Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

It kind of makes you wonder what a house of cards the whole economic system really is. Big multi-million businesses have a short stop in their profits and they go straight into economic difficulties. Or perhaps they would have a Plan B if there wasn't a guarantee of them being bailed out by the government.

Imagine yourself if you for some reason stop having any income at all. How long would it last until you would run into serious problems? Some people straight away but others could hold on for some time relying on their savings. Seems that the big businesses haven't been saving for a rainy day.

It's hard for many of us to believe there was no plan B...so hard we think that is not possible.. fueling the idea it's a set up of some kind using the virus as a tool in some kind of market change brought on by a crisis from Chinese state controlled monopoly and private monopolies at war.

Then again it could be both an economic war and the virus coincidentally.

Will we ever know? All I can tell you TSS is your Lap lander's knew there was a problem without the need of the media telling them. 

Depends I guess on what you are trained to see.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In the meantime, London has lost more bus drivers to the bug than doctors. Buses crammed full of construction workers because they felt that they should be able to go to work if they wanted to and cou

Let me help you put your mind at ease. You don't need to argue this point. I hardly see anyone who thinks it. We can all see how this virus is bad and must be safeguarded against. All viruses that kil

Partial travel bans are like having a pissing section in a swimming pool.

Posted Images

On 5/15/2020 at 7:48 PM, Argus said:

Australia has done well.

The problem with countries like Australia and NZ is that since they are so far away from anywhere and so isolated that if you grow up in those places you have the inescapable urge to travel to see the real world which is out there which you think you don't know about because you live in such an isolated place.

Not so much the case these days because of the internet but it is still there. The internet is no substitution to being somewhere in person. 

Americans are well-known to have little interest in foreign travel because they either have no time or no money for such things as travelling outside of the USA . A minority of the US citizens even have a passport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the important thing is that they are doing well  in handling this virus.   In many ways  they as a people are a lot more worldly    than the US  population is......... the US  isolates by choice.  with its  US first attitude.   We have many Australians   at the resort  where I live........  and  many  CDNS  travel to  both   Australia and NZ.   Excerpt now.......  during this   Pandemic.    but then  Australia and Nz   have more  in common with CDA.......as all are part of the commonwealth.   That common  thread  is  valuable. 

 

an aside:  It is wonderful  to see someone from  Finland here.   I like to see views and opinions from all over the  world. 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You would think an old man like you would know better by now. I know, you just forgot how brutal and stupid the human animal is.

That might be due to having an enjoyable occupation in a relatively non-competitive environment where cooperating and sharing information benefits you more than keeping to yourself.  I have that experience informing me too.

Quote

Why did we do this? Was it for a better world in the future, or because we are scared witless and made decisions based on panic, now willing to do anything to save our own blessed skins? Did we do the right things, or did we flip out and screw ourselves up even more?

We flipped out that's for sure and whether it was entirely justified is something that will be debated for decades depending on the outcome and especially whether we make it a better world or not. In any case we're here now and I'm pretty sure the only way forward is up ahead not behind us.

Quote

Yes, I will admit part of me wishes the virus wouldn't go away. Let this shit all stop, let humanity fade away humanely, by natural attrition. We know what tomorrow brings, we learned nothing, we did it for no good reason at all

We don't know what tomorrow brings and we probably won't see it coming in the rear view mirror. If we see it receding I guess we'll know we missed it but I don't think we have.  Maybe we had to know or explore our dark side first before moving on to something more appropriate and despite the pessimistic tone of the old adage 'the path to enlightenment is painful' there is also optimism.  I have to lean that way because just curling up and dying really sounds like it sucks especially in front of the grandkids. If they don't have a sense of what optimism is before having to confront their dark sides they'll be screwed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

That might be due to having an enjoyable occupation in a relatively non-competitive environment where cooperating and sharing information benefits you more than keeping to yourself.  I have that experience informing me too.

We flipped out that's for sure and whether it was entirely justified is something that will be debated for decades depending on the outcome and especially whether we make it a better world or not. In any case we're here now and I'm pretty sure the only way forward is up ahead not behind us.

We don't know what tomorrow brings and we probably won't see it coming in the rear view mirror. If we see it receding I guess we'll know we missed it but I don't think we have.  Maybe we had to know or explore our dark side first before moving on to something more appropriate and despite the pessimistic tone of the old adage 'the path to enlightenment is painful' there is also optimism.  I have to lean that way because just curling up and dying really sounds like it sucks especially in front of the grandkids. If they don't have a sense of what optimism is before having to confront their dark sides they'll be screwed.

All we can  realistically do is handle this one day at a time.   It   is still too  uncertain  to formulate  specific plans    for specific time frames.  In a crazy way  this  pandemic  has  "united" the world  against  that invisible  but powerful  Viral enemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden demonstrates that total shutdown is not relevant or useful in controlling the virus. It doesn't give a significant benefit for society, and in fact it is more harmful than not doing it.

Data from immunologists clearly shows that social distancing is not going to do much to eliminate the virus spread. Instead it stretches out the ordeal over a longer time, due to the fact that sizeable populations are at home in quarantine. As they come outdoors they too will get the virus, and so the disease can be more prolonged.

This prolongation can result in more deaths in the long run, and the expense of supporting the quarantine becomes untenable as it is further and further extended. The virus will not go away until it "burns itself out", meaning either herd immunity or it mutates to less and less 'virulent' strains. (The most commonly seen progression of viruses as they mutate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to understand that in a densely packed city like NYC people have to be forced into what is little short of a house arrest but applying the same rules everywhere doesn't make sense. Imagine somebody walking in some rural area in an open field with nobody else anywhere around and the police comes and asks: "What are you doing outside? Don't you know it's curfew? We will have to fine you now"

In Britain they are using drones to detect people who have not stayed indoors. Can't help feeling that for some people the point of all of this is not to stop the spread of the virus but to keep people locked inside their homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Sweden demonstrates that total shutdown is not relevant or useful in controlling the virus. It doesn't give a significant benefit for society, and in fact it is more harmful than not doing it.

Data from immunologists clearly shows that social distancing is not going to do much to eliminate the virus spread. Instead it stretches out the ordeal over a longer time, due to the fact that sizeable populations are at home in quarantine. As they come outdoors they too will get the virus, and so the disease can be more prolonged.

This prolongation can result in more deaths in the long run, and the expense of supporting the quarantine becomes untenable as it is further and further extended. The virus will not go away until it "burns itself out", meaning either herd immunity or it mutates to less and less 'virulent' strains. (The most commonly seen progression of viruses as they mutate).

With due respect isolation or quarantine is standard protocol with any contaminant or contagious pathogen. No statistic has ruled that out.

In regards to social distancing it's designed to reduce passing on a pathogen by sneezing. It was never meant as a cure. Human contact is the real issue. If someone does not know they have covid they can contaminate physical objects or person by touch or sneeze or exchange of blood or other bodily fluids directly or indirectly.

I think with due respect saying the government should have done nothing is unrealistic and would have abandon its ethical responsibility to protect the public from a pandemic.

I agree that power must be used in moderation and I agree with TSS a one size fits all approach may not be the most effective.

I would say to TSS regulations or laws usually are one size fits all in approach because the more you make a law flexible and discretionary the harder it is to enforce. Flexibility based on each situation is ideal but pretty much impossible to write in a regulation which explains why some laws are so singular in approach. It makes them easier to enforce.

This is why with food and health regulation enforcement depends on inspectors  to determine that grey area. Inspector cost money and require time and the more inspections the slower the immediate enforcement to assure fairness.  In a country the size of China inspection systems facethe challenge of keep up with the volujebof wet markets and engrained behaviour not to mention compromise from bribery.

I think in Canada like Finland they try to inspect as best they can. Not easy balancing individual and collective rights.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

With due respect isolation or quarantine is standard protocol with any contaminant or contagious pathogen. No statistic has ruled that out.

In regards to social distancing it's designed to reduce passing on a pathogen by sneezing. It was never meant as a cure. Human contact is the real issue. If someone does not know they have covid they can contaminate physical objects or person by touch or sneeze or exchange of blood or other bodily fluids directly or indirectly.

I think with due respect saying the government should have done nothing is unrealistic and would have abandon its ethical responsibility to protect the public from a pandemic.

I agree that power must be used in moderation and I agree with TSS a one size fits all approach may not be the most effective.

I believe our officials knew this some time ago. They knew everyone was going to get it, and now it's more of a slow mitigation to get herd immunity. There will be no cure as it seems to be more of a retro-virus, from some reports it has mutated a couple times?!? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

With due respect isolation or quarantine is standard protocol with any contaminant or contagious pathogen. No statistic has ruled that out.

Yes, quarantining the sick, not quarantining the healthy or shutting down the entire society. That has not been done before, hence cannot be standard protocol.

Certainly not shutting down medical procedures whether they be surgery or diagnostics for important health problems. No one is able to rationalize that decision.

Standard protocol is to use PPE for the sick, not to guard everyone else. That is only done in the last resort in standard protocol of safety paradigm:

1) Remove the Hazard
2) Guard the Hazard
3) Guard the Worker

In that order of preference. We went for #3 right away, long before necessary and all the PPE is gone. Its not coming back, they tried to buy it from you-know-who and they sent us toxic materials. That as their answer to Canada, from our property owners and task-masters.

Healthy people were quarantined. Social isolation. No protocol there whatsoever. No precedent. Also simply bad for all of us. Self evident now. I should not have to tell people these things.

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every nation  that is affected  is challenged  in  their own unique  ways.

 

That is why it is so important to share information  as thisis  a wold wide  crisis. 

 

The destructive affect on people  is one thing. The affect on the economy is another  disaster. 

 

for eg: Coronavirus will cost states hundreds of billions in lost revenue in the upcoming fiscal year

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/unprecedented-states-face-hundreds-billions-lost-revenue-nbc-news-finds-n1206316?cid=eml_nbn_20200517

The reality  we are facing is  pretty harsh. It will take some brilliant strategies  to deal with it. But humans are   creative,   innovative,  capable of adapting  .......We are so fortunate to be living in the era of  high technology....... as these tools  are playing  a vital part in  every professional  and personal component of living.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

I think with due respect saying the government should have done nothing is unrealistic and would have abandon its ethical responsibility to protect the public from a pandemic

I agree completely. That would be completely unrealistic.

In my opinion, our government and perhaps many others have made a major and fundamental blunder in handling this outbreak. This information is not by hindsight either. Respiratory viruses are known to do what this has done in old age homes. That is what happens each year, lug infections and pneumonia kill thousands of elderly Canadians each year. This is not something new due to Covid-19. If you live in or work with a "medical family" you would be aware of these things, otherwise probably not.

Knowing this, the answer to avoiding virus spread in these areas (>>80 % of infections...) would be to vacate them from those homes and into areas where they can be quarantined. Even if a warehouse or rink, that could work. It would cost far, far far less than what we have pissed way into a black hole.

Someone said "oh yes, but oh my those with dementia would wander."

They would be sedated, as they often are in homes, as they often need to be anyway when they get too much trouble to be let run around, and kept in bed. Maybe they would not like it, but they would be alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, quarantining the sick, not quarantining the healthy or shutting down the entire society. That has not been done before, hence cannot be standard protocol.

Certainly not shutting down medical procedures whether they be surgery or diagnostics for important health problems. No one is able to rationalize that decision.

Standard protocol is to use PPE for the sick, not to guard everyone else. That is only done in the last resort in standard protocol of safety paradigm:

1) Remove the Hazard
2) Guard the Hazard
3) Guard the Worker

In that order of preference. We went for #3 right away, long before necessary and all the PPE is gone. Its not coming back, they tried to buy it from you-know-who and they sent us toxic materials. That as their answer to Canada, from our property owners and task-masters.

Healthy people were quarantined. Social isolation. No protocol there whatsoever. No precedent. Also simply bad for all of us. Self evident now. I should not have to tell people these things.

Distinction noted, good point on the distinction. Got it. We were told the indiscriminate quarantine  which you are right was new came about because of the lack of symptoms of the virus  plus no active early testing and tracking system to identify the carriers forcing the shut down to err on the side of caution.

Of course we should ask could early testing and tracking mitigated the need for collective shut down? Experiences in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore seem to suggest so if that is ccx shat you mean by unnecessary Oftenwrong I must defer to that point.

As well had China been up front and transparent about the virus that might have helped.

In hindsight we have many questions to ask an DC whether they get answered remains to be seen. Let us hope Chin's example of cover up and lying to its people and the world will not be emulated. 

In any event conspiracies will be advanced, governments will continue to lie for what they call security reasons and you and I will operate in a world of rampant disinformation making accuracy of anything we are told suspect.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I agree completely. That would be completely unrealistic.

In my opinion, our government and perhaps many others have made a major and fundamental blunder in handling this outbreak. This information is not by hindsight either. Respiratory viruses are known to do what this has done in old age homes. That is what happens each year, lug infections and pneumonia kill thousands of elderly Canadians each year. This is not something new due to Covid-19. If you live in or work with a "medical family" you would be aware of these things, otherwise probably not.

I'm very impressed that in a few short weeks you've become such an expert on virology that you can instruct people who have spent their lives studying it on what is the correct thing to do.

 

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I'm very impressed that in a few short weeks you've become such an expert on virology that you can instruct people who have spent their lives studying it on what is the correct thing to do.

 

Other people are also saying this. It all depends on who is loudest in the screaming. I'm not surprised that it has everyone mesmerized as you are, BubberMiley.

Maybe you can explain the rationale of leaving old folks confined in their cramped overloaded homes, while the virus picks them off daily, one-two-three. Please go find me an expert theory on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I'm very impressed that in a few short weeks you've become such an expert on virology that you can instruct people who have spent their lives studying it on what is the correct thing to do.

 

You know what is even more impressive BubberMiley will be your stupidity next year, when the virus is off your radar and people are still dieng by the thousands in old age homes, cramped together and getting pnuemonia, and you and everyone else will not give a heck, same as before.

Yes exactly. Do carry on, you people...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rue said:

With due respect isolation or quarantine is standard protocol with any contaminant or contagious pathogen. No statistic has ruled that out.

In regards to social distancing it's designed to reduce passing on a pathogen by sneezing. It was never meant as a cure. Human contact is the real issue. If someone does not know they have covid they can contaminate physical objects or person by touch or sneeze or exchange of blood or other bodily fluids directly or indirectly.

I think with due respect saying the government should have done nothing is unrealistic and would have abandon its ethical responsibility to protect the public from a pandemic.

I agree that power must be used in moderation and I agree with TSS a one size fits all approach may not be the most effective.

I would say to TSS regulations or laws usually are one size fits all in approach because the more you make a law flexible and discretionary the harder it is to enforce. Flexibility based on each situation is ideal but pretty much impossible to write in a regulation which explains why some laws are so singular in approach. It makes them easier to enforce.

This is why with food and health regulation enforcement depends on inspectors  to determine that grey area. Inspector cost money and require time and the more inspections the slower the immediate enforcement to assure fairness.  In a country the size of China inspection systems facethe challenge of keep up with the volujebof wet markets and engrained behaviour not to mention compromise from bribery.

I think in Canada like Finland they try to inspect as best they can. Not easy balancing individual and collective rights.

Indeed, when people are forced to face inconvenience such as a house arrest it is important that a sense of fairness remains. In other words, as long as people feel that everybody is going through the same thing people will persist.

However, once people start noticing that there are different rules for different people and some people's flouting of the rules is dealt with rigorously whiole others iis looked through the fingers people's morale will go down drastically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I'm very impressed that in a few short weeks you've become such an expert on virology that you can instruct people who have spent their lives studying it on what is the correct thing to do.

 

He was expressing a subjective opinion in a respectful way as many of us  do on this topic. You as usual have nothing to contribute to the subject ...just the need to show up and take a personal shot at someone whose opinion you disagree with. You have no opinion to share just a snide aside.  

That is why whatever name is used on this forum  the trolling remains identical.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Other people are also saying this. It all depends on who is loudest in the screaming. I'm not surprised that it has everyone mesmerized as you are, BubberMiley.

Maybe you can explain the rationale of leaving old folks confined in their cramped overloaded homes, while the virus picks them off daily, one-two-three. Please go find me an expert theory on that.

I'm not sure. We haven't had a new case in my province in a week even though everything is open. That's because we were patient and took it seriously and didn't panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rue said:

He was expressing a subjective opinion in a respectful way as many of us  do on this topic. You as usual have nothing to contribute to the subject ...just the need to show up and take a personal shot at someone whose opinion you disagree with. You have no opinion to share just a snide aside.  

That is why whatever name is used on this forum  the trolling remains identical.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, just as I am not sarcastic when I talk about your storied law career.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I wasn't being sarcastic, just as I am not sarcastic when I talk about your storied law career.

You troll. The day you actually have something to say about an issue you might have someone take you seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I'm not sure. We haven't had a new case in my province in a week even though everything is open. That's because we were patient and took it seriously and didn't panic.

Your comment is illogical. The reason for your province not having a new case this week although everything is open has nothing to do with people not panicking it has to do with the number of cases reported. For all you know there are cases out  there unreported and will show up.  BC citizens reacted and will react no different than anyone else in Canada...if the rates go back up, people will get upset, if they do not go up, people will be happy. 

BC reacted no different than anyone else when they first dealt with this issue:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-doctors-fear-collateral-damage-as-patients-spooked-by-pandemic-1.4906450

https://mustelgroup.com/covid-19-poll-shows-almost-half-of-b-c-businesses-now-closed-fear-they-may-not-reopen/

No one in Canada is panicking. Its just you being your usual petulant self trying to suggest the poster communicating to you who you disagree with is panicking.

He discusses, you troll with the snit comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...