OT: COVID-19 Ontario 2nd Wave Thread

[Lord_Zedd]

You clearly don't think through your dumbass world views.

I’ve only been skimming the thread since it’s really blown up again the last few weeks, but between you, Yogi, Maddog, and a couple others, I’ve lost count of how many times anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint has been called a dumbass, moron, miserable etc.


There are plenty of much more intelligent and well educated people than you or I that feel the lockdowns have done and continue to do more damage than they are preventing, and that protecting the vulnerable while allowing others to continue working, socializing, and going to school is the correct strategy and overall more beneficial health wise to society.

Protecting the vulnerable...that term gets used so often. By doing whatever we can do to keep case numbers low...we are protecting the vulnerable. Like I said...the vulnerable aren't just the seniors...so it's not as simple as just locking down retirement homes and long term care facilities.

The vulnerable are everywhere in the population. They also have to work and contribute to society. Who's protecting them?

People who are anti-lockdown/covid keeps mentioning about "protecting the elderly or vulnerable", provides a long winded explanation as why we should, yet without saying how.

Here's one way how - avoid crowds and gatherings, social distance, wear a mask.

Mentioning any of these mitigation methods somehow becomes a personal attack on their rights. When you try to argue about it, no matter what the cause, they always conclude that you are either:

- A fearmongerer
- A sheep
- A communist

Textbook example here in this thread is some poster knowing a co-worker who was partying it up while working in a LTC home. While many of us questioned why, the covid deniers here mentioned "freedom" and in the end, we got called a communist.

[Raps in 4]

I’ve only been skimming the thread since it’s really blown up again the last few weeks, but between you, Yogi, Maddog, and a couple others, I’ve lost count of how many times anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint has been called a dumbass, moron, miserable etc.


There are plenty of much more intelligent and well educated people than you or I that feel the lockdowns have done and continue to do more damage than they are preventing, and that protecting the vulnerable while allowing others to continue working, socializing, and going to school is the correct strategy and overall more beneficial health wise to society.

Protecting the vulnerable...that term gets used so often. By doing whatever we can do to keep case numbers low...we are protecting the vulnerable. Like I said...the vulnerable aren't just the seniors...so it's not as simple as just locking down retirement homes and long term care facilities.

The vulnerable are everywhere in the population. They also have to work and contribute to society. Who's protecting them?

People who are anti-lockdown/covid keeps mentioning about "protecting the elderly or vulnerable", provides a long winded explanation as why we should, yet without saying how.

Here's one way how - avoid crowds and gatherings, social distance, wear a mask.

Mentioning any of these mitigation methods somehow becomes a personal attack on their rights. When you try to argue about it, no matter what the cause, they always conclude that you are either:

- A fearmongerer
- A sheep
- A communist

Textbook example here in this thread is some poster knowing a co-worker who was partying it up while working in a LTC home. While many of us questioned why, the covid deniers here mentioned "freedom" and in the end, we got called a communist.

The right has completely lost the plot here (as usual). A conservative MP had this to say yesterday in response to Trudeau saying the pandemic recovery will force the economy to change, giving us an opportunity to focus on poverty reduction and climate change.

The international financial elites love socialist politics because it allows them and the governments they influence to have more control

You heard it here first. The financial elites love socialism!

[NBA Sheady]

There are plenty of much more intelligent and well educated people than you or I that feel the lockdowns have done and continue to do more damage than they are preventing, and that protecting the vulnerable while allowing others to continue working, socializing, and going to school is the correct strategy and overall more beneficial health wise to society.

If you can't look at countries like Sweden that have done this and understand how all available metrics indicate it was a failure then there is nothing to be said. You simply are incapable of grasping the situation.

[NBA Sheady]

[
You're right there are many people who are at higher risk to the virus, BUT somehow after all this time 87% of all covid deaths in Canada are still 70 years of age and older. If you include 60-70 age group then 96% of all covid deaths are happening to seniors.

taking Manitoba's data, which didn't have a first wave and is getting hit now with one big wave:

MANITOBA COVID-19 UPDATE NOV. 24:
- 476 new
- 14,558 total
- 8,677 act
- 248 dead (M: 2-100s, 16-90s, 46-80s, 34-70s, 14-60s, 5-50s, 4-40s, 30s, 20s, W: 2-100s, 30-90s, 43-80s, 17-70s, 12-60s, 6-50s, 2-40s, 30s)

that's 44% under 80.
23% are under 70.

so for this mass euthanasia you're calling for, what's the age cut-off to make you happy?

and what you and the "others" fail to understand is the snowball effect once ICUs are overrun. death rates spike for covid and non-covid patients. once the system is overwhelmed, you're looking at poorer survival rates, and that's where we're always heading without lockdowns. plain and simple.

Why would you pick such a ridiculously small sample size to try and prove your point when there is so much other data out there?

And this post is the perfect example of acting like your view is gospel for some unknown reason. Would some healthcare systems be overwhelmed without a lockdown? Yes. Is that some sort of definite inevitability for every country, state, province, etc? No

Sweden has never locked down.

Sweden's deaths per 100K: 58
Canada's: 26
Sweden's neighbors Finland and Norway: 6 & 5 respectively

Sweden has objectively failed by all available metrics. If you disagree post some metrics.

You're campaigning for an approach that would kill tens of thousands of Canadians. Who among your family and friends are you willing to sacrifice?

[NBA Sheady]

Protecting the vulnerable...that term gets used so often. By doing whatever we can do to keep case numbers low...we are protecting the vulnerable. Like I said...the vulnerable aren't just the seniors...so it's not as simple as just locking down retirement homes and long term care facilities.

The vulnerable are everywhere in the population. They also have to work and contribute to society. Who's protecting them?

I’m not against helpful and reasonable restrictions put in place to help stop the spread. I just think a blanket lockdown is lazy at this point given all we know, and likely does more harm than good. Hair salons for example. All the studies I have seen show that the risk of spreading it is minimal at best when both parties are wearing a mask, so why not allow them to continue operating with the safety protocols in place?

Wavy Cuts on Dundas & Dovercourt. Each time I walked by there were 3-4 people in their shop unmasked. Many times it was the barber and the person getting a cut.

I reported them several times and nothing was done.

So you probably have a point that 'it can be done' but what we've seen in practice is that people are stupid and selfish and now we've been forced to lockdown again.

[NBA Sheady]

I also can’t believe anyone brought up Sweden as a success story again. Their whole plan of a lower second wave because of natural herd immunity has blown up in their faces and they have had to now limit gatherings to 8 people or lower.

Again how has Sweden 'failed'

People who didn't need to die have died. I don't know if that can be reduced or simplified any further.

[NBA Sheady]

The financial elites love socialism!

Sadly, very few on this board will understand how hilarious this is.

[Johnny Bball]

[
You're right there are many people who are at higher risk to the virus, BUT somehow after all this time 87% of all covid deaths in Canada are still 70 years of age and older. If you include 60-70 age group then 96% of all covid deaths are happening to seniors.

taking Manitoba's data, which didn't have a first wave and is getting hit now with one big wave:

MANITOBA COVID-19 UPDATE NOV. 24:
- 476 new
- 14,558 total
- 8,677 act
- 248 dead (M: 2-100s, 16-90s, 46-80s, 34-70s, 14-60s, 5-50s, 4-40s, 30s, 20s, W: 2-100s, 30-90s, 43-80s, 17-70s, 12-60s, 6-50s, 2-40s, 30s)

that's 44% under 80.
23% are under 70.

so for this mass euthanasia you're calling for, what's the age cut-off to make you happy?

and what you and the "others" fail to understand is the snowball effect once ICUs are overrun. death rates spike for covid and non-covid patients. once the system is overwhelmed, you're looking at poorer survival rates, and that's where we're always heading without lockdowns. plain and simple.

Why would you pick such a ridiculously small sample size to try and prove your point when there is so much other data out there?

And this post is the perfect example of acting like your view is gospel for some unknown reason. Would some healthcare systems be overwhelmed without a lockdown? Yes. Is that some sort of definite inevitability for every country, state, province, etc? No

Sweden has never locked down. They have made recommendations, limited mass gatherings, asked people to follow hand washing and social distance protocols. They haven’t closed schools, restaurants, businesses etc and have yet to have their healthcare system overrun 8 months later.

The vast majority of their deaths have been in long term care homes, which they have acknowledged weren’t protected as well as they should have been (just like here), but their death rate for the general population has been right in line with Ontario’s despite our various lockdowns.

You also used Sweden as an example as a country that is currently out of control in a different post for some reason, when in actuality, their 2nd wave has been much less severe than most other countries.

A few months ago their death rate was in the top 10, they’ve now dropped to 23rd and continue falling.

The highest deaths per day their 7 day rolling average has hit during their 2nd wave was 26 on Nov 13, and appears that may have been the peak as it is 14 as of today. Canada’s is at 76 today despite the different lockdowns, right in line with Sweden’s peak when adjusting for population, but Canada’s looks to be increasing for at least the next little while.

Sweden is on their way to completely locking down their major cities. This will be their last attempt at a half measure.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lockdown-u-turn-in-sweden-as-covid-19-cases-soar-and-herd-immunity-hopes-falter

[Hero]

How do these guidelines make sense for the holidays.

The rates are so different in different parts of the province. Why would the guidelines not be different for Peel vs Thunder Bay or Cornwall.

[Clay Davis]

How do these guidelines make sense for the holidays.

The rates are so different in different parts of the province. Why would the guidelines not be different for Peel vs Thunder Bay or Cornwall.

Premiere Cheesecake has a 'one slice fits every mouth' approach

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using RealGM mobile app

[M3tro]

I’ve only been skimming the thread since it’s really blown up again the last few weeks, but between you, Yogi, Maddog, and a couple others, I’ve lost count of how many times anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint has been called a dumbass, moron, miserable etc.

Cool, you must have skimmed past the post where the people who don’t think allowing a highly infectious novel virus to spread out of control across a dense population were compared to Germans who supported nazis. Weird how you missed that or all the sneering derision about sheep and government stooges. But go off and pretend you’re just free thinking martyrs preaching to closed minded fools. FOH with that mewling pleading for special treatment.

The truth hurts.

I'm glad that struck a chord with you.

[YogiStewart]

Read on Twitter

that's 2% death rate. where are the "bUt iT KiLLs oNlY 0.01% oF pEEpLe" posters? i'd like to hear their thoughts on this.

[jaymeister15]

Sweden is on their way to completely locking down their major cities. This will be their last attempt at a half measure.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lockdown-u-turn-in-sweden-as-covid-19-cases-soar-and-herd-immunity-hopes-falter

What part of that article other than the headline states hey are on the way to a lockdown?

-The limit on public gatherings is cut from 50 people to eight and applies to events such as concerts and sports matches. Those arranging public events exceeding eight people now face fines or even imprisonment.
-Restaurants are restricted to a maximum of eight diners per table.
-Schools, workplaces, and private gatherings are exempt from the ban but Löfven urged Swedes to adhere to the new eight-person limit.

The new measures should not be interpreted as being the beginning of a hard lockdown of the sort in place in Britain, Lofven said. “We do not believe in a total lockdown, we believe that the measures we are putting in place are the right ones,” he said.

These are the same type of measures they took in the spring to slow down the spread while trying to avoid the downside of a full lock down. I think those guidelines are a reasonable balance and had no issue while we had similar ones here.

That also doesn't change the fact their healthcare system hasn't been overwhelmed, which was my point in responding to his statement that anywhere that doesn't lock down is going to have an overrun healthcare system.

[jaymeister15]

Sweden's deaths per 100K: 58
Canada's: 26
Sweden's neighbors Finland and Norway: 6 & 5 respectively

Sweden has objectively failed by all available metrics. If you disagree post some metrics.

You're campaigning for an approach that would kill tens of thousands of Canadians. Who among your family and friends are you willing to sacrifice?

None of these countries are particularly comparable when talking about the spread of a virus.

Sweden's population density is 25 people per square KM

Canada's is 4 people per square KM---albeit that includes vast pieces of basically empty land in the territories, but even if you just want to compare to Ontario, Ontario's is 14 people per square KM

Norway and Finland have about 8 million less people than Sweden with a population density of 18 and 15 per square KM


Regardless, I could pick and choose several countries with much higher death rates that aren't otherwise very comparable which would prove just as much of a point as you picking ones with lower death rates----France, Belgium, Italy, UK, spain

A few weeks ago when this came up last time, you said all you had to look at it was that their death rate was 14th highest and that's proof it they failed. Their second wave hasn't been as small as they were hoping, but it is still a lot better then a lot of countries that instituted lockdowns. Since then, they have dropped down to 23rd and will most likely continue dropping over the upcoming weeks.

What if they were to drop down to 30th? 35th? 40th? Would you then start to consider there was some merit to their strategy

[Johnny Bball]

Sweden is on their way to completely locking down their major cities. This will be their last attempt at a half measure.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lockdown-u-turn-in-sweden-as-covid-19-cases-soar-and-herd-immunity-hopes-falter

What part of that article other than the headline states hey are on the way to a lockdown?

-The limit on public gatherings is cut from 50 people to eight and applies to events such as concerts and sports matches. Those arranging public events exceeding eight people now face fines or even imprisonment.
-Restaurants are restricted to a maximum of eight diners per table.
-Schools, workplaces, and private gatherings are exempt from the ban but Löfven urged Swedes to adhere to the new eight-person limit.

The new measures should not be interpreted as being the beginning of a hard lockdown of the sort in place in Britain, Lofven said. “We do not believe in a total lockdown, we believe that the measures we are putting in place are the right ones,” he said.

These are the same type of measures they took in the spring to slow down the spread while trying to avoid the downside of a full lock down. I think those guidelines are a reasonable balance and had no issue while we had similar ones here.

That also doesn't change the fact their healthcare system hasn't been overwhelmed, which was my point in responding to his statement that anywhere that doesn't lock down is going to have an overrun healthcare system.

Did you even try to understand what I wrote? When this fails to slow it enough, they have no more wiggle room left for half measures. And their ICU beds are filling up. One more doubling period should do it and then maybe finally you will stop holding Sweden up as some shining example that it is not, with or without a far more educated and orderly population.

Lol that none of those countries are comparable. Swedes themselves where comparing themselves to their neighbours.

[bballsparkin]

People who are anti-lockdown/covid keeps mentioning about "protecting the elderly or vulnerable", provides a long winded explanation as why we should, yet without saying how.

Here's one way how - avoid crowds and gatherings, social distance, wear a mask.

Mentioning any of these mitigation methods somehow becomes a personal attack on their rights. When you try to argue about it, no matter what the cause, they always conclude that you are either:

- A fearmongerer
- A sheep
- A communist

Textbook example here in this thread is some poster knowing a co-worker who was partying it up while working in a LTC home. While many of us questioned why, the covid deniers here mentioned "freedom" and in the end, we got called a communist.

I don't really see many doubting the efficacy of wearing masks? It's more some of the decisions the government makes. Like why are small stores not allowed to allow limited costumers while superstores like Walmart and Costco are? Why can't businesses sell beer and food outside if they have the proper set up and are careful to sanitize? I had a beer on Friday outdoors and a fellow was walking around looking like a member of Ghostbusters spraying everywhere once the table was vacated. Or wondering how effective is closing down parts of the GTA while others are not? I don't see why it's so wrong to question decisions that effect our everyday lives. My main beef has been the decisions and announcements made via what we do outside. Which all things considered is fairly safe and is vital to good health.

And what you noticed goes both ways. Apparently anyone audacious enough to question the decisions of our "great esteemed leaders" in Ford and Trudeau seem to be deemed by some as low IQ anti-masking super-spreaders. And not only ignorant morons but EVIL!

[Johnny Bball]

How do these guidelines make sense for the holidays.

The rates are so different in different parts of the province. Why would the guidelines not be different for Peel vs Thunder Bay or Cornwall.

What? Every single region is doing different things based on case load and not following the same blanket rules. Where does this "blanket approach" come from? Is there something that's being fed to people in their news that keeps wrongly quoting that?

[jaymeister15]

I also can’t believe anyone brought up Sweden as a success story again. Their whole plan of a lower second wave because of natural herd immunity has blown up in their faces and they have had to now limit gatherings to 8 people or lower.

Again how has Sweden 'failed'

People who didn't need to die have died. I don't know if that can be reduced or simplified any further.

Their plan was never to obtain natural herd immunity. It was to take measures while waiting for a vaccine (social distancing, limit large events, gathering amounts, etc.) to slow the spread while also attempting to avoid the downfalls of a full lockdown.

Could they have had less deaths, particularly in nursing homes, with a full lockdown? Probably

But, lockdowns also cause deaths. They are a lot harder to quantitate, but they are there. How many people with mental health issues who took their own life during the initial lockdown would still be here if it wasn't for the feelings of isolation and lack of support caused by it? How many people will end up in poverty with the related health affects because they had to permanently close their business or their employer did?

[Johnny Bball]

Again how has Sweden 'failed'

People who didn't need to die have died. I don't know if that can be reduced or simplified any further.

Their plan was never to obtain natural herd immunity. It was to take measures while waiting for a vaccine (social distancing, limit large events, gathering amounts, etc.) to slow the spread while also attempting to avoid the downfalls of a full lockdown.

Could they have had less deaths, particularly in nursing homes, with a full lockdown? Probably

But, lockdowns also cause deaths. They are a lot harder to quantitate, but they are there. How many people with mental health issues who took their own life during the initial lockdown would still be here if it wasn't for the feelings of isolation and lack of support caused by it? How many people will end up in poverty with the related health affects because they had to permanently close their business or their employer did?

Flat out 100% wrong.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Here's the curve you're holding up as an example.

[jaymeister15]

What? Every single region is doing different things based on case load and not following the same blanket rules. Where does this "blanket approach" come from? Is there something that's being fed to people in their news that keeps wrongly quoting that?

It's been all over the news today, nothing is being misquoted

https://www.cp24.com/news/all-residents-of-ontario-should-only-celebrate-holidays-with-members-of-own-household-ford-says-1.5203559