Social distancing, class, and hypocrisy

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I trust nurses (collectively) more than I do any other profession. I do not believe that either they or doctors are lying about conditions in hospitals. 

I agree. When it comes to pandemics primarily I trust immunologists, nurses, doctors, scientists, and other medical and health care professionals. Nurses and doctors are making very significant sacrifices, sometimes even with their lives.

The idea that all front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth brought on by media slant and social media mob mentality. This doctor and his wife (also a doctor) disagree with the measures we are taking.

kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

That's not what I said. If you look to my link, you will note that the workers will have to pay that money back. Once the government decides to end the CERB, people who don't have jobs to go back to because the businesses failed won't have any government support to rely on. That will especially be the case if the next federal election produces a majority government, which will all too happily use the deficit as an excuse to effectively do away with what remains of our social support programs.

Yes I looked at the link and it was about some workers having to pay back the CERB they got. You then generalized it for everyone. I was just saying this morning that while lock downs are happening across Canada the CERB/UI will not end. The business community will not stand for it, after all Canada is a consumer society and that is where our oligarchy make a lot of their money. As well it would be political suicide.

 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I trust nurses (collectively) more than I do any other profession. I do not believe that either they or doctors are lying about conditions in hospitals. 

I agree. When it comes to pandemics primarily I trust immunologists, nurses, doctors, scientists, and other medical and health care professionals. Nurses and doctors are making very significant sacrifices, sometimes even with their lives.

The idea that all front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth brought on by media slant and social media mob mentality. This doctor and his wife (also a doctor) disagree with the measures we are taking.

The idea that front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth made up by people opposed to what we're doing to deal with Covid-19.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
The idea that all front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth brought on by media slant and social media mob mentality. This doctor and his wife (also a doctor) disagree with the measures we are taking.

Doctors who aren't actually treating patients and certainly not those on USA medicare.  I am talking about medical professionals where I live not professionals in general. I am referring to nurse burnout where I live. It is no longer nescessary to rely on theory to predict what will happen in Canada. We know from personal experience that Y number of cases this week means X number of hospitalizations in 3 weeks. We know the bed capacity and staff capacity. If they are close to hitting peak we have to slow Covid down locally.  All the provinces and hospitals have the local numbers to go by. It is extremely predictable. No need to project out for months. 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
One of the reasons that people in abusive situations are in more danger is because they have few places to go outside the home with everything closed down. Children especially who are trapped in abusive homes when school was closed couldn't tell a teacher, coach, minister, or friend what was happening. Many child abuse experts said that teachers are well trained to spot signs and are concerned that with children away from school that this is a pair of eyes not looking out for them.  

The system for child protection has been failing for decades. Teachers knowing and reporting is useless because nothing happens unless the child's life is in danger and even then, unless they are indigenous in which case they are snapped up at birth. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 My church has not been able to have an indoor service since mid-March. I am not able to volunteer at any social service organizations that I usually do. Services for vulnerable people in urban Winnipeg are disrupted. Practicums for student programs here are also disrupted. Don't tell me that we are not under lockdown here in Winnipeg because I know exactly what has happened here. 

Those are restrictions not lock downs. Lockdown means you stay home unless you are given permission to leave and when you are stopped on the street you better be able to explain yourself. That's lockdown. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 So stay home then.  You have that priviledge. It doesn't give you the right to try and control someone else's behaviour or movements. 

I am not controling anyone. I am supporting health care measures taken by the government on the advice of local health care experts who are familiar with the situation in Canada. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
​ IOW, I'm safe in my home and okay paying lip service to the "essential workers" who don't have that option.  

My going out and increasing the risks faced by essential workers is not helping them. It is further endangering their lives. The fewer people wandering around the fewer people they are exposed to. 

Pondering wrote:
The most vulnerable in society are always the ones to suffer the most be it a fire, hurricane, tital wave or pandemic. That doesn't mean it is wrong for people who can to save themselves to do so. We are not morally required to sacrifice our lives for the lives of others.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
 Hold on a second. You have for months defended the idea that it is a moral imperative that everyone restrict their movements to help the medical staff who are overwhelmed, giving up weddings, education, family visits, important cultral celebrations, and all kinds of things. Now you are saying we don't have an obligation to make sacrifices for others. Which is it?

Making sacrifices for others does not include the duty to risk one's own life.

When we make sacrifices to reduce the burden on health care staff we are not making sacrifices for them.  We are not doing them a favor. It is the least we can do to avoid adding to their burden willfully because we want to party or have a singalong. They are doing us a favor by taking care of us at the risk of their own lives. 

We are doing it for ourselves to reduce nurse burnout and quitting in disgust so that if we need health care it will still be available to us. 

Pondering

One more thing. You are presenting as fact the understanding that with fewer or no restrictions schools would return to normal. That is not at all true. Fewer restrictions would just lead to rampant spread, health care overload, and even more restrictions because Covid-19 would spread like fire. 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I trust nurses (collectively) more than I do any other profession. I do not believe that either they or doctors are lying about conditions in hospitals. 

I agree. When it comes to pandemics primarily I trust immunologists, nurses, doctors, scientists, and other medical and health care professionals. Nurses and doctors are making very significant sacrifices, sometimes even with their lives.

The idea that all front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth brought on by media slant and social media mob mentality. This doctor and his wife (also a doctor) disagree with the measures we are taking.

The idea that front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth made up by people opposed to what we're doing to deal with Covid-19.

When a medical professional takes to social media to say, "you need to stay home because covid is a bad thing and if you don't you're a selfish person," that is emotional blackmail. It's essentially pathologizing others, trying to play on their emotions to elicit a behavioural change. Emotional blackmail comes in many forms, but it is not well understood. That's why it works.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
One of the reasons that people in abusive situations are in more danger is because they have few places to go outside the home with everything closed down. Children especially who are trapped in abusive homes when school was closed couldn't tell a teacher, coach, minister, or friend what was happening. Many child abuse experts said that teachers are well trained to spot signs and are concerned that with children away from school that this is a pair of eyes not looking out for them.  

The system for child protection has been failing for decades. Teachers knowing and reporting is useless because nothing happens unless the child's life is in danger and even then, unless they are indigenous in which case they are snapped up at birth.

Be that as it may, teachers don't have the option to not report, as failure to do so can land them in jail. Whatever failings the system has, if teachers cannot detect signs of abuse in real time, they cannot report.

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
 My church has not been able to have an indoor service since mid-March. I am not able to volunteer at any social service organizations that I usually do. Services for vulnerable people in urban Winnipeg are disrupted. Practicums for student programs here are also disrupted. Don't tell me that we are not under lockdown here in Winnipeg because I know exactly what has happened here. 

Those are restrictions not lock downs. Lockdown means you stay home unless you are given permission to leave and when you are stopped on the street you better be able to explain yourself. That's lockdown.

We're arguing semantics. The press here in Manitoba frequently uses the word "lockdown" to describe what we are experiencing.

Pondering wrote:
I am not controling anyone. I am supporting health care measures taken by the government on the advice of local health care experts who are familiar with the situation in Canada.

If you are okay with any of the restrictions I mentioned, then you are controlling. So are the health experts who will be paid no matter what happens and won't have to cope with any of the negative aspects of their decisions. I don't care who you are, controlling behaviour is controlling behaviour, and I have little patience or stomach for it.

Pondering wrote:
One more thing. You are presenting as fact the understanding that with fewer or no restrictions schools would return to normal. That is not at all true. Fewer restrictions would just lead to rampant spread, health care overload, and even more restrictions because Covid-19 would spread like fire.

And if we don't remove Saddam, the final proof will come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
The idea that all front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth brought on by media slant and social media mob mentality. This doctor and his wife (also a doctor) disagree with the measures we are taking.

Doctors who aren't actually treating patients and certainly not those on USA medicare.  I am talking about medical professionals where I live not professionals in general. I am referring to nurse burnout where I live. It is no longer nescessary to rely on theory to predict what will happen in Canada. We know from personal experience that Y number of cases this week means X number of hospitalizations in 3 weeks. We know the bed capacity and staff capacity. If they are close to hitting peak we have to slow Covid down locally.  All the provinces and hospitals have the local numbers to go by. It is extremely predictable. No need to project out for months. 

You didn't watch the video. The doctor in question clearly stated that he had treated patients, and also related an experience of his wife who also treated patients.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

And if we don't remove Saddam, the final proof will come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Equating Covid-19 with nuclear weapons in Iraq makes no sense since Covid-19 is real. Do you believe Covid-19 is a hoax?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

And if we don't remove Saddam, the final proof will come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Equating Covid-19 with nuclear weapons in Iraq makes no sense since Covid-19 is real. Do you believe Covid-19 is a hoax?

Covid is quite clearly a concern for health that we need to address, but I believe it has been distorted and blown out of proportion, and I believe social media is in large part to blame. Notice on your social media feeds that it is always recommending stories and videos depending on what you have previously looked at? That is because the algorithms are watching your behaviour trying to get you to view more content, because the more content you view the more money they make. Great for things like if you have a health problem, are into a particular sport, or if you have a hobby like gardening. Not so great for political discussions or calm, rational analysis of what's going on in the world. When news broke about the virus out of China, right away that would start trending on social media. People would keep clicking the stories, it would feed the algorithms, and the cycle would continue. Yes, the virus was "over there," but people were primed to be deathly afraid of the virus by the time the pandemic was declared in March. So yes, I get it that covid is happening. Things are closed or severly restricted, we know we're supposed to "stay at home," we don't more press conferences from self-indulgent politicians and medical bureaucrats. There are other things happening in the world that aren't covid related, and they are important as well. Let me give you one example. A rare disease associated with the cramped conditions of the First World War was detected in Winnipeg last winter among the homeless population. Note that it was detected one month before covid was detected in Manitoba, and we are just finding out about this now. Do you think the media is going to pay any more attention to this disease, aside from this one (and maybe a couple of other articles published around the same time)?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
 The idea that front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth made up by people opposed to what we're doing to deal with Covid-19.

Yes and a pretty nasty one at that. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
 The idea that front-line medical staff are engaged in an emotional blackmail campaign trying to control everyone else's behaviour is a myth made up by people opposed to what we're doing to deal with Covid-19.

Yes and a pretty nasty one at that. 

For the record, I don't think that's true of all front line medical staff. I think it's a small minority of front-line staff who are doing the "stay-at-home-or-else-you're-selfish" thing on social media and that these are the ones who are getting all the attention.

JKR

I think from-line medical staff want us to keep their situation in mind when we make our personal decisions regarding how we deal with Covid-19.

Aristotleded24

I agree that the situation of front-line medical staff is one thing that needs to be taken into account as we move forward. One good reason to keep schools open is that I don't think it's fair to ask front-line medical staff to become homeschool teachers after stressful 12-hour days at work.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
My going out and increasing the risks faced by essential workers is not helping them. It is further endangering their lives. The fewer people wandering around the fewer people they are exposed to.

Just out of curiosity, have you taken advantage of any delivery services offered by businesses (for example groceries) where pre-pandemic you would have gone to the business and purchased the item yourself? If your answer to that question is yes, then you exposed your delivery driver to the occupational hazard of driving to your place.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
My going out and increasing the risks faced by essential workers is not helping them. It is further endangering their lives. The fewer people wandering around the fewer people they are exposed to.

Just out of curiosity, have you taken advantage of any delivery services offered by businesses (for example groceries) where pre-pandemic you would have gone to the business and purchased the item yourself? If your answer to that question is yes, then you exposed your delivery driver to the occupational hazard of driving to your place.

Yes, but I did not expose the cashier or stock people or other customers and I did wear my mask when I answered the door and asked the driver to leave it in the hall. Same goes for Amazon and any other deliveries. 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
A rare disease associated with the cramped conditions of the First World War was detected in Winnipeg last winter among the homeless population. Note that it was detected one month before covid was detected in Manitoba, and we are just finding out about this now. Do you think the media is going to pay any more attention to this disease, aside from this one (and maybe a couple of other articles published around the same time)?

I doubt it. It affects few people and they are mostly if not all homeless. Not a big demographic. The only reason it got any airplay at all is the novelty factor. Do you have a point?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I agree that the situation of front-line medical staff is one thing that needs to be taken into account as we move forward. One good reason to keep schools open is that I don't think it's fair to ask front-line medical staff to become homeschool teachers after stressful 12-hour days at work.

I don't know about other places but front-line workers in Quebec were able to send their children to school even though they were closed to the general public. 

earthquakefish

simply deleted, as the varying feeling of how this should be approached is vastly different.

Pondering

Earthquakefish please correct the quoting issues with your previous post. It makes it appear as though I am saying things I didn't, and other people said what I said. 

earthquakefish

Pondering wrote:

Earthquakefish please correct the quoting issues with your previous post. It makes it appear as though I am saying things I didn't, and other people said what I said. 

I changed my response, I hope you find no objection.  I am simply now out of debate how society responds upon this challenge.  

Pondering

Yes, thank-you.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
My going out and increasing the risks faced by essential workers is not helping them. It is further endangering their lives. The fewer people wandering around the fewer people they are exposed to.

Just out of curiosity, have you taken advantage of any delivery services offered by businesses (for example groceries) where pre-pandemic you would have gone to the business and purchased the item yourself? If your answer to that question is yes, then you exposed your delivery driver to the occupational hazard of driving to your place.

Yes, but I did not expose the cashier or stock people or other customers and I did wear my mask when I answered the door and asked the driver to leave it in the hall. Same goes for Amazon and any other deliveries. 

But the driver still had to risk their life to get the package to  you from driving on the street. Therefore, you exposed the driver to a risk of death. It proves my point that you don't get to moralize about how superior you are by protecting other people.

Aristotleded24

More evidence that shutdowns contain the spread:

Quote:
Amazon distribution facilities around Canada’s biggest airport have seen more than 400 COVID-19 cases, a source said Thursday, as concern mounts about the virus’s spread in industrial workplaces that face few government restrictions.

Many municipalities in Ontario are now under sweeping lockdowns to try to curb the pandemic’s second wave, banning most in-person shopping and restaurant dining. Similar rules have been imposed in many other provinces, too.

But they tend not to affect factories, food-processing facilities and distribution centres feeding the surge in online retailing, generally considered essential industries.

And yet, with the daily number of cases remaining high cross Canada, the limited amount of data released publicly suggests those workplaces are a significant source of COVID-19 spread.

The two Amazon “fulfillment centres” in Brampton, Ont., one in nearby Caledon and one in Mississauga — all close to busy Toronto Pearson International Airport — have had a combined total of about 400 cases, said a source familiar with the data.

...

Shifting Canadians’ shopping behaviour increasingly online may not be the safe option it appears to be, argues Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, whose members include many restaurants and stores forced to close.

“One of the things I worry about is: Are we closing off the wrong end of retail?” said Kelly.

Aristotleded24

Meanwhile, CERB continues to prove to be a lifesaver to the people it is intended to help:

Quote:

Christine MacDonald says she did everything possible to make sure she actually qualified for the Canada emergency response benefit (CERB) before she applied in March.

Her home-based custom cake business — which relied on people ordering cakes for weddings and birthday parties — was in the process of falling flat thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions being imposed.

That left her household with only the income from her husband's construction job.

"I said to my husband, 'There's no way I'm applying for this if I don't qualify,' and I researched and researched and researched," MacDonald said.

...

But on Nov. 26, MacDonald received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) saying she never actually qualified and would have to pay back all of the money she received — with the suggestion she do so by Dec. 31 to avoid tax penalties.

"I'm in my bed at 11 o'clock at night reading this, and I'm starting to cry," MacDonald said. 

"How can you pay them back $18,500 when you have no income?"

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Sean Casey's advice in the above article might make matters worse. If she refiles her 2019 income tax return to carry forward or just eliminate some of the expenses she claimed against gross revenue, that means that what was a net income below the taxable income threshold becomes taxable and she would owe that tax with interest and penalties. Let's say she expensed 50% of her earnings, then she would owe on a $10,000 gross earnings. Not a huge amoung but still more than a grand.

The $18,000 CERB amount will also be part of her taxable income for 2020 but I guess she could apply carry forward expenses if she refiles 2019. Someone will have to do the math on whether all that refiling and carry forwards work out in her favour especially when you include the grand or two it will take to pay accountants to sort it out.

Unfortunately, she will be owing some money one way or another. I assume that she earns less than $30,000 gross or else she would also need to collect and payback GST on goods sold.

Because of the unprecedented circumstances with COVID including confusion with the new programs, CRA is suspending penalities and is very open to negotiating compassionate payment schedules in all sorts of situations.

I agree that the communications campaign on CERB could have been much better. So many people assumed free money falling from the sky.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
But the driver still had to risk their life to get the package to  you from driving on the street. Therefore, you exposed the driver to a risk of death. It proves my point that you don't get to moralize about how superior you are by protecting other people.

Food must get to people somehow. It is less dangerous to deliver it than to have crowds of people in grocery stores. It's pure math. The fewer people who are exposed the fewer who will get sick therefore the fewer who will require healthcare. 

Huge sectors of the economy have ground to a halt. My preference is for a full shutdown other than food and other absolutely essential to life services for 4 to 6 weeks. Unfortunately Amazon workers are not eligible for CERB or other benefits. Other workers have run out of benefits or were not entitled to them. Refugees come to mind. They work or don't get enough money to live on. 

The pull back of CERB payments for people who applied in good faith is atrocious and I hope a class action suit will develop. It is outrageous for it to be transformed into a loan after the fact. That the government made a mistake is just too bad for them.  If these people just unknowingly missed the target by making under 5K net they obviously don't have the money to pay this back and likely would never have taken a loan of that size out nor would they have qualified for one at any bank. 

edited to add:

In addition people exposed through work should have first shot at the vaccine after medical personnel and the elderly.. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
But the driver still had to risk their life to get the package to  you from driving on the street. Therefore, you exposed the driver to a risk of death. It proves my point that you don't get to moralize about how superior you are by protecting other people.

Food must get to people somehow. It is less dangerous to deliver it than to have crowds of people in grocery stores. It's pure math.

It's still dangerous for the driver. I can't think of any deaths that have been linked to any grocery stores in Manitoba. The provice keeps good information about that, and I check it every day. Maybe look again and check in case I missed something.

Pondering wrote:
My preference is for a full shutdown other than food and other absolutely essential to life services for 4 to 6 weeks.

IOW, because I'm scared, and my income will not be disrupted due to the shutdowns, whatever suffering other people have to endure to make me feel better is acceptable.

Aristotleded24

Listen to the doctors:

Quote:

Dr Deborah Birx, who is 64, cited the criticism she had faced for a family get-together over Thanksgiving in Delaware in her decision to step aside.

"This experience has been a bit overwhelming," she said. "It's been very difficult on my family."

...

But it emerged on Sunday she had travelled from Washington to one of her other properties, on Fenwick Island in Delaware, where she was joined by three generations of her family from two households.

While in Delaware, she did an interview with CBS in which she noted that some Americans had "made mistakes" over Thanksgiving by travelling and they "should assume they were infected".

...

Explaining her decision to gather with her husband, daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren, she told Newsy: "My daughter hasn't left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months.

"They've become deeply depressed as I'm sure many elderly have as they've not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters.

"My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things."

Yeah, that excuse was dismissed when the lockdown protesters raised that very point in the spring. This goes to show that this is more political than medical. Doctors like Birx are political appointees so sign off on government policy, so that when people become upset, the government can say, "don't blame us, the experts told us we have to do this." Also note that Birx herself is in the vulnerable category because of her age. This goes to show that it has never been about medicine or science, rather using a medical crisis to control people. Why this isn't a major scandal making headlines in every major media outlet in the US is mind-boggling.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

This goes to show that it has never been about medicine or science, rather using a medical crisis to control people. Why this isn't a major scandal making headlines in every major media outlet in the US is mind-boggling.

What's mind-boggling for me is that you don't see that COVID-19 is primarily about medicine and science. 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

This goes to show that it has never been about medicine or science, rather using a medical crisis to control people. Why this isn't a major scandal making headlines in every major media outlet in the US is mind-boggling.

What's mind-boggling for me is that you don't see that COVID-19 is primarily about medicine and science.

Because a doctor violating the guidelines the rest of us have been asked to follow is about "medicine and science?"

JKR

Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science. I think you are against measures aimed at mitigating Covid because you simply find them to be a personal inconvenience.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science.

Is your reading comprehension that lacking that you couldn't see that I was pointing out that a high-profile doctor was not following the same restrictions that she expected regular people to follow?

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science.

Is your reading comprehension that lacking that you couldn't see that I was pointing out that a high-profile doctor was not following the same restrictions that she expected regular people to follow?

Just because she might have been hypocritical does not mean that the restrictions she supported were not based on science and medicine. In your previous post you said that they were based not based on science and medicine. 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science.

Is your reading comprehension that lacking that you couldn't see that I was pointing out that a high-profile doctor was not following the same restrictions that she expected regular people to follow?

Just because she might have been hypocritical does not mean that the restrictions she supported were not based on science and medicine. In your previous post you said that they were based not based on science and medicine. 

Obviously she didn't feel that those restrictions were necessary to keep people safe, otherwise she would have obeyed them. Either that or she thinks that rules that apply to regular people shouldn't apply to her. Either way, that's not the kind of person I want making rules for the rest of us.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science.

Is your reading comprehension that lacking that you couldn't see that I was pointing out that a high-profile doctor was not following the same restrictions that she expected regular people to follow?

Just because she might have been hypocritical does not mean that the restrictions she supported were not based on science and medicine. In your previous post you said that they were based not based on science and medicine. 

Obviously she didn't feel that those restrictions were necessary to keep people safe, otherwise she would have obeyed them. Either that or she thinks that rules that apply to regular people shouldn't apply to her. Either way, that's not the kind of person I want making rules for the rest of us.

She said her family members had quarantined themselves.

Pondering

IOW, because I'm scared, and my income will not be disrupted due to the shutdowns, whatever suffering other people have to endure to make me feel better is acceptable.

No, because countries that have done that have been able to open up faster.  It would not eradicate it but it would mean we would have smaller hotspots that we could hit faster leaving everyone else to get on with life.  The slow bleed is killing businesses and dragging out the pain for everyone, especially the most vulnerable. 

No single doctor is making the rules for everyone. There are thousands of doctors and scientists around the world providing similar information. More significantly we can look to our own data and the situation in our local hospitals. Politicians are making bad decisions. Misinformation abounds. 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you really think that doctors' advice about Covid is not based on their understanding of medicine and science? I think doctors' advice about Covid is based on their understanding of medicine and science.

Is your reading comprehension that lacking that you couldn't see that I was pointing out that a high-profile doctor was not following the same restrictions that she expected regular people to follow?

Just because she might have been hypocritical does not mean that the restrictions she supported were not based on science and medicine. In your previous post you said that they were based not based on science and medicine. 

Obviously she didn't feel that those restrictions were necessary to keep people safe, otherwise she would have obeyed them. Either that or she thinks that rules that apply to regular people shouldn't apply to her. Either way, that's not the kind of person I want making rules for the rest of us.

She said her family members had quarantined themselves.

Right, so she has no incentive to lie about something like this?

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

IOW, because I'm scared, and my income will not be disrupted due to the shutdowns, whatever suffering other people have to endure to make me feel better is acceptable.

No, because countries that have done that have been able to open up faster.  It would not eradicate it but it would mean we would have smaller hotspots that we could hit faster leaving everyone else to get on with life.  The slow bleed is killing businesses and dragging out the pain for everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

Actually, there is not a single country anywhwere in the world that shut down and successfully eliminated the virus. Many countries that shut down once and thought they beat the virus had to shut down again. The only country that can be considered a success at handling the pandemic by any objective metric is Taiwan. They did so without shutting down, and sporting events there are allowing people in the stands. Not as many as before, but things are moving along there pretty well.

Aristotleded24

Are medical schools doing enough to admit low-income students?

Quote:

When I started medical school in 2012, I realized I was an anomaly—it is rare for students from low socio-economic backgrounds to study medicine. While limited data has been collected on Canadian medical students’ socio-economic status (SES), a few surveys have shown that students from lower income households are significantly underrepresented. For example, a 2012 survey of four Canadian medical schools found that 57.6 percent of students came from families with a household income over $100,000 annually, a proportion eight times greater than in the general population. More recently, a 2015 national survey of first-year medical students by the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) found that 62.6 percent of respondents come from families with an annual income greater than $100,000.

The overrepresentation of students from affluent families is also found among medical school applicants. In 2018, the AFMC collected applicant data from five Canadian medical schools. Of those who provided their parental income, 54 percent reported a familial income greater than $100,000 annually.

Research has shown that diversity and equity are important in medical school admission not only for the reasons of fairness, but also for the benefit of patients, and that physicians from lower SES backgrounds are more likely to pursue primary care specialties and work with under-served populations. Further, some research has shown that patients are best cared for by physicians from a background similar to their own. “When you consider the morbidity of our population clusters in low SES groups,” says Brian Postl, chair of the AFMC board of directors and dean of medicine at the University of Manitoba, “having people with the understanding of where they come from and what stresses they feel can only help.”

What’s more, it has been suggested that a diverse medical class benefits learners and creates an environment wherein stereotypes and cultural assumptions of under-served populations can be challenged. “I think diversity brings richness to our environment, and our students really thrive in it,” says Postl.

...

Getting into medical school in Canada is extremely competitive. In 2016–17, Canadian faculties accepted between three and 13.4 percent of applicants. Applicants are expected to excel academically, achieving a GPA of at least 3.9. Many volunteer in international humanitarian missions and on innovative research projects, and spend thousands of dollars on MCAT preparation, exams and application fees, and travel for interviews. Social connections, mentorship in medicine, and financial resources are extremely helpful if not essential in this process. For an applicant growing up in poverty, these kinds of resources are seldom, if ever, available. “For many students of low SES, trying to pursue a career in medicine is like performing a play without a script, and without adequate opportunities for direction and rehearsal,” wrote Jessica Bok in 2010.

Some research has pointed to the possibility that medical schools are preoccupied with a pursuit of prestige and admitting for “excellence”. For example, emphasis on the importance of applicants’ high academic achievement on medical schools’ websites suggests that other criteria take less priority. “A picture emerges whereby the ideal applicant is the one who, by virtue of his or her possession of the requisite social, cultural, and economic capital, is going to be best placed to contribute to the perpetuation of a particular university’s excellence,” wrote Saleem Razack and colleagues in their 2012 review of Canadian medical schools websites.

When asked whether deans of medicine are concerned about lowering their standards by recruiting for diversity, Postl says they needn’t be. “The panel of candidates is so large that you don’t compromise the horsepower by trying to improve diversity.”

...

In the end, the question that medical schools need to ask themselves is, “Have we created empathetic, caring and committed physicians who understand their social accountabilities?” says Postl. “That doesn’t come from the current selection process that favours the ‘best and the brightest,’ frankly.”

Might that be something else to condsider when hearing from doctors (and other medical professionals) who support lockdowns? How many of these doctors and professionals who support lockdowns come from family backgrounds that would have been harmed by the restrictions?

JKR

I think nurses, doctors, and health care workers work in the interests of their patients and clients. I think especially during this Covid period, they deserve our support.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
I think nurses, doctors, and health care workers work in the interests of their patients and clients. I think especially during this Covid period, they deserve our support.

I guess these nurses were also acting in the interests of the woman who later died?

You're blind to the implications of class, and especially how professionals who come from the middle class are often blind to the realities of those on the lower end of the economic ladder. To give an example, one of the guys I used to work with told me a story about someone he worked with who was studying to be a nurse. This woman told him that people on social assistance have babies as a way to get money from the government. Do you really think these attitidues are not present among health care workers?

Furthermore, one of the ways we are told that the pandemic will end is with contact tracing. Winnipeg has a large urban indigenous population. Many are suspicious of government agencies, including the police and child protection authorities. Do you really think they are going to trust the medical profession or co-operate with them for contact tracing purposes? Especially in a context where covid is stigmatized, people may have already had bad experiences with government agencies that are supposedly there to protect them, and if they are worried that they or someone close to them might get in trouble?

Obviously we should do what we can to support front line health care workers. But they are human just like the rest of us, and we need to take into account many voices. They need to have empathy for all their patients, but unfortunately many people with middle-class backgrounds have little empathy for people on the lower economic rung of society, and no amount of training can fix that.

Aristotleded24
laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Aristotled, I have to agree with you about attitudes in the health care system regarding dealing with people from marginalized communities including, and in Manitoba especially, Indigenous people. First Nation and Metis leadership is trying to get their membership on board to do the best to protect themselves against the virus, including cooperating with health services systems in place. But there is lots of distrust with health authorities for very good reason. Hopefully, the Indigenous led campaigns and strategies will work. (Interestingly enough, a similar situation is occuring with US Black communities regarding vaccines - they have a long history of being abused by the medical institutions in that country.)

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

No, because countries that have done that have been able to open up faster.  It would not eradicate it but it would mean we would have smaller hotspots that we could hit faster leaving everyone else to get on with life.  The slow bleed is killing businesses and dragging out the pain for everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

Actually, there is not a single country anywhwere in the world that shut down and successfully eliminated the virus. 

Which is exactly what I said. Eradication would be great but it isn't the goal post. 

Pondering

There is only one measure and it has nothing to do with anyone's opinions or the socio-economic backgrounds of doctors. 

As always look to the health care facilities in your own community. Are nurses being forced to work overtime? Are they able to take vacations? Is there extra capacity to take care of all patients if there is a covid-19 surge? 

In Montreal the answer is nurses are overloaded and burning out. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
There is only one measure and it has nothing to do with anyone's opinions or the socio-economic backgrounds of doctors. 

As always look to the health care facilities in your own community. Are nurses being forced to work overtime?

Yes they are. This has been an ongoing issue for several years due to underinvestment in health care. Why that justifies locking down the population, when lockdowns don't even curtail the spread (remember that among poorer communities in Toronto, covid spread accelerated among the poorer areas of the city).

Aristotleded24

Lockdown critic and Brampton-area doctor Kulvinder Kaur weighs in:

Quote:
Today, it was whitesplained and mansplained to me by a privileged self-identified “pro-diversity” “anti-racist” that only “nationalist” “racists” oppose lockdowns and that people of colour opposing catastrophic lockdowns have “internalized white supremacy”.

JKR

Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now; The Lancet; 31 October 2020

Quote:

Effective measures that suppress and control transmission need to be implemented widely, and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic.

...

Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.

Pages