, fairness in immigration are a few things that I can think of off the top of my head) and those that restrict people's freedoms (curfews, lockdowns, mask mandates, venues limiting their capacities, limits on private gatherings, and I can think of many more). None of the interventions that would shift power towards the hands of the people are on the table, only those that restrict freedom.

The last problem I have is that I am quite a bit younger than most of the people posting on this board. Nobody disputes the fact that the pandemic response will have long-term negative reprecussions on society. Being younger than most of this community, that means, in an average lifespan, that I will live to see negative reprecussions of the covid response that the vast majority of people on this board and the vast majority of people accepting them will not. That feels like a huge betrayal by a political movement that purports to care about young people's futures.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:
The last problem I have is that I am quite a bit younger than most of the people posting on this board. Nobody disputes the fact that the pandemic response will have long-term negative reprecussions on society. Being younger than most of this community, that means, in an average lifespan, that I will live to see negative reprecussions of the covid response that the vast majority of people on this board and the vast majority of people accepting them will not. That feels like a huge betrayal by a political movement that purports to care about young people's futures.

Should tens of thousands or even more extra deaths in Canada due to Covid-19 be the cost of insuring you are not inconvenienced by Covid? Covid-19 is requiring that we all act in solidarity with each other to overcome this crisis together. That attitude is at the core of being on "the left."

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
The last problem I have is that I am quite a bit younger than most of the people posting on this board. Nobody disputes the fact that the pandemic response will have long-term negative reprecussions on society. Being younger than most of this community, that means, in an average lifespan, that I will live to see negative reprecussions of the covid response that the vast majority of people on this board and the vast majority of people accepting them will not. That feels like a huge betrayal by a political movement that purports to care about young people's futures.

Should tens of thousands or even more extra deaths in Canada due to Covid-19 be the cost of insuring you are not inconvenienced by Covid? Covid-19 is requiring that we all act in solidarity with each other to overcome this crisis together. That attitude is at the core of being on "the left."

Saying on the one hand "we're all in this together" and then demanding that people give up certain things and then labeling them as being selfish when they object has the opposite effect of building solidarity. It builds resentment and generates ill will, even if it simmers beneath the surface. You also mention the idea of thousands more deaths if things are more open. I have to point out that elder care homes have been hit with death from covid regardless of how open or closed an economy was. Ontario and Quebec had to call in the army to help with their care homes one month after we had all been staying home, by which point social distancing measures should have stopped transmission. Manitoba is coming out of a particularly deadly wave of covid in care homes and hospitals even though the province has been locked down for 2 months. So just on that basis, I would suggest that the lockdowns do not work. I am also not convinced that lifting restrictions has to lead to an increase in deaths, if we protect care homes, jails, and migrant workers where the virus is likely to be spread and be lethal. You also have to count deaths on the other side from things like missed medical appointments, drug overdoses, suicide, domestic abuse, people possibly freezing to death in the streets because homeless shelters are at reduced capacity, even increasing crime. Many of these deaths will happen at a much younger age than the average age of death from the coronavirus. The measures are also doing a poor job of protecting our elders. Dementia progresses much more rapidly in elderly people when they are deprived of physical contact. Isolation and loneliness also kills elders. Did you know that with elderly couples, when one partner dies the other one is often very close behind? There is a reason for that. You're taking people at the final stage of their lives, and preventing them from enjoying what they find most meaningful. It's naieve to think that doesn't have a detrimental impact on their health, but these deaths won't show up on the official statistics as covid cases. The other thing is that since many covid deaths happen in people of such an advanced age with many co-morbidities, it's a fair question to ask if these people had much time left in the absence of the virus. I know that's a tragic and a terrible thought, but that idea has to be on the table.

So is the coronavirus a concern? Yes. It is not the only concern. Any public health policy has to be balanced and take into account the bigger picture. Our obsession with stopping the coronavirus at any cost violates that principle.

JKR

Health officials would say that their policies are balanced and take the bigger picture into account. It seems to me that you simply feel that government policies regarding Covid should primarily allow you to be able to live your life as you were before Covid-19? That seems very convenient for you.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Health officials would say that their policies are balanced and take the bigger picture into account.

That's very easy for them to say when they will be paid regardless of what happens, when they live lives divorced from the reality of everyday working-class Canadians, and who aren't worried about losing their jobs or seeing their businesses go under.

Aristotleded24

Aristotleded24 wrote:

laine lowe wrote:
Aristotlded, your comments about participants on this board not being impacted by COVID is uncalled for.

And for months, people have said to me direclty or indirectly that since I don't agree with the dominant consensus on how to handle covid that somehow I don't care about people with covid. I've also seen it suggested that anyone who wants to engage in normal human activities that we enjoyed pre-pandemic is selfish. I think that's uncalled for. If we're going to start talking about behaviour that's uncalled for, there has been plenty of it to go around.

laine lowe wrote:
You make it sound like we (people participatng on this forum) have no critical thinking skills. You constantly bring up canards of all the other horrible things that are happening in society that you seem to think concern for has been displaced by COVID panic. That is far from the truth.

That concern means very little to me when the person expressing the concern simply waves it away as a necessary evil to deal with the pandemic.

laine lowe wrote:
If anything, the COVID crisis has shed a light on many of the socio-economic problems of our society. It has finally opened up dialogue for such issues as raising the minimum wage and investigating guaranteed income support programs. It has also opened a spotlight on how we need to reform the function of elderly and long term home operations and foreign migrant worker operations. These have been issues that the left have been struggling to bring to attention and now we have it. So given all that, what is your problem?

There may be a dialogue, but I do not see any trends to suggest that these issues will be dealt with. I am in broad agreement with the predictions that eastnoireast made to open this thread. On the issue of minimum wage, income support programs, elder care homes, and the conditions of migrant workers, I am absolutely 100% in agreement. In fact I have even posted in support of those very issues in threads where they came up throughout the pandemic. If it had been a simple matter of, "the pandemic has highlighted the need to address these issues," I would have no problem. But we have even gone steps farther to suggest that large scale restrictions on people's restrictions that I never thought I would see anyone support. It boggles my mind why anyone who lived through the Harper years would want Premiers who sat in his Cabinet to exert power to keep people from opening their businesses, having contact with people they choose, or even snitching on people if they have too many people at parties. I thought the left understood why that was a dangerous practice on the issue of welfare fraud.

Or even take the issue that there should be no joy during a pandemic, and the only thing that matters is stopping covid. I'm still upset about that church serving a First Natiosn population in Prince Albert that was fined because of the covid outbreak. Maybe the church didn't follow all the rules, and people got sick. Are we really going to begrudge people for experiencing what might have been their only source of joy this year? There are issues with overcrowding, poverty, and health issues like diabetes that need to be addressed. Say we call for a fine for this church. Does that make people feel better? Will that do a single thing to address any of the other issues that First Nations face? Or will they be forgotten once this subsides.

I also have a huge problem with the stigma surrounding covid. We have elevated it to such a level of threat that it is no longer a disease to be managed, but an evil that must be purged. If someone gets sick, it's no longer unforutnate, but it's now someone's fault for acting irresponsibly and either catching it or giving it to someone else. Do you think that is an effective public health strategy? What if the next church decides to have a singing event and an outbreak happens there? I'm worried that people at that event who get sick might think, "I'm not going to get tested because I don't want to get myself, my family, my pastor, etc in trouble." Would that not contribute to spread of covid that is even harder to detect? None of this makes any sense to me.

My main problem is that I would categorize public heatlh interventions into 2 broad categories: those that tilt the balance of power away from the powerful to the people (stronger union rights, sick pay, fairness in immigration are a few things that I can think of off the top of my head) and those that restrict people's freedoms (curfews, lockdowns, mask mandates, venues limiting their capacities, limits on private gatherings, and I can think of many more). None of the interventions that would shift power towards the hands of the people are on the table, only those that restrict freedom.

The last problem I have is that I am quite a bit younger than most of the people posting on this board. Nobody disputes the fact that the pandemic response will have long-term negative reprecussions on society. Being younger than most of this community, that means, in an average lifespan, that I will live to see negative reprecussions of the covid response that the vast majority of people on this board and the vast majority of people accepting them will not. That feels like a huge betrayal by a political movement that purports to care about young people's futures.

Sorry, I've got one more thing to add to this. One of the things that is clear about "essential workers" is that beause they have to move around in order to work, they have no benefit of being protected from covid by the lockdowns. Do you know which politician in Canada recognized and spoke to that fact? Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown. A former leader of the PCs, a party that is nominally aligned with business interests against the working class, recognized that fact. On the other end, in this part of the country the response of NDP leaders has been underwhelming. Wab Kinew in Manitoba lamented the need for restrictions but said they had to be accepted as a sacrifice to keep everybody safe. Rachel Notley in Alberta and Ryan Meili in Saskatchewan both called for tighter lockdowns in their provinces. Meili is particularly disappointing because as a doctor, he would no doubt be aware of the bigger picture. Intsead of using that as a platform to lead and argue for more balanced measures, he capitulated to the dominant mentality. You have NDP leaders calling for lockdowns that don't even protect the working class base from the disease. So the leader of a business party is more in tune with the reality of the impact of the pandemic on the working class than the party that is supposedly advocating for them? The disconnect on that one is mind-boggling.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Health officials would say that their policies are balanced and take the bigger picture into account.

That's very easy for them to say when they will be paid regardless of what happens, when they live lives divorced from the reality of everyday working-class Canadians, and who aren't worried about losing their jobs or seeing their businesses go under.

They're also the ones who will be scrutinized if the health care system is overwhelmed.

eastnoireast

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Health officials would say that their policies are balanced and take the bigger picture into account.

That's very easy for them to say when they will be paid regardless of what happens, when they live lives divorced from the reality of everyday working-class Canadians, and who aren't worried about losing their jobs or seeing their businesses go under.

They're also the ones who will be scrutinized if the health care system is overwhelmed.

they'll be scrutinized !? 

well, then, it's settled, what's a few small buisnesses going under compared to that horror? 

Aristotleded24

eastnoireast wrote:

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Health officials would say that their policies are balanced and take the bigger picture into account.

That's very easy for them to say when they will be paid regardless of what happens, when they live lives divorced from the reality of everyday working-class Canadians, and who aren't worried about losing their jobs or seeing their businesses go under.

They're also the ones who will be scrutinized if the health care system is overwhelmed.

they'll be scrutinized !? 

well, then, it's settled, what's a few small buisnesses going under compared to that horror? 

And unlike small businesses, even if the health care system is overwhelemed, public health officials will still be paid. They have quite thick skins and aren't really bothered by criticism or scrutiny, since the nature of public service is that any decision these officials make will be unpopular with someone.

Pondering

A2, if you were genuinely concerned about all the negative fallout from covid your sole solution would not be "lift all restrictions".  You would be promoting mask wearing and demanding PPEs for workers in meat packing plants. You would be demanding more traveling limitations to protect the vulnerable and the poor from being infected by rich travelers. You would not be promoting a solution that kills more people. You would not be trying to prove that Covid-19 isn't that bad, is no worse than the flu, will burn itself out, etc. Your movtivation has nothing to do with keeping people safe and everything to do with your liberatarian ideology. 

All your arguments about how this group or that group is suffering lead to making them suffer even more. You pretend that if all restrictions were lifted hospitals would not be overwhelmed and everything would be no different than a normal flu season. Fewer drug addicts would die of overdoses if only we would lift restrictions because apparently you think they (and the homeless) are immune from covid. 

Neither libertarian nor right wing ideology has any plan to deal with pandemics other than survival of the fittest. You have been attacking "the left" and saying what "the left" should be doing long before any criticism of your denialism came up. It is reminiscent of anti-abortionists thinking feminists would have to support laws against sex selective abortions. 

Likewise you think "the left" must support lifting all restrictions or it means they don't care about the vulnerable which is ridiculous because it would hurt the vulnerable even more. The vulnerable would not benefit disproportionately from lifting restrictions. They would suffer even worse than they are now. Triage would not result in drug addicts and the homeless and the mentally disabled being chosen to put on ventilators. Shortages of oxygen would not result in oxygen going to the most vulnerable. It would be given to those most likely to survive and contribute materially to society. 

Libertarianism in practice is all about individual rights, not about caring for the most vulnerable in society. That is why libertarians are more attracted to right wing idiology. Low taxes, low regulations,a free market. 

Your solution, lifting all restrictions, would do nothing to help the vulnerable you claim to be so concerned about therefore they are not your priority. You are using Covid-19 and the fall out on the vulnerable as an opportunity to attack the left. 

You are doing exactly what Trumpites are doing. Projecting your sins on others. It isn't "the left" that has no concern for the vulnerable, it is you. You are not advocating for them you are using them to try to bolster your libertarian ideology. 

That is why you consistently ignore the issue of hospital capacity and local numbers. As long as those numbers indicate the possibility of system collapse within weeks the restrictions will not be lifted. Having what happened to long term care homes happen in hospitals is out of the question. 

Your only "solution" to helping the vulnerable is killing them off by lifting restrictions. They would be the first to be rejected at hospitals. When health care is rationed they wouldn't even make it to the front door.

When infection rates go up you argue that restrictions are not working when the situation would be even worse without restrictions. When the rates go down you argue there is no need for restrictions when it is the restrictions causing rates to go down. You don't acknowledge the 3 to 6 week lag time from infection to hospital overload. 

You reject factual information and scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions based on twisting facts or alternative goals, economic or ideological. 

The latest drive for unionization at Amazon is for MORE restrictions not fewer. 

 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 And unlike small businesses, even if the health care system is overwhelemed, public health officials will still be paid. They have quite thick skins and aren't really bothered by criticism or scrutiny, since the nature of public service is that any decision these officials make will be unpopular with someone.

While that is certainly true masses dying from diabetes and cancer, and even dehydration, trailers full of corpses, and mass graves leads to revolutions in which no one is safe. 

Your theory that Covid-19 measures are a hoax for governments to grab more power is Qanon territory. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
You pretend that if all restrictions were lifted hospitals would not be overwhelmed and everything would be no different than a normal flu season.

There is no actual evidence to back this up. It's just based on mathematical models that do not take into account complexities of human behaviour, and most of which have come out with wild-eyed predictions about hospitals being overwhelmed.

Pondering wrote:
Fewer drug addicts would die of overdoses if only we would lift restrictions because apparently you think they (and the homeless) are immune from covid.

Not that I want the homeless to get covid, but given a choice between having them freeze to death or exposing to covid, I would absolutley get them off the street at any cost. There are isolation protocols that can be followed should people get sick. Even though many homeless have chroinc health issues that make them more vulnerable to covid, I still think for the most part they would recover from the illness without needing hospitalization.

Pondering wrote:
The latest drive for unionization at Amazon is for MORE restrictions not fewer.

Watch the vidoe again Pondering. The restrictions are being used by Amazon to thwart unionizing, and companies will continue to use restrictions to thwart union drives. I was utterly shocked when the UFCW called for a law earlier this year that would have restricted how often average every-day people can shop in the stores. Does the UFCW not understand the level of population surveillance and enforcement that would be required for that to be a reality? Do they not understand that those very same surveillance and enforcement methods would be used to thwart union drive in the kinds of workplaces represented by the UFCW?

Pondering wrote:
A2, if you were genuinely concerned about all the negative fallout from covid your sole solution would not be "lift all restrictions".  You would be promoting mask wearing and demanding PPEs for workers in meat packing plants. You would be demanding more traveling limitations to protect the vulnerable and the poor from being infected by rich travelers. You would not be promoting a solution that kills more people. You would not be trying to prove that Covid-19 isn't that bad, is no worse than the flu, will burn itself out, etc. Your movtivation has nothing to do with keeping people safe and everything to do with your liberatarian ideology. 

...

You are doing exactly what Trumpites are doing. Projecting your sins on others. It isn't "the left" that has no concern for the vulnerable, it is you. You are not advocating for them you are using them to try to bolster your libertarian ideology.

...

Your only "solution" to helping the vulnerable is killing them off by lifting restrictions. They would be the first to be rejected at hospitals. When health care is rationed they wouldn't even make it to the front door.

When infection rates go up you argue that restrictions are not working when the situation would be even worse without restrictions. When the rates go down you argue there is no need for restrictions when it is the restrictions causing rates to go down. You don't acknowledge the 3 to 6 week lag time from infection to hospital overload. 

You reject factual information and scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions based on twisting facts or alternative goals, economic or ideological.

See this right here? This is the kind of shit that has constantly been thrown my way throughout the pandemic, even though when I post on other topics I am still in broad agreement with the general sentiment of the board. Yet somehow, it's my comments that are "uncalled for?"

Well Pondering, I don't know if there is anything else I can say to you. I really wish you all the best, and I hope you feel safe at home behind your computer as people continue to kill themselves over things like small businesses closing and education and careers being scuttled, as violent crime increases in Winnipeg which it will, as the Third World continues to suffer misery, disease and famine that is completely off the radar of people in this part of the world, and as climate change continues to accelerate.

Aristotleded24

Speaking of health officials, Dr. Matt Strauss of Queens university argues that it was social media outrage, not health officials, who in the early days were clamouring for a lockdown.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
A2, if you were genuinely concerned about all the negative fallout from covid your sole solution would not be "lift all restrictions".  You would be promoting mask wearing and demanding PPEs for workers in meat packing plants.

The one public policy which will ensure that essential workers have the means to protect themselves, which is increased private sector unionization, is not on the table in any province except for BC. I'm also not hearing much talk about that as a solution, or seeing serious efforts being made to organize these workers into unions.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
You reject factual information and scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions based on twisting facts or alternative goals, economic or ideological.

So you are stating that experts from Standofd, Harvard, Oxford, and Queens University are fringe?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
You reject factual information and scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions based on twisting facts or alternative goals, economic or ideological.

So you are stating that experts from Standofd, Harvard, Oxford, and Queens University are fringe?

If they are claiming that local health professionals at local hospitals are lying about getting overwhelmed by covid cases then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that covid is not passed through human to human contact then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that keeping people apart from one another doesn't stop the spread then they are lying and they are fringe. 

As to the homeless in Montreal it has increased efforts to get them indoors not decreased it. There are measures to house those with Covid separately from those without. The shelter system has been radically expanded not that it is sufficient. 

Everyone here wants all restrictions lifted as soon as possible. As soon as possible means as soon as local health facilities can handle the patient load.  Not at Harvard, Oxford or Queens. The facilities where I live. I can watch the numbers in my community and see for myself if they are going up or down. I don't need to rely on anyone's opinions or theories. 

If in other places infections go up when there are restrictions and go down when there are no restrictions that is wonderful for them. It doesn't change what happens in my community. It doesn't change what my local hospital can deal with. It doesn't change the fact that shared air is the primary means of transmission. 

I'm not going to read your every link. I'm not in school. You can't assign a libertarian reading list. It's up to you to quote whatever facts are in it that you think support your argument. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
You reject factual information and scientific consensus in favor of fringe opinions based on twisting facts or alternative goals, economic or ideological.

So you are stating that experts from Standofd, Harvard, Oxford, and Queens University are fringe?

If they are claiming that local health professionals at local hospitals are lying about getting overwhelmed by covid cases then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that covid is not passed through human to human contact then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that keeping people apart from one another doesn't stop the spread then they are lying and they are fringe.

Show me where either one of them made that claim.

Pondering wrote:
As to the homeless in Montreal it has increased efforts to get them indoors not decreased it. There are measures to house those with Covid separately from those without. The shelter system has been radically expanded not that it is sufficient.

I am happy to hear that is happening in Montreal. Here in Winnipeg, nothing has been done on that. Downtown bus shelters have become de facto drop-ins and shelters.

Pondering wrote:
I'm not going to read your every link. I'm not in school. You can't assign a libertarian reading list. It's up to you to quote whatever facts are in it that you think support your argument.

Screaming "liberterian" at someone isn't an argument.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I can watch the numbers in my community and see for myself if they are going up or down. I don't need to rely on anyone's opinions or theories.

I can see those numbers. They are going up in your part of the country and that must be quite frightening. I really hope they start turning around and going in the other direction soon.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
 If they are claiming that local health professionals at local hospitals are lying about getting overwhelmed by covid cases then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that covid is not passed through human to human contact then yes they are fringe. If they are claiming that keeping people apart from one another doesn't stop the spread then they are lying and they are fringe.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Show me where either one of them made that claim.  

Notice the IF at the beginning. If they are not claiming any of those things there is no need for me to read the article. Those are the only metrics that matter as long as our health care system is close to capacity. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Screaming "liberterian" at someone isn't an argument.

Neither is burying the board in links while proclaiming what leftists should be doing. 

Wuhan did a lockdown and had a great big New Year's party.  We decided not to try to stop it. We decided we would lift and lower restrictions to keep the rate of infection managable for the health care system. Because of that we have to wait for enough people to be vaccinated before we remove all restrictions. 

The decision depends 100% on hospital capacity.

Politicians know that is one thing they cannot sacrifice on the alter of the economy.  No politician in power will get re-elected if people start dying because they are refused treatment at over-capacity hospitals.