Metallikid wrote: OGLife wrote:
Not applicable because that's something someone definitively has something and even then yes, if I am wearing protection or they are taking medication to reduce their viral load below transmission levels. We are being restricted based on a possibility that someone may have it AND are asymptomatic. That is not good enough to say we aren't allowed to gather in close proximity. Freedom of Assembly is a Charter Right. If I'm not not able to assemble and be near people at a distance of my choosing then am I not able to exercise my freedom of assembly - I am being artificially limited. If my dwelling is a one room apartment what kind of assembly am I allowed to have? You can't accept emergency powers becoming laws. They are our fundamental rights and beyond Constitutionally enumerated Charter rights it is a human right to be interact with other humans. You can read any number of books or articles about the importance of up close, face-to-face, human interaction and the necessity of touch for human health. Before the pandemic loneliness and mental illness was a massive problem that online interaction was proven to be no substitute for, and in many cases makes it worse. We are no longer in a state of emergency, the case level is very very low, and those orders will not and cannot be indefinite or long-lasting (like a year). As I said before, whatever damage this virus can do is very much getting to the point where it pales in comparison to the social and psychological damage it is doing to people. Think about all the people who don't have a significant other or family to be with, or people new to the country who don't have anywhere to socialize and make connections, or most of all all the young people whom irreparable harm is being done to by taking away their ability to be with friends, and make friends, have relationships, interact like normal human beings. If you can't see how damaging this then I can't help you. We will have to live with it being endemic eventually, and that means getting on with life as before and knowing that life is a risk - as it always was before the era of anti-biotics - people lived and enjoyed what time they had.
Its funny how you over characterize the mental aspect of this, yet believe that since the amount of cases of COVID are low, therefore no damage can come about from it.
Do you really believe if we allow things to expand that it wouldn't lead to a potential to more exposure?
There are support groups available for people to seek mental assistance during this time.
Let's not also forget how it can affect someone mentally if they got the virus and spread it to a love one, at no fault of their own, which causes the person to pass away.
I'm not going to argue a negative with another negative.
Let me ask you, how long do you think it is acceptable for 'social distancing' to be something mandated?
Support groups are not interaction with other humans in person, they are not a substitute for interaction with people you care about face-to-face - laughing, smiling, not living in fear. I believe that eventually if there is no vaccine then we will have to go with herd immunity and accept the consequences. The fact that cases are low are why there aren't emergency orders - which could come and go. The amount of cases is so low right now that if they paid enough people who need jobs to track and trace every infection properly we could eliminate it altogether. But we aren't, we're being restricted so that businesses can open. The fact is older people are going to bear the brunt of it regardless and as unfortunate as that is, that cannot prevent normal human socialization for the people who are young and younger - if they pass it to a relative and they die, guess what? That happened all the time 75+ years ago with normal flus and colds. People learned to deal with loss, not push it off as long as possible when the result of that is destroying future potential. And old people understood it was wrong to put an incredible burden on the young so that you could perhaps live a few more years. In Inuit culture and other Native cultures old people at a certain point would venture off into the wilderness to die so as not to be a burden.
You will have a damaged generation beyond imagining and most of all people won't stand for it eventually and rebel and do what they want to anyways. There will be protests against it and gatherings anyways. I urge you to understand that there is no such thing as a 'new normal' if that doesn't contain the ability to make friends and relationships and not live in constant fear of other people. There is no more fundamental human experience than looking into another humans face and holding their hand or being shoulder to shoulder. It cannot be replaced. It will destroy us to try.
So it is acceptable to let the old die, because as you believe, we cannot put people younger people in trouble? That's not acceptable.
Also, anyone who's involved mental treatments knows that when they see their counselor or doctor, their sessions are made to improve their interpretation of life. It's not to baby them into believing they cannot overcome their troubles and discourage them from trying.
Plus, I don't care for social studies where technology was not what it is now and what it will be in the future. Everyone knows that technology is there to improve social activities. It makes it much easier for people to interact with each other. Kids tend to use technology over outdoor gatherings moreso than not. This was way before the virus.
We must care about everyone and everyone must play a role in minimizing the spread of the virus until there is a vaccine.