Civil rights and COVID-19

NDPP wrote:

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

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

Are the wheels about to come off the bus?

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Why this recent Canadian military purchase?

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Moriarity wrote:

A Canadian version of Jade Helm perhaps?

This directly from the Government of Canada website:

Quote:

OTICE OF PROPOSED PROCUREMENT

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

Item 1:

Riot Control Agent

GSIN: N1365A – Chemical Agent, Tear Gas

NSN: 1365-00-690-8656

NCAGE: 81349

Quantity: 36,000 Capsules

Unit of Issue: Each

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

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

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

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Someone please bring this campaign to Canada:

Quote:

No Vaccine Passports

No Mask Mandates

No Emergency Law

Open Schools Up 100%

Freedom of commerce, worship, petition

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

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

Speaking of fines:

Quote:

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

Twitter encourages people to listen to the experts:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either:

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

OR

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

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

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

The Toronto Sun weighs in:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Here is how some physicians have responded:

Quote:

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

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

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:

...

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

...

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:

...

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

Quote:

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

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

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

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

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

The Toronto Sun weighs in:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Here is how some physicians have responded:

Quote:

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

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

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:

...

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

...

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:

...

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

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

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

Pondering wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

"We wouldn't remove any options."

Philippines President threatens vaccine refuseniks:

Quote:

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, frustrated by the slow pace of COVID-19 vaccinations in his country, threatened people who refuse to get inoculated with jail or an injection of Ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug widely used to treat animals.

Ivermectin has been touted as an alternative treatment for COVID-19 but U.S. and European regulators and the World Health Organization (WHO) have recommended against it.

"You choose, vaccine or I will have you jailed," Duterte said in a televised address late on Monday, following reports of low turnout at several vaccination sites in the capital Manila.

"But for as long as you are here and you are a human being, and can carry the virus, get vaccinated.

"Otherwise, I will order all the village captains to have a tally of the people who refuse to be vaccinated. Because if not, I will have Ivermectin meant for pigs injected into you."

Aristotleded24 wrote:

this won't be the last time we hear about lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates.

Why do you thimk that would be?

Congratulations to Bonnie Henry and all of us here in BC for having dealt effectively with Covid-19 and for not listening to the lies of the anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers! We should be proud of seeing through the lies of the loony paranoid conspiracy theorists! It wonderful that we've been vaccinated in such high numbers!