Civil rights and COVID-19

laine lowe wrote:

Social distancing and limiting social contacts are far more effective tactics than wearing masks (although I agree with that added degree of protection). The pandemic has definitely shown that there are serious short-comings to how we operate long term care facilities including having people living in wards instead of private rooms and sharing bathrooms as if they were living in a youth hostel. Then there are the deplorable workforce conditions of low pay, part-time, moving from one facility to another, lack of decent supplies (both PPE, sanitation and nutrition) and just a total lack of respect and dignity for clients living there. And it's not just seniors living in long term care facilities. It sounds like freedom is for the young, the healthy and the well-off. The rest who need protection should just accept their fate that they are "lesser" human beings.

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.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is all of this necessary for a virus that mainly kills elderly people in the care homes? Perhaps a better strategy around care homes is what is called for and the rest of us can go on living our lives. If you want to call me selfish for having that opinion, it is a free country. Go ahead, fill your boots.

What a stupid, stupid statement. Old age is one of the factors that makes severe complications including death from COVID more likely. However what exactly are all the other people who are not as healthy as you are supposed to do.

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:

Quote:

Hungary's government has proposed legislation that would essentially ban adoption by same-sex couples and that rights groups say is an attack on the LGBTQI community.

The rightwing government late on Tuesday (11 November) presented several bills unrelated to the coronavirus as the country takes unprecedented measures against a worrying rise in Covid-19 infections.

The government's proposal for a constitutional amendment says Hungary "protects children's right to the gender identity they were born with," and provides "education in accordance with the values based on Hungary's constitutional identity and Christian culture."

It also wants to put into the constitution that "the mother is a woman, the father is a man."

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

Quote:

The Hatter rights group said the legislation practically means a ban on gay adoption, which until now has been possible if one partner applied as a single person. Hungary does not allow gay marriage.

The rights group said in a statement that the timing is no coincidence, as Covid-19 measures prevent any demonstration.

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...

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Here's an interesting article in MediaMatters about the extremely negative reactions of right-wing Americans to official warnings over large family gatherings at Thanksgiving (next Thursday, I think). They seem to be regarding such warnings as a new escalation in their imaginary "war on Christmas". After a discussion of the many recent examples from Fox News, the author writes:

Parker Molloy wrote:

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk has spent months arguing that the pandemic isn’t actually a pandemic, that masks don’t work, and that canceling the college football season would result in “hundreds” of suicides. This week, he claimed that progressives want to restrict Thanksgiving gatherings because of their own supposed disdain for the holiday itself. 

Right-wing plagiarist and new Newsmax host Benny Johnson spent the entirety of the pandemic cheering on people for defying lockdown restrictions and claiming the “real” virus is everything ranging from communism to fatherlessness. Naturally, when faced with the suggestion that people scale back their Thanksgiving plans because the entire country has effectively turned into a COVID-19 hotspot, Johnson lashed out at the government.

Others on the right who’ve made a big show of their plans to defy public health recommendations include Matt Schlapp (who had to self-quarantine after his American Conservative Union held its annual Conservative Political Action Conference in late February), alt-right Twitter personality Mike Cernovich, right-wing TV host Buck Sexton, and Fox Business host Stuart Varney. Others, such as conservative blogger Erick Erickson, Townhall.com writer Julio Rosas, former OANN host Liz Wheeler, and right-wing convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza, couched their rejection of safety requests in claims of Democratic hypocrisy.

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:

Quote:

Over my dead body would I ever report my neighbours or anyone else down my street. When the snowstorm hit you know who was out there helping me clear my driveway when my shovel broke? That's right, my neighbours. Who pulled me out when I got stuck in the street? Yep, My neighbours! What happens if you get the virus and you need someone to pick up groceries for you? You can be sure it won't be the guy down the street who you ratted out a week back. I couldn't care less if the people next door have their family over for supper and there just so happens to be 6 people there. I will not be part of a culture that back stabs a neighbour for seeing their family. Can no one see how broken this is? We're going to attempt to slow the virus down by turning neighborhoods into a place of hostility? I don't think so.

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Do I have the civil right to practice my religion in any manner I want, no. There are limits on religious freedoms in Canada. Those limits begin when it is clear that your religious freedom affects others peoples freedom to be safe and secure. Think Bountiful where the people wanted to live a polygamous lifestyle but were told that is a crime because it might lead to child abuse.

The Christian fanatics are putting people that do not share their beliefs at risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease. That has nothing to do with any civil rights anymore than your right to freedom of expression means you can spew hate speech.

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?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Other than the unfortunate part that a few people became sick, I hope they otherwise enjoyed themselves.

This sums up your whole approach to our COVID experience. Do you smoke in elevators? Do you smoke in a restaurant and attack the owner when they tell you it is a law that you can't? Do you wear a seat belt or do you protest everytime you see a seat belt roadblock check? Do you go into pools without showering? All these infringements on your right to be an asshole must drive you crazy.

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?

Quote:

The video of the incident, obtained by CTV News, has been shared widely across social media platforms, showing the officer's interaction with the two people who were pulled over Tuesday evening.

CTV News has agreed not to name the woman who recorded the video, due to concerns for her safety following backlash on social media.

She told CTV News she had been in the car with her boyfriend when the officer pulled them over for failing to change lanes when passing a police car.

She said the officer who walked up was not wearing a mask.

"I don't need to wear a mask when I'm outside," the officer says in the video, who goes on to tell them he is going to ticket them.

"You were going to get a warning, I was being polite. You're not being polite," the officer said.

In a second video of the incident, the officer returns to the vehicle wearing a mask.

"Since it bothers you, I put one on," he says in the video, and hands them a $298 ticket.

Toronto church launches constitutional challenge:

Quote:

The Toronto International Celebration Church says in court documents that it intends to question the constitutional validity of the Reopening Ontario Act.

The notice of application says that the church is challenging the provincial health guideline that limits weddings, funerals, and religious services to 10 or fewer people in regions of Ontario that are under lockdown like Toronto and Peel Region.

Peter Youngren, the founding pastor of the church, says in an online video that the church's congregation are not COVID-19 deniers and that they have carefully adhered to public health restrictions.

"At a time when many are suffering with isolation, depression, and a sense of despair, the most loving thing a local church can do is throw its doors wide open while maintaining public health standards," said Youngren.

He said that his church's auditorium has capacity for 1,100 people and a maximum attendance of 10 doesn't seem equitable compared to liquor stores and big-box retailers that are still operating at close to capacity.

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

Quote:

Hudson's Bay Co. is asking an Ontario court to review the province's decision to temporarily close non-essential retailers in Toronto and Peel Region.

In a judicial review filed on Thursday, the Toronto-based retailer called the province's approach "unreasonable" and "unfair" and asked to recognize that there is a need for a solution that prioritizes health and safety without jeopardizing the livelihood of thousands of retail workers and the future of many businesses.

The company argued the province's health data shows shoppers are not contributing to the spread of the novel coronavirus in any significant way and pointed out that Premier Doug Ford has even said his regulations are "100 per cent not fair."

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.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As soon as the Public Health Officer testifies that it is a health emergency based on its staff's professional opinion the government has met its onus and then the plaintiff will be required to prove why the office that is the authority is not correct when it has testified it is an emergency. Our courts make rulings on whether or not the right professionals have made a decision, within their mandate, after reviewing the proper evidence. Not likely that anything would convince a Judge to dismiss that opinion for a second opinion because that is not their job.

laine lowe wrote:

But the court ruled that the restriction was not a violation of constitutional rights and that the protection of society as a whole was greater than the individual right to congregate to practice religion. However, I am sure Pallister knows where his bread is buttered and probably suggested that the drive-in approach to religious congregation be allowed. Ditto for some outdoor sports activities.

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.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Yes, we did cringe in Manitoba as outbreak after outbreak happened in Saskatchewan, but I think part of the reason they are doing better than we are is that the virus moved around more freely and there are fewer susceptible people to infect.

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.

Pondering wrote:

No worker should be required to work under unsafe conditions. The idea is to minimize contacts.

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 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? 

I don't know of any official who has promoted the protests. There has been an exceptionally tolerant response because of how sensitive the issue is with recent deaths of minority people piled on decades of abuse. They are protesting deadly injustices. They are not protesting temporary health measures determined necessary by health professionals throughout the world.

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.

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

  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?  

If they pass Covid to their relative it would be dangerous to other residents. Having said that by now there should be ample PPEs so that visits can be done safely. Perhaps a residence could be opened for those willing to take the chance rather than suffer in isolation. Certainly if they are diagnosed with Covid relatives should be able to visit, again wearing PPEs.

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 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? 

What makes you think there has been no impact?

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.

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

  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?

Seatbelts and traffic laws don't save everyone but they save enough people to be worthwhile.  As a rule of thumb mask wearing cuts transmission by 50%.

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 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?"  

Not everyone is following the health guideliines and some people are exposed due to being essential workers.

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.

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

  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. 

I'm not seeing a lot of Covid-19 related arrests. Mostly they are stopping events that can be identified by an unusually large number of cars somewhere at 1 AM. Don't refuse to comply and there won't be a problem.

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.

This trend is encouraging:

Quote:

Public health experts have some straightforward advice for people planning to travel over the holidays: don't.

The warning follows a poll by Abacus Data suggesting 33 per cent of Canadians plan to get together with friends or family outside their households, and 13 per cent are set to travel out of province to do it.

Ottawa has been bucking the provincial pandemic trend by keeping case numbers relatively low, but that will change if people gather over the coming holidays, said Earl Brown, professor emeritus of virology at the University of Ottawa.

Good for them. I support families assessing the situation and coming to a decision that feels right for them. For some families, that will be a Zoom or video visit. For other families, meeting in person is important. I am quite happy to see a non-compliance percentage that high. As the article mentioned, Ottawa is doing quite well with new case numbers. Hopefully if the doom-and-gloom scenario of massive infection increase fails to pass, then these experts are going to start looking sillier and more people are going to start questioning these restrictions.

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

On the issue of being an anti-masker, I get that the rules and regulations around masking are silly given that the spread of covid has continued even with masks mandates in place, and that if you look just at the infection curves, there is no clear point on the curve (i.e. transmission declining, rate of increase slowing down) that points out where the mask mandate went into effect. 

No, you are using straw man arguments. Not a single person that I know of has claimed 100% effectiveness. Even N95 masks only promise to be 95% successful.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswestfall/2020/05/12/new-study-shows-80...

Based on research and scientific models from UC Berkley’s International Computer Science Institute and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, wearing masks can cut the incidence of cases by as much as 80%. “I felt like this was pretty urgent,” says lead researcher, Dr. Dekai Wu (or as he is more commonly known, just DeKai), pointing to a living example of why his scientific model shows significant promise.

Mask mandates work better the more people who follow them but they are not a replacement for social distancing. 

So we have a working hypothesis that a universal mask mandate will reduce transmission by 80%. Let's test that hypothesis against the data. In every sense that matters, that level of compliance with mask wearing became the reality in Winnipeg on September 28. The number of cases went up since then. Melbourne Australia went even further and mandated masks outside, to the point that failure to wear one was punishable by strangulation by cop. Cases continued to increase in Melbourne as well. So that would suggests that masks don't stop the spread. There was also the case of a hair salon in Missouri where some staff went to work while sick. Everybody was wearing masks, and there was no spread. Michael also pointed out in another thread that spread of covid was reduced in particular counties with universal mask mandates. So given real-life data, the best you can say about masks is the evidence is inconclusive.

By the way, that study you cited only talks about mask mandates. It doesn't talk about social distancing or even take into account the influence of influenza season. So it's pretty silly to respond to questions about the mask mandate working by saying, "but people still need to social distance."