Fairview4Life wrote:
I totally agree. Tawain got this ahit right. Really right and ya, a little bit of rights given up. I have found taiwan to be the best country.
Sorry china. It is.
Moderators: HiJiNX, niQ, Morris_Shatford, DG88, Reeko, lebron stopper, 7 Footer, Duffman100
Fairview4Life wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
markR wrote: haha. Look buddy, I just stay home and drink cheap and eat well. The world could burn outside for all I care. I saved enough for about 10 years. But I'm too young to retire. Or i would. My life is like this lockdown anyway. Only thing I miss is live raptors games. But at least I've seen almost every single best playoff and season ever live. So if I dont see them for a while, I'll live.
ItsDanger wrote:https://youtu.be/uEo3rnU12jw?t=7
Dr. Roger Hodkinson criticizes reaction to covid.
Yosemite Dan wrote:Coincidentally Joseph Goebbels once said” if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”
But I think Mark Twain nailed it “it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Describes half this board to a tee. And it’s really disturbing how easily people can be manipulated.
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
Local_NG_Idiot wrote:Yosemite Dan wrote:Coincidentally Joseph Goebbels once said” if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”
But I think Mark Twain nailed it “it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Describes half this board to a tee. And it’s really disturbing how easily people can be manipulated.
Psychological projection at it's finest here folks.
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
YogiStewart wrote:markR wrote: haha. Look buddy, I just stay home and drink cheap and eat well. The world could burn outside for all I care. I saved enough for about 10 years. But I'm too young to retire. Or i would. My life is like this lockdown anyway. Only thing I miss is live raptors games. But at least I've seen almost every single best playoff and season ever live. So if I dont see them for a while, I'll live.
this is clearly a burner account. password changed in august. account's 1 year old and just started posting. Messiah, is that you? Abercrombie lifestyle?
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
ItsDanger wrote:YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:Pay everyone to stay home for 5 months. What could go wrong? LMAO.
here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
Short sighted? How about detailing economic fallout beyond next 5 months? Tactics employed will have long term effects on many people in a myriad of ways. Not one person has even attempted to explain ramifications of their policies. And there's a good reason for it.
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:YogiStewart wrote:here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
Short sighted? How about detailing economic fallout beyond next 5 months? Tactics employed will have long term effects on many people in a myriad of ways. Not one person has even attempted to explain ramifications of their policies. And there's a good reason for it.
but having 1% of your population die from a virus also has negative economic fallout, as do sick days and long-term health issues and hospitals above capacity (resulting in 50 year olds having heart attacks not being able to get the care they need) etc etc.
don't look at stiff-arm numbers and pretend that A+B=C. that's not how any of this works.
half-assed measures (i.e. what all of canada's done) will only stretch economic pain out and, possibly, have a net negative effect. clamping down for 4-5 weeks will have a net positive result (likely) since you can re-open more things at an earlier time.
not doing a bloody thing (i.e. the US states) will have more deaths, more sick people and be a greater strain to the economy, which is the largest net negative.
also, some of you talk like you don't give a **** if your parents/uncles/aunts/grandparents die from COVID. it's really odd. anyone above 70 and anyone younger with comorbidities are at risk. and once you have a place like a nursing home that's infected to the tits, your staff will likely get infected (with a high viral load) and they'll be at risk.
those of you that keep on saying that nah, this is just the flu, nah, we don't need to lock down...not sure what lessons you aren't learning from Northern Italy, or from Texas right now, or from North Dakota, or from Germany and Belgium shortly, or Sweden, or from New York during its peak. this **** snowballs so damn quick. your 0.1% death rate from covid shoots way the hell up once you strain the system. more people with COVID die and more people without COVID also die as a result from not being able to receive medical care.
YogiStewart wrote:ItsDanger wrote:YogiStewart wrote:here's the problem:
you (and others) make these short-sighted statements without thinking about the pros and cons.
"Let's just open things up!" - look at Texas, Florida, North Dakota, etc etc. in North Dakota, 1 out of every 1000 residents has died. and we're just getting things going.
what could go wrong by paying people to stay home? ask yourself what could go wrong when you have positive testing rates at the 25% level? people can't come to work. food can't get put on the shelves. businesses can't stay open. so why not do a proper 28 day (not 5 month) shut-down, pay businesses to do so, reduce the cost of massive hospitalization and deaths, and reset things? 28 days of proper lockdown will bring our numbers back down (one can argue that it will go down by 75%). do that, open things again with restrictions and, once the numbers inevitably go up 3 months later, close things again. that way, you minimize deaths, you minimize the damage to businesses and you minimize the economic hit.
some of the people (not you in this reply) who are posting here truly are awful human beings who don't understand how society operates. you're basically calling for the euthanization of higher-risk people (seniors, immunocompromised) and possible long-term health consequences for everyone else.
i'm on month 5 since i had COVID. i now have asthma thanks to it. my wife pants after walking up a flight of stairs. we were both healthy and active before it. neither of us have any idea if there's cardiac damage done to us. this is what all of you want?
Short sighted? How about detailing economic fallout beyond next 5 months? Tactics employed will have long term effects on many people in a myriad of ways. Not one person has even attempted to explain ramifications of their policies. And there's a good reason for it.
but having 1% of your population die from a virus also has negative economic fallout, as do sick days and long-term health issues and hospitals above capacity (resulting in 50 year olds having heart attacks not being able to get the care they need) etc etc.
don't look at stiff-arm numbers and pretend that A+B=C. that's not how any of this works.
half-assed measures (i.e. what all of canada's done) will only stretch economic pain out and, possibly, have a net negative effect. clamping down for 4-5 weeks will have a net positive result (likely) since you can re-open more things at an earlier time.
not doing a bloody thing (i.e. the US states) will have more deaths, more sick people and be a greater strain to the economy, which is the largest net negative.
also, some of you talk like you don't give a **** if your parents/uncles/aunts/grandparents die from COVID. it's really odd. anyone above 70 and anyone younger with comorbidities are at risk. and once you have a place like a nursing home that's infected to the tits, your staff will likely get infected (with a high viral load) and they'll be at risk.
those of you that keep on saying that nah, this is just the flu, nah, we don't need to lock down...not sure what lessons you aren't learning from Northern Italy, or from Texas right now, or from North Dakota, or from Germany and Belgium shortly, or Sweden, or from New York during its peak. this **** snowballs so damn quick. your 0.1% death rate from covid shoots way the hell up once you strain the system. more people with COVID die and more people without COVID also die as a result from not being able to receive medical care.
Yosemite Dan wrote:You do realize that about 80 to 85% of that 1% are nursing home residents. I don’t think they would be working. This is what happens when people refuse to think critically.
Like I’ve said before there is 1 Covid ICU patient for almost every 3 hospitals in the province. If cases rose to 10 000 a day and ICU patients rose to 1000 and based on previous trends it would be about 1000 from 10k daily cases, you would still have a little more than 2 ICU patients for every hospital. And that would be the absolute worst case scenario. We would not be overwhelmed. That’s what you get with ICU flu cases every year and since apparently the flu has been way down this year (imagine that) then there in no reason to cancel any surgeries.
Perspective has been totally lost with this fear mongering. And I’ll say once again, no one is forcing to leave the house if you fear 10k cases, stay in your home, order everything online and wait for the vaccine. Im not telling you not to. But don’t force that way of living on people who need to pay thier bills where govt handouts aren’t gonna do it and are willing to take that risk just like the risk people take anytime they get into a car.
Yosemite Dan wrote:Like I’ve said before there is 1 Covid ICU patient for almost every 3 hospitals in the province. If cases rose to 10 000 a day and ICU patients rose to 1000 and based on previous trends it would be about 1000 from 10k daily cases, you would still have a little more than 2 ICU patients for every hospital. And that would be the absolute worst case scenario. We would not be overwhelmed. That’s what you get with ICU flu cases every year and since apparently the flu has been way down this year (imagine that) then there in no reason to cancel any surgeries.
.
YogiStewart wrote:Yosemite Dan wrote:Like I’ve said before there is 1 Covid ICU patient for almost every 3 hospitals in the province. If cases rose to 10 000 a day and ICU patients rose to 1000 and based on previous trends it would be about 1000 from 10k daily cases, you would still have a little more than 2 ICU patients for every hospital. And that would be the absolute worst case scenario. We would not be overwhelmed. That’s what you get with ICU flu cases every year and since apparently the flu has been way down this year (imagine that) then there in no reason to cancel any surgeries.
.
"imagine that", you say, about the flu being down. is it because we're mostly isolating and most of us (likely not you) are not having people in our homes? and we're wearing masks? huh.
your hospital numbers are wrong. figure out how many hospitals are in the GTA. do the math based on positivity testing rates here.
small cities/towns have fewer hospitals. if/when they get hit, it's easier for them to be overwhelmed.
ICUs see non-covid patients as well, so you're assuming no one but COVID patients are in ICU.
the reason we're locking down is because our ICUs are already close to capacity and surgeries are being cancelled. that's not fearmongering - those are facts.
so if we kept the lockdown at current status, it means the spread rate will overwhelm our hospital system. plain and simple.
also incorrect with your numbers: the current ratio of infected:hospitalization is lower than half a year ago because the age is currently skewed to younger people. once the inevitable spread from younger people (you know, the ones that work at grocery stores, or nursing homes) to older people, things will be dire.
Yosemite Dan wrote:YogiStewart wrote:Yosemite Dan wrote:Like I’ve said before there is 1 Covid ICU patient for almost every 3 hospitals in the province. If cases rose to 10 000 a day and ICU patients rose to 1000 and based on previous trends it would be about 1000 from 10k daily cases, you would still have a little more than 2 ICU patients for every hospital. And that would be the absolute worst case scenario. We would not be overwhelmed. That’s what you get with ICU flu cases every year and since apparently the flu has been way down this year (imagine that) then there in no reason to cancel any surgeries.
.
"imagine that", you say, about the flu being down. is it because we're mostly isolating and most of us (likely not you) are not having people in our homes? and we're wearing masks? huh.
your hospital numbers are wrong. figure out how many hospitals are in the GTA. do the math based on positivity testing rates here.
small cities/towns have fewer hospitals. if/when they get hit, it's easier for them to be overwhelmed.
ICUs see non-covid patients as well, so you're assuming no one but COVID patients are in ICU.
the reason we're locking down is because our ICUs are already close to capacity and surgeries are being cancelled. that's not fearmongering - those are facts.
so if we kept the lockdown at current status, it means the spread rate will overwhelm our hospital system. plain and simple.
also incorrect with your numbers: the current ratio of infected:hospitalization is lower than half a year ago because the age is currently skewed to younger people. once the inevitable spread from younger people (you know, the ones that work at grocery stores, or nursing homes) to older people, things will be dire.
So no flu cases because we’re isolating and wearing masks yet covid cases are skyrocketing with the same restrictions. And I’ll guess your next point. Your next point it’s because people are having parties yet those same parties aren’t causing flu#s to spike where younger people do not get flu shots. Your kindergarten logic makes no sense. You can’t have it both ways although I’m sure CNN would approve of it.
ICU units see flu cases as well every winter and since the flu has disappeared with your kindergarten logic that leaves that much more space to attend to ICU covid patients. And yes you can transfer many ICU patients out of smaller hospitals if need be. Toronto General gets the worst Covid Cases and they are continually getting transferred patients from other hospitals. My niece works in the respiratory unit there and in the last 8 months they have never had more than 50% capacity for the worst of the worst and normally at 25% capacity throughout this ordeal.
Italy did that in March when transferring patents out of the harder hit north to southern hospitals and they were not being left to die due to being overwhelmed. Which was confirmed by the Italian health minister in response to a fabricated story by CNN and other networks with zero evidence. Of course CNN didn’t show that press conference like most other MSM. Much like that field morgue picture CNN showed claiming covid patients were being sent there to be buried because they ran out of ground to bury people apparently when it turned out it was a 7 year old picture and it was an area where homeless people are buried.
In 2018 there were 8500 flu related deaths in Canada. My mother in her 70s broke her leg back then and needed to be hospitalized during that flu season and had to lie on a gurney for almost 2 days before getting a room because the hospital (and a major hospital) was over capacity. Almost every year hospitals are over capacity during the winter. It’s only the media that make it sound like it’s the worst thing ever when it happens every year. They conveniently ignore that context.
And overall deaths in Canada in 2020? On the same plane as it’s been for the last decade. A gradual rise year to year but only because the baby boomers are getting older representing a larger portion of the population and the overall death rate is expected to rise incrementally for the next decade. The same rate as in the US where apparently they’ve been ravaged with covid. And before you say that people are staying in thier homes so less risk of dying from different circumstances, that is more than offset by the dramatic rise in suicides and opioid deaths primarily due to these ridiculous lockdowns that target the wrong demographic.
You can spew on with your fear mongering and sky is falling scenarios. I’m just gonna reply with facts and statistics and you’re gonna lose every single time. Sorry