Service Suspension Notice

[RippleRock]

It's an embarrassing time to be a Canadian.

We have procured the highest number of doses in the world, yet we can't seem to figure out how to get them in peoples arms. We're sitting around 1% to 1.5% while some US states like West Virginia are approaching 10% of their population vaccinated. Don't even look at the UK numbers. They are leaving us in the dust. Both Lithuania and Slovenia doing a better job.

Maybe America can come and save us from our own ineptitude late this spring. One can hope.

[Zaibatsu]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

[RippleRock]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

[EPR]

Trudeau "ordered like a dozen shots per Canadian" because he fucked up. He was negligent in securing anything at all, and when it became apparent he had no deals in place he had to fan out and make all the deals...

Minister responsible? Career academic... Experience in procurement and logistics and getting the job done? Nil.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Canadians to get vaccinated.

Not a Trudeau fan, but not sure about that.

I believe part of the rational was not to put all the eggs in one or two baskets in case some of the potential vaccines failed in development.

That's my main point! Trudeau did put all his eggs in one basket, and unfortunately for us it was with China...and they ultimately reneged after long negotiations,(Dec-Apr), all the while the rest of the world were securing deliveries from Pfizer and Moderno, which put us as a Country at the back of the line for approved vaccines! Meanwhile life continues on lock-down and our seniors die due to lack of vaccines! Every Province will be out of available vaccine within a few days from now, do you understand the problem now? Trudeau didn't order enough vaccine never mind soon enough...complete failure! antiplano and Ripplerock have it figured out, too bad the rest of the Country seem to have their "head in their ass"! #NotEnoughVaccine

[RippleRock]

.

[Dh8Classic]

Trudeau "ordered like a dozen shots per Canadian" because he fucked up. He was negligent in securing anything at all, and when it became apparent he had no deals in place he had to fan out and make all the deals...

Minister responsible? Career academic... Experience in procurement and logistics and getting the job done? Nil.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Canadians to get vaccinated.

Not a Trudeau fan, but not sure about that.

I believe part of the rational was not to put all the eggs in one or two baskets in case some of the potential vaccines failed in development.

That's my main point! Trudeau did put all his eggs in one basket, and unfortunately for us it was with China...and they ultimately reneged after long negotiations,(Dec-Apr), all the while the rest of the world were securing deliveries from Pfizer and Moderno, which put us as a Country at the back of the line for approved vaccines! Meanwhile life continues on lock-down and our seniors die due to lack of vaccines! Every Province will be out of available vaccine within a few days from now, do you understand the problem now? Trudeau didn't order enough vaccine never mind soon enough...complete failure! antiplano and Ripplerock have it figured out, too bad the rest of the Country seem to have their "head in their ass"! #NotEnoughVaccine

Does anybody remember this ad from a few years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iat7MD_TdLI

It was bang on. But all kinds of people, including on this forum voted for him for feel good BS policies and perhaps to get a taxpayers subsidy.

The result of your stupid votes:

Much more death and economic destruction than could have been.

Congratulations for ignoring the warnings.

[Inverted2]

Well if you voted for that goof then you deserve everything coming your way. Can’t even say nice hair anymore. He looks like a homeless drifter now.

[Old fella]

Oh well..... guess it’s Aryan O’Foole to our rescue riding in on his white stallion to save us all and gonna “ Take Canada Back”.

[flyingjerry]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

[bobcaygeon]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

If just one person lying on their questionnaire (close contact only with traveller from UK) can infect 200 people with the UK B117 strain of COVID in a LTC facility in Barrie it's pretty tough to actually forecast what would have happened if we'd done nothing but it's pretty clear it would have been very ugly. If we'd done nothing do you really think air travel would have been unaffected if other countries felt precautions were actually required and they closed the borders like Canada did to the UK? Whether fatal or not the healthcare system would have been overloaded and likely have collapsed as these people would still ended up on ventilators whether it's COVID related or not.

[RippleRock]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

I've got a pretty firm grip on statistics groundedjerry. A full 90% of the victims of Covid are over 70 and most are in their 80's......and the last time I checked, 70-75 was a "pretty good run". You've pretty much "done what you're gonna do". So what do we do in 2060 when we have a virus runs through our 120 year olds and cleans them out? Shut everything down again???

The loss of one person in 2150 who isn't likely a contributing taxpayer, was likely over 80, abandoned by their own family in a LTC facility to die, and likely would have died with the next year or two anyway---is what it is---.

If this virus was killing---any number---of healthy young people with decades of life left it would have been far more palatable to watch Canadians get buried under an unrecoverable mountain of Federal debt, massive job losses, suicide rates rising, domestic abuse running amok, graduations cancelled, lives turned upside down, confused and isolated children, seniors dying of pure loneliness, businesses collapsing and an apparent endless sense of hopelessness set in for millions. This is a year or two that NONE of us will ever get back, and we will be paying for this for decades to come. Hundreds of thousands will never, ever recover what was lost.

[BTD]

It’s easier to do in the US because they have 400,000+ citizens and counting that will never need it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

But good thing Spirit or whoever is hiring!

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

It could be said, given your statements above, that you don't understand arguments and burdens of proof. For Example.

by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low.

That is a claim that only warrants belief once you have provided evidence to support it. You haven't provided that evidence, and there is some evidence studies which I have linked below, which provide data to support that lockdowns have not reduced growth or mortality. You would need a control group to test against that shows the difference between lockdowns and no lockdowns. The only close enough reference we have to do that with is Sweden. There are problems comparing Sweden with other countries but on an overall scale Sweden's Deaths/Million are worse then some that have implemented restrictive measures, and better than others.

...because that number could have been significantly higher.

Again another claim which needs to be demonstrated. Could it have been higher? Maybe. Could it have been lower? Maybe.

If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Again another claim. Not supported by evidence at least not here.

To be clear. I am not saying you are wrong about these claims. I am simply saying that you haven't given us a rational reason to believe them. And until such time as you do, I have no reason to believe your claims. You (or someone) needs to propose a mechanism for why lockdowns work, and then show the evidence to support that position.

Here are some evidenced based studies that show lockdowns have limited or minimal effect on mortality. There are others, showing lockdown may have more detrimental effects overall then the virus itself.

LANCET-LOCKDOWN-NO-MORTALITY-BENEFIT-A-country-level-analysis-measuring-the-impact-of-government-actions
LOCKDOWN-NIH-Impact-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-against-COVID-19-in-Europe
BMJ-Effect-of-school-closures-on-mortality-from-coronavirus-disease-2019-old-and-new-predictions
Did-Lockdown-Work-An-Economists-Cross-Country-Comparison
PANDA-Exploring-inter-country-coronavirus-mortality

There are others. Google them by title or they are grouped together here
https://thefatemperor.com/published-pap ... uge-harms/

For those that are not interested in actually reading the multitude of data, here is a picture from one that is pretty eye opening.

Screenshot 2021-01-22 125404.png (66.05 KiB) Viewed 2866 times

[montado]

Lockdown effective in Ontario? I’m no expert but I think the lockdown has done very little to stop the spread. Closing small businesses probably very limited in effectiveness.

We should have some experts examine this in depth. From what I see with contact tracing the biggest spread is with healthcare workers, their families, close contacts and LTC homes. I don’t see how going to Home Depot is risky at all with some basic measures like physical distancing and hand washing.

I think the policy against business has been very ineffective. The current curfew rules in Ontario can help but it all depends on compliance... I don’t see things as lockdowns work... numbers seem to spike after holidays and then come back down afterwards. So yes lockdown is effective if people actually reduce contact with family, that’s not rocket science I don’t think...

Maybe if governments focused on the real culprits and got rid of the stupid measures that don’t make as much sense compliance would be greater? Tackle the big issues and don’t micro manage the pandemic. Don’t tell people it’s mandatory to wear masks everywhere in public and allow people to make decisions for themselves. Is that to dangerous? Only feels dangerous because people are resisting idiotic policies... like the latest in Winnipeg that government employees are allowed to go to their gyms at work with safety measures in place, but the regular gyms for the public are forced to close... how is anyone to take government seriously?

Less policy overall, and tackle the big issues, that’s my opinion. At this point it’s a toss up of whether 90 percent of our policy has had any effectiveness at all, Sweden’s approach while not perfect could teach the rest of us some good lessons about pandemics.

[mbav8r]

340,000,000 / 400,000 = 1 in 850 people
I wouldn't claim that as even a minor dent.

Canada just doesn't have it's $hit together. All we're good at is making tax dollars vanish....hundreds and hundreds of billions. Pray to whatever God you have that interest rates stay low for our nation's sake.

Here's something to think about:

There are 38,000,000 people in Canada. Of that number, in the last 9 months 18,300 have passed so far of "Covid related" complications.
Now.....

Divide 38,000,000 by 18,300 and you have about 2076 people. So one person in 2076 has passed in the last 9 months due to a link to Covid. Approximately 12% of Canadians are over the age of 80, so that's about +-250 of those 2076......... AND chances are 75% that that one person in 2076 who passed was older than 80. So we bring everything to a screeching halt.

Just food for thought.

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

I've got a pretty firm grip on statistics groundedjerry. A full 90% of the victims of Covid are over 70 and most are in their 80's......and the last time I checked, 70-75 was a "pretty good run". You've pretty much "done what you're gonna do". So what do we do in 2060 when we have a virus runs through our 120 year olds and cleans them out? Shut everything down again???

The loss of one person in 2150 who isn't likely a contributing taxpayer, was likely over 80, abandoned by their own family in a LTC facility to die, and likely would have died with the next year or two anyway---is what it is---.

If this virus was killing---any number---of healthy young people with decades of life left it would have been far more palatable to watch Canadians get buried under an unrecoverable mountain of Federal debt, massive job losses, suicide rates rising, domestic abuse running amok, graduations cancelled, lives turned upside down, confused and isolated children, seniors dying of pure loneliness, businesses collapsing and an apparent endless sense of hopelessness set in for millions. This is a year or two that NONE of us will ever get back, and we will be paying for this for decades to come. Hundreds of thousands will never, ever recover what was lost.

Holy @#$!, what is wrong with you! Besides the callousness of your attitude does your “grip on statistics” factor in the numbers ARE with the precautions and the numbers of younger deaths goes up with relaxed restrictions, you can look around the globe for various examples.
Not to mention, the less you do, the less available hospital beds for other illnesses of young taxpayers.
So, in your fucked up mind, if you’re over what, 75 you die a slow excruciating death in the place your family dropped to die? Or do you at least get put into a coma and on a ventilator for a slightly slower but less painful death? Just curious how far your anti social mentality goes!

[BTD]

You clearly don't understand 2 concepts: Exponential growth and opportunity cost.

Exponential growth is how viruses spread, by implementing restrictive measures we dramatically slowed the growth, and kept infections and therefore deaths relatively low. You can't just look back and be like "ONLY 2000 people DIED AND WE STOPPED EVERYTHING!" because that number could have been significantly higher.

Opportunity Cost - sure, the government dished out billions of dollars to implement these measures and therefore save lives, but lets be honest. If they didn't many, many more people would have died, AND people would have lost their jobs/incomes.

Get a grip.

I've got a pretty firm grip on statistics groundedjerry. A full 90% of the victims of Covid are over 70 and most are in their 80's......and the last time I checked, 70-75 was a "pretty good run". You've pretty much "done what you're gonna do". So what do we do in 2060 when we have a virus runs through our 120 year olds and cleans them out? Shut everything down again???

The loss of one person in 2150 who isn't likely a contributing taxpayer, was likely over 80, abandoned by their own family in a LTC facility to die, and likely would have died with the next year or two anyway---is what it is---.

If this virus was killing---any number---of healthy young people with decades of life left it would have been far more palatable to watch Canadians get buried under an unrecoverable mountain of Federal debt, massive job losses, suicide rates rising, domestic abuse running amok, graduations cancelled, lives turned upside down, confused and isolated children, seniors dying of pure loneliness, businesses collapsing and an apparent endless sense of hopelessness set in for millions. This is a year or two that NONE of us will ever get back, and we will be paying for this for decades to come. Hundreds of thousands will never, ever recover what was lost.

Holy @#$!, what is wrong with you! Besides the callousness of your attitude does your “grip on statistics” factor in the numbers ARE with the precautions and the numbers of younger deaths goes up with relaxed restrictions, you can look around the globe for various examples.
Not to mention, the less you do, the less available hospital beds for other illnesses of young taxpayers.
So, in your fucked up mind, if you’re over what, 75 you die a slow excruciating death in the place your family dropped to die? Or do you at least get put into a coma and on a ventilator for a slightly slower but less painful death? Just curious how far your anti social mentality goes!

I’m not going to jump on the let’s just let 75 year olds die because they are old. The question is, is the lockdown policy effective, and does it impact overall health related issues in other negative ways.

Please reference a study that shows how much higher deaths are with no lockdown policy. Otherwise it is just a claim that isn’t substantiated. Above I referenced some studies showing lockdown isn’t effective.

Just as a lead in point, I can also demonstrate that at least in some cases the modelling was off by a factor of 6-10 even when they were modelling for the restrictions that we in fact followed.

[bobcaygeon]

A visit to Home Depot shouldn't increase the risk but it's a percentage of the population can't follow basic instructions or follow even the simplest of rules.

If you're going to abandon the +75 group make sure you remove that generation's contributions to our society. No one under 30 has even come close to contributing enough in their lifetime to pay for the infrastructure and health care system in this country.

[mbav8r]

I've got a pretty firm grip on statistics groundedjerry. A full 90% of the victims of Covid are over 70 and most are in their 80's......and the last time I checked, 70-75 was a "pretty good run". You've pretty much "done what you're gonna do". So what do we do in 2060 when we have a virus runs through our 120 year olds and cleans them out? Shut everything down again???

The loss of one person in 2150 who isn't likely a contributing taxpayer, was likely over 80, abandoned by their own family in a LTC facility to die, and likely would have died with the next year or two anyway---is what it is---.

If this virus was killing---any number---of healthy young people with decades of life left it would have been far more palatable to watch Canadians get buried under an unrecoverable mountain of Federal debt, massive job losses, suicide rates rising, domestic abuse running amok, graduations cancelled, lives turned upside down, confused and isolated children, seniors dying of pure loneliness, businesses collapsing and an apparent endless sense of hopelessness set in for millions. This is a year or two that NONE of us will ever get back, and we will be paying for this for decades to come. Hundreds of thousands will never, ever recover what was lost.

Holy @#$!, what is wrong with you! Besides the callousness of your attitude does your “grip on statistics” factor in the numbers ARE with the precautions and the numbers of younger deaths goes up with relaxed restrictions, you can look around the globe for various examples.
Not to mention, the less you do, the less available hospital beds for other illnesses of young taxpayers.
So, in your fucked up mind, if you’re over what, 75 you die a slow excruciating death in the place your family dropped to die? Or do you at least get put into a coma and on a ventilator for a slightly slower but less painful death? Just curious how far your anti social mentality goes!

I’m not going to jump on the let’s just let 75 year olds die because they are old. The question is, is the lockdown policy effective, and does it impact overall health related issues in other negative ways.

Please reference a study that shows how much higher deaths are with no lockdown policy. Otherwise it is just a claim that isn’t substantiated. Above I referenced some studies showing lockdown isn’t effective.

Just as a lead in point, I can also demonstrate that at least in some cases the modelling was off by a factor of 6-10 even when they were modelling for the restrictions that we in fact followed.

As you also pointed out, there are no studies and I would argue impossible to study this responsibly.
How about anecdotally, Manitoba was on a very troubling trajectory and locked down with beefed up enforcement, now we have numbers low enough to start opening up responsibly. Allowing retail at 25% but not restaurants, logic based on short duration at retail with masks on, long stay at the restaurant without masks.
Our hospitals were overrun, now they have started scheduling surgeries again, it took about two months despite the ones who did not follow the rules, 500 positive cases with about 3000 close contacts from holiday gatherings, how many did it but got away with it. If not for that the lockdown could have been eased a little sooner.
Thankfully it’s not you making the decisions, if lockdowns don’t work, why do the numbers go up when eased and go down when enacted?

[BTD]

Holy @#$!, what is wrong with you! Besides the callousness of your attitude does your “grip on statistics” factor in the numbers ARE with the precautions and the numbers of younger deaths goes up with relaxed restrictions, you can look around the globe for various examples.
Not to mention, the less you do, the less available hospital beds for other illnesses of young taxpayers.
So, in your fucked up mind, if you’re over what, 75 you die a slow excruciating death in the place your family dropped to die? Or do you at least get put into a coma and on a ventilator for a slightly slower but less painful death? Just curious how far your anti social mentality goes!

I’m not going to jump on the let’s just let 75 year olds die because they are old. The question is, is the lockdown policy effective, and does it impact overall health related issues in other negative ways.

Please reference a study that shows how much higher deaths are with no lockdown policy. Otherwise it is just a claim that isn’t substantiated. Above I referenced some studies showing lockdown isn’t effective.

Just as a lead in point, I can also demonstrate that at least in some cases the modelling was off by a factor of 6-10 even when they were modelling for the restrictions that we in fact followed.

As you also pointed out, there are no studies and I would argue impossible to study this responsibly.
How about anecdotally, Manitoba was on a very troubling trajectory and locked down with beefed up enforcement, now we have numbers low enough to start opening up responsibly. Allowing retail at 25% but not restaurants, logic based on short duration at retail with masks on, long stay at the restaurant without masks.
Our hospitals were overrun, now they have started scheduling surgeries again, it took about two months despite the ones who did not follow the rules, 500 positive cases with about 3000 close contacts from holiday gatherings, how many did it but got away with it. If not for that the lockdown could have been eased a little sooner.
Thankfully it’s not you making the decisions, if lockdowns don’t work, why do the numbers go up when eased and go down when enacted?

Argument from incredulity much?

We have had this discussion before. You don’t just get to say that lockdowns work because in some cases the case numbers seem to track with the policies. You have to demonstrate the truth of the claim. Without evidence to support the claim, but one believes anyway, you can justify belief in anything. I got new pants at the same time the numbers in Manitoba started going up, and I threw them out just recently then the numbers started to fall. Must have been my pants right? No, that’s bullshit and I know it is.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

It’s one thing to enact policies that don’t really have any effect and hope they change direction of the health crisis, like masks. I wear a mask and I will continue to, despite the fact that just a over year ago the WHO stated in its pandemic guidance there is no evidence to support masks actually helping. But it hardly really effects my day so sure.

The same cannot be said about lockdown. It destroys livelihoods, the economy and ironically public health, for the sole focus of one issue. Those in charge better be demanding more then anecdotes.

Above I have provided some data and studies that show lockdown does not correlate with lower mortality risk. Until such time as there is data and lots of it to support that it does lower mortality risks etc, we should not be hammering society with these measures.

Finally, could it be possible that the drops in cases in the spring were due to seasonal variation, as like most respiratory illnesses they disappear in summer months? And is it possible that the drop in cases recently is following a pattern that respiratory illnesses have on populations as they move through the population then drop off naturally? I mean the numbers in Sweden started to drop, PRIOR, to any non pharmaceutical interventions being put in place. How could that be?

If you agree that it may be a possibility then you have to acknowledge that to believe in the “lockdown theory” should require evidence, which as you say above you only have anecdotal (aka none).

[ayseven]

Have any of you deniers actually tried to get an appointment with a doctor, or gone to the hospital for something recently? Well, let me just say that "things are different". Covid as threatened out health care as we know it, and will continue to as long as people keep repeating this nonsense about "free up the economy because who cares about a few old people".

Are restrictions too little, too late? Probably - maybe - who knows? But the US doesn't look like a shining example right now.

We don't have resources to test absolutely everyone, or vaccinate everyone twice, right now. Is that not obvious? Just try to get through it and try to look after yourselves, OK?

[mbav8r]

I’m not going to jump on the let’s just let 75 year olds die because they are old. The question is, is the lockdown policy effective, and does it impact overall health related issues in other negative ways.

Please reference a study that shows how much higher deaths are with no lockdown policy. Otherwise it is just a claim that isn’t substantiated. Above I referenced some studies showing lockdown isn’t effective.

Just as a lead in point, I can also demonstrate that at least in some cases the modelling was off by a factor of 6-10 even when they were modelling for the restrictions that we in fact followed.

As you also pointed out, there are no studies and I would argue impossible to study this responsibly.
How about anecdotally, Manitoba was on a very troubling trajectory and locked down with beefed up enforcement, now we have numbers low enough to start opening up responsibly. Allowing retail at 25% but not restaurants, logic based on short duration at retail with masks on, long stay at the restaurant without masks.
Our hospitals were overrun, now they have started scheduling surgeries again, it took about two months despite the ones who did not follow the rules, 500 positive cases with about 3000 close contacts from holiday gatherings, how many did it but got away with it. If not for that the lockdown could have been eased a little sooner.
Thankfully it’s not you making the decisions, if lockdowns don’t work, why do the numbers go up when eased and go down when enacted?

Argument from incredulity much?

We have had this discussion before. You don’t just get to say that lockdowns work because in some cases the case numbers seem to track with the policies. You have to demonstrate the truth of the claim. Without evidence to support the claim, but one believes anyway, you can justify belief in anything. I got new pants at the same time the numbers in Manitoba started going up, and I threw them out just recently then the numbers started to fall. Must have been my pants right? No, that’s bullshit and I know it is.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

It’s one thing to enact policies that don’t really have any effect and hope they change direction of the health crisis, like masks. I wear a mask and I will continue to, despite the fact that just a over year ago the WHO stated in its pandemic guidance there is no evidence to support masks actually helping. But it hardly really effects my day so sure.

The same cannot be said about lockdown. It destroys livelihoods, the economy and ironically public health, for the sole focus of one issue. Those in charge better be demanding more then anecdotes.

Above I have provided some data and studies that show lockdown does not correlate with lower mortality risk. Until such time as there is data and lots of it to support that it does lower mortality risks etc, we should not be hammering society with these measures.

Finally, could it be possible that the drops in cases in the spring were due to seasonal variation, as like most respiratory illnesses they disappear in summer months? And is it possible that the drop in cases recently is following a pattern that respiratory illnesses have on populations as they move through the population then drop off naturally? I mean the numbers in Sweden started to drop, PRIOR, to any non pharmaceutical interventions being put in place. How could that be?

If you agree that it may be a possibility then you have to acknowledge that to believe in the “lockdown theory” should require evidence, which as you say above you only have anecdotal (aka none).

BTD,
I looked through some of the studies you provided, I wonder if you could post some with a more up to date data analysis. From the four I looked at, the most up to date data appeared to be July 12/20.
It took 8 months for the first million deaths and only four months for the second million, maybe these authors need to revisit their findings.
The most severe lockdown policies being New Zealand, the result is currently 5 deaths per million population, how can you argue lockdowns didn’t work here. How can you even prove otherwise, plenty of variables worldwide but in the end, you would need to go back in time, not lockdown and see what happens.
I have been heard saying, “I’m sick of this lockdown shit” however, if you reduce mobility, it’s logical that the spread is reduced. The economic toll will be large and has yet to be calculated but I don’t believe you will find many, if any, politicians who will go against the grain.
Look at the two biggest provinces in Canada, they tried the no lockdown method until they couldn’t, now they have curfews and stay at home orders and idiots walking their husbands on a leash to go against the orders or the 1.2 million phones that presumably spent the night out with their owners despite health orders saying not to.
Lastly, China quarantined and locked down Wuhan, then Hubei very early and continues to have rapid and severe responses to new cases, say what you want about China but the numbers tell a story, I’ll concede I don’t necessarily trust their numbers but I’d guess some of the world wide responses are based on them.

Edit to add, Doctors in Canada are discussing how to triage who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t, I don’t give a rats ass the average age of who is on these ventilators, bottom line the beds are full and something had to be done.
Anecdotally or not, you can’t argue the results in Manitoba, we are slowly going back towards normal and yes Christmas was not the same or even enjoyable as I didn’t have my kids and granddogs here nor did I get together with friends, hopefully the small sacrifice was worth it. I also believe part of the problem was schools had to stay open come he’ll or high water, since I don’t have kids in school anymore, I don’t get it but some study somewhere said they needed to.