Civil rights and COVID-19

I have seriously had enough of this. I have been a part of this online community for 15 years. What is it in my posts that is causing you to read into that I'm for a survival-of-the-fittest approach where the strong survive and the weak die? I thought that whatever our differences we would at least agree that our common goal is that we want to reduce harm to the general population. I've been pretty active in discussions around conditions in the nursing homes and what mistakes are being made. I've also mentioned that many people advocating that we "stay at home," don't seem to notice either the covid risks to essential workers who don't have that option, or the other occupational hazards that people are exposed to at work. One example I can think of off the top of my head is a retired couple who instead of going to a restaurant has that restaurant deliver take-out, and in their moralistic idea that they are "staying safe," seem unaware that having their meal delivered exposes the driver to the occupational hazard of driving. I've also mentioned the possiblity of modifying the pension scheme so that older workers in high-risk industries (i.e. meat packing plants) can take time off work during this time of crisis. Why hasn't that idea generated any interest? And when did it all of a sudden become carved in stone the idea that the current covid measures are necessary to the point that if one questions their necessity or tries to have a nuanced conversation about the risks to public health of covid versus the risks to public health of the interventions that all of a sudden you are a covid denier or you don't care about the lives of the vulnerable? Blanket restrictions create resentment and animosity between certain segments of the population, and we can already see protests against that happening in Europe. Do you think that kind of resentment generated among the population is good for long-term social cohesion? If you know that blanket restrictions can generate that kind of social unrest, maybe rethinking them and having a more nuanced strategy is a better idea? I'm doing my best to have a civilized conversation, but I'm really not feeling any reciprocal goodwill from those who disagree with me on this topic.

For one we could adjust our pension system so that older workers in places like meat packing plants don't have to work throughout this crisis. I also think now might be a good time to talk about things like better sick pay so that people with the health conditions you mentioned can live with dignity (many of them have to work in order to make ends meet) and also set up social support networks so they can have things like groceries delivered to them. What I want to do is find solutions that actually empower people. The problem with lockdowns is that they really only protect people who have the luxury to stay at home and stare in front of a Zoom computer all day, while everyone without that capability or the "essential workers" we have been paying lip service to are thrown under the bus. I also find it ironic that the "lockdown-above-all-else-crowd" claims to have empathy for those negatively impacted by the lockdown, but all I've heard so far comes across as dismissive and smacks to me as lip service and self-rigtheousness rather than actual empathy and compassion for the less fortunate.

John Ioannidis: what would a dictatorship do more?

Hungary to ban gay adoption:

That's outrageous! Why aren't people taking to the streets to protest?

This is what the mathematical models advocating lockdowns don't take into account: human behaviour. Emergency measures give cover for cretins like Orban to abuse their power. You can't create a framework that allows these abuses to take place and then complain about what these leaders do. We know what they are like, a leapord doesn't change its spots. Just for that reason alone, lockdowns need to absolutely be off the table without exception.

Lockdown U-Turn in Sweden as COVID-19 Cases Soar and Herd Immunity Hopes Falter

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lockdown-u-turn-in-sweden-as-covid-1...

I can see why the right is able to paint the left as wanting to destroy the family unit with articles like that. How families gather and how many people one has in one's residence is a very personal decision that the state has absolutely no business interfereing in. Family gatherings are one reason people want to stay alive. Even absent a pandemic, this will be the last Thanksgiving for many elderly (and non-elderly) people they will ever see. How is it humane to deprive them of human contact in this situaton? There is enough information out there on the risks and precautions, it is up to individual families to decide among themselves how to proceed.

Besides, in my view anyone who advocates for such blanket restrictions as not singing in chruch or telling me that it's not okay to have family members over at my place for holiday celebrations (family members I will add are close to the age where they would be considered vulnerable) while applauding BLM protesters who took to the street in much larger crowds last summer is a hypocrite who should not be taken seriously. A virus likes to spread and will do so wherever people are gathered, regardless of whether you agree with the reason or not. So simple question: is this virus lethal enough that stopping all gatherings is necessary to stop the spread or isn't it? You can't insist on other people giving up what is important to them and following certain rules only to say those rules don't apply when it comes to something you support.

Thank you for clarifying your belief on that, Pondering. Last summer, I saw 2 pop-up anti-cop demonstrations, one in front of the downtown headquarters of the Winnipeg Police Service, and one in front of the RCMP D Division head quarters. They were large groups, and it did not look to me like they were observing distancing protocols. In this case, I can presume you would fully support that the organizers and attendees of both gatherings be tracked down and subjected to heavy fines for violating health orders?

This comment perfectly sums up the problems with snitch culture that covid compliance is encouraging:

Black Lives Matter and lockdown protesters share space in Queen's Park in Toronto

Calling for a religious group to be punished just because they had the misfortune to have a disease outbreak in their midst, and anyone speaking out against that is a fanatic? Since when did covid become such a moral failing that individuals with the disease are at fault for spreading it to other people? If it had been a non-Christian or minority religious gathering sanctioned in the same way, would you support the government issuing sanctions?

Every violation of human rights throughout history has been justified on the basis of an appeal to the greater good. I see no difference between blaming these "Christian fanatics" for spreading a fatal disease or a religious fundamentalist claming that same-sex marriage undermines the family and by definition civilization. It seems to me more that ideologues on the far right and far left have their idea of what a utopian society looks like and will easily dehumanize anyone who doesn't go along with that agenda. The only difference is the specific content of what that utopian agenda looks like.

Comparing polygamy, which has been documented to be harmful, to the basic right of free assembly to gather which is protected by the Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights? That's excessive.

You would have to have been living under a rock all year to not know that there is a risk for covid transmission in any setting other than staying at home, and in particular singing. The people who attended this church are adults, they knew the risks, and they still made a decision to go. Something about singing was important enough to these people that they decided to do it anyways. Other than the unfortunate part that a few people became sick, I hope they otherwise enjoyed themselves. The response to covid has generated such misery, why begrudge these people what was probably one of the few joys they had since this pandemic started?

Yeah, the fact that you need to resort to name-calling says a great deal about the bankruptcy of your argument. But I'll humour you and take on those items on your list. Each one of those is, at best, a minor inconvenience, and the demonstration of harm in each case is clear and straithtfoward. Covid spreads very easily and, in spite of our best efforts, is difficult to stop. Yet in the name of stopping covid, so many basic things we do that make us human are either not allowed or very severely limited, and there has to be a balance somewhere. To use another example, we've had people stabbed to death on buses in Winnipeg. If you were to insist on a full bag, strip, and cavity search of anyone coming onto a bus, you would eliminate that risk completely. What, you don't want to be treated that way? You're a selfish asshole who doesn't care if people are stabbed to death on the bus! That's the logic that I am hearing.

Here in Manitoba, restrictions are so tight that it is effectively illegal for me to have friends and family over at my place or to visit them. Are you okay with that level of restriction on freedom in the name of the public good? Did you know that our Premier sat in Harper's Caucus as a federal MP? Are you seriously okay with someone associated with Stephen Harper having that level of power over the citizenry?

I actually remember when Brandon passed a bylaw prohibiting smoking in restaurants. Despite the well-documented harm of second-hand smoke, the affected businesses at least had a chance to make their case as to why the law should not be passed. In the end, city council took everything they heard into account and passed a bylaw banning smoking in restaurants. That is the proper course of decision making in a democracy. All year we have had unelected health officials dictating what we can and cannot do over large aspects of our lives, without any recourse by citizens to question or challenge those decisions.

Wow krop, you're really twisting my comments around to make me out to be some sort of monster who doesn't care about the common good. You mentioned that the issue of smoking indoors was regulated by the Workers Compensation Board. Would there have been any recourse for anyone to argue against the board acting in such a way? Of course it is well established that second-hand smoke is dangerous to human health. Whatever process the board went through, I'm guessing that there are well-established protocols they follow to make these decisions. Let's take a more balanced look at the decision. On the one hand, second-hand smoke is clearly dangerous to people's health, especially in indoor environments. What about the hardships that rule imposes? It means that if you do smoke, you have to wait a few hours until you are outside. No brainer in this case, of course smoking indoors should be banned. Covid, on the other hand, spreads quite easily despite our best efforts to control it. Many people who catch it never develop symptoms, and nearly everyone who contracts the disease will survive. Does that sound to you like a plague so destructive and serious that it warrants closure of churches or not allowing people to visit each other in their private residences? What if this singing event had happend a couple of years ago, a few people caught the flu as a result, and someone died as a result of this flu outbreak. Suppose this had happened during the H1N1 pandemic of 2009-2010. Should that event be sanctioned in those circumstances?

You want to talk about preventing death? Here is a life that could have been saved had Winnipeg Transit had a policy that everyone who boards a bus must submit to a full bag, strip, and body cavity search as a condition of boarding. Here is another such life that would have been saved had that measure been in effect. Do you care about saving lives or don't you?

As Kenney's Popularity Sinks, He Gives Anti-Maskers Green Light to Protest

https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid-as-kenneys-popularity-sinks-he-give...

"...It almost defies belief that the premier would exempt anti-mask demonstrators from the new mandatory rule that limits outdoor gatherings to 10 people...the premier might spend more time praising people who do what they should, and less defending those who won't."

Mask up?

Toronto church launches constitutional challenge:

Meanwhile, The Bay is also getting into the legal challenge game:

That is the exact approach to take. Any challenge based on rights of the individual versus the collective good in this climate will be decided in favour of the collective good, and will thus go down in flames. The proper thing is to challenge based on the danger that covid represents. In other words, put the burden of proof back on the government. That flips things back around, now the government has to justify its claims, and when the government fails to do so, the sham that is the covid response will be exposed to the people, even if the courts don't see it that way.

What costitutes a public health risk is just as much a political decision as anything else. Here in Manitoba the latest orders banned any in-person worship services, even drive-in church. A few churches challenged that and held drive-in events anyways. Once people saw the ridiculousness of that move, the government backed down and allowed them. In-person events are still banned.

The contradictions in these restrictions are starting to become quite apparent. It's okay to have many people coming and going in a big box retailer, but a church auditorium with capacity for thousands has to limit itself to 10 people? Someone works in a meat processing plant for 8 or more hours a day, in tight cramped conditions that spread infectious disease. The worker, through their union, says the plant is unsafe but nobody steps in to do anything, yet it's too dangerous for that same worker to have a few colleagues over for a private party for an evening? Public health officials are telling people to stay home, don't socialize with anyone outside of your hosuehold, don't attend any important religious or cultural gatherings, don't sing in church because the coronavirus is too dangerous, then they turn around and say it's important to gather in large groups to shout anti-cop slogans because racism kills more people than the coronavirus? People are barred from visiting elderly loved ones, and they see the toll that isolation is taking on their physical and mental health, then they see that the government has done nothing to make living conditions in these homes better? We are told we have to lockdown to "protect the vulnerable," and we keep seeing covid knocking over nursing homes and hospitals long after the lockdown should have made an impact in stopping spread? Critics of the Great Barrington Declaration claim it is impossible to offer focused protection to vulnerable populations so we must restrict the movement of the whole population. Yet the success of the bubble hubs for the recent NHL playoffs proves otherwise. We are told to "wear a mask, wear a mask, wear a mask," that is currently the law in many parts of the world, and covid cases continue to climb, often after mask mandates are put into effect? We keep looking to our public health officials for guidance on how to stay safe and healthy, and all they do is tell us to stay home and blame us every time case numbers rise? We are told to bend the curve down, and we are thinking, "we're staying home, we're not visiting family and friends, what else do you want us to do?" The defund-the-police crowd is also shouting "lockdwon, lockdown, lockdown." If a lockdown happens, that opens the door to police involvement for people who refuse to comply. Who do you think is going to bear the brunt of that enforement? The very groups of society the defund-the-police crowd claims to care about. To say nothing of the blatant hypocrisy of Democratic lawmakers in the US passing strict restrictions on movements in the name of stopping covid only to be caught on tape violating the very social distancing orders they are telling their citizens to obey. Your head is in the sand if you think people aren't going to start questioning this in greater numbers. But like the Republicans who consistently insisted that the Iraq war must continue to be fought otherwise the sacrifice of the soldiers would be in vain, the supressionist crowd continues to stick its head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge reality. Eastnoireast is right to say that people are going to become fed up. Law or no law, court or no court, public health regulation or no public health regulation, good luck enforcing any of that if a noticeable fraction of the population decides they're not going to obey.

What a load of malarkey coming from the person who demands people give him facts, fact, facts, and don't even think about using modeling. I guess we should just follow your hunches to really get an understanding of this minor annoyance that hasn't killed anyone I know.

Several workers at the plant in Brooks said that they were forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Except the virus doesn't care why you are gathering, it only wants to spread. I posted videos documenting the hypocirsy of health professionals praising the protests, and only the portests, while every other gathering for any other reason is denounced as being a superspreader event. Your average person who had to go to the trouble of canceling a wedding or missing out on church at Easter seeing those large crowds on TV doesn't care aobut the reason or justification. All they see is rules applied inconsistently in different situations and they shake their heads. Your head is in the sand if you can't see that.

The risk of passing on influenza was always present, but in the past we took precautions.

The simple fact that it spread through the nursing homes and hospitals even with restrictions in place. Health officials recently admitted that the spread wasn't as contained as they hoped. Is that a possible admission on their part that maybe restrictions don't work? If the restrictions were working, I would have expected to see no outbreaks in hospitals and care homes in the spring, and I would expect the situation to be improving here in Manitoba, which it isn't.

Do you have any data or can you cite any scientific studies that suggest that?

Remember that essential workers are exposed regardless of the state of lockdwon. Even with following the guidelines, the models about reduction in transmission assume certain things about human behaviour. Any expert in the field of human behaviour would have told you that relying on these assumptions was unrealistic.

Yep, obey the law, comply with the police, and you generally won't have a problem. That's what the conventional wisdom says anyways. Doesn't always work in reality.