Coronavirus | Page 448 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you need something to blame, blame it on the Mink,
and they already paid the ultimate price, which was complete annihilation. Consider punishment paid in full.
 
Almost all western countries including our own were too slow to react initially (back in February-March).

Our initial lockdown was too lame. But even with that ... we did manage to get case numbers down far enough that we got a mostly-decent summer out of it. Same in Europe, we followed a quite similar trajectory to several European countries. The USA completely failed at that. Australia and New Zealand did very well. YES I realise that their borders are easier to control.

Our contact-tracing was too lame. Several Asian countries did this right. People - You put this app on your smartphone and run it. Businesses - You put a checkpoint at your door and you only let people in that have a "go" status AND you keep track of every person that comes and goes and when. ALL of them. ALL people have to run that app. ALL businesses have to log people coming and going. NO exceptions. Don't have a smartphone? Too bad, no entry. "Government is tracking my every move" - YES, that's the point. Don't like it? Stay home. No app, no entry. Business doesn't want to put up that checkpoint and log everyone who comes and goes? Then close down completely. "Don't like the intrusion on my rights" - Too bad, we're in a pandemic, deal with it.

Now, having said that ... according to Worldometers, as of right now, the USA has had 1152 deaths per million people (a.k.a. about one person in 900), we've had 447 deaths per million, the USA is currently having about 2.5 times higher deaths per capita. The USA has some five times more people in hospital per capita with this than we do. Our situation is not good ... but it's nowhere near as bad as that south of the border (unless you live in Utah, Oregon, Maine, Alaska, Vermont, and Hawaii). We're having issues getting vaccines distributed, but it seems that they have caught up, and the constraint right now is the available supply (we've run out - more arriving in the next couple of days). The USA has vaccinated more people per capita than we have, but still less than a third of available supply.
 
pfbmgd said:
The comedy is that you want healthy people locked down . Not the people that are the most in danger .
Click to expand...
OK...
Please define the parameters for those in danger and those not.
Be explicit in ages, shapes, sex, prior medical histories and conditions etc.

If you can define the parameters to any sort of enforceable rules, you seriously deserve to be the next PM of Canada.
 
BigEvilDoer said:
OK...
Please define the parameters for those in danger and those not.
Be explicit in ages, shapes, sex, prior medical histories and conditions etc.

If you can define the parameters to any sort of enforceable rules, you seriously deserve to be the next PM of Canada.
Click to expand...
Numbers are from cumulative since Jan 15, 2020 from Ontario covid data . I'm not tech savvy to post pictures of the charts .

Dataset - Ontario Data Catalogue

covid-19.ontario.ca covid-19.ontario.ca

Deaths under 70 are 641
Death over 70 are 4341

Cases resolved under 70 are 162352
Cases resoled over 70 18334

Active cases under 70 26 295
Active cases over 70 3766

These numbers are from a province of 14.5 million . How accurate are the deaths due to just the virus who knows . Just from the news majority deaths are with people that have 2 or more core morbidities . I have not seen the break down of that stat .

Average life expectancy in Ontario 81.5 .

Life expectancy at birth and at age 65, by province and territory, three-year average

People at risk from the CDC . That are in danger .

Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19. Severe illness from COVID-19 is defined as hospitalization, admission to the ICU, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.

Adults of any age with the following conditions are at increased risk of severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19:

COVID-19 is a new disease. Currently there are limited data and information about the impact of many underlying medical conditions on the risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Based on what we know at this time, adults of any age with the following conditions might be at an increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19:


If you have any of the above . You should be self isolating because you are in danger especially if the illness is not under control . Especial if you have more then 1 .

How about spending the money on these people . Giving them the resources to protect themselves . Most people on the list are aware of their conditions . But due to the lockdown many probably not . Since most doctors doing phone visits . People afraid to go to the hospital in fear of getting the virus ,

You can see where the risk group is . The NHL was able to make a bubble . Keep the players safe . We can create bubbles around long term care homes and senior homes ? Provide support to those with conditions that make them at risk . We had 10 months to figure it out . Instead we a locking up the majority and healthy people . Threatening them with fines and lock downs . Instead of telling the sick to isolate till they can get the vaccine .
 
^ Add up all of those conditions, and you have probably a third of the population - particularly the obesity category. So do you want to wall off a third of the population from the other two-thirds? How do the people in that third of the population get medical treatment (for anything, not just covid)? How do they get food?

It just doesn't work.
 
They're predicting a 6,000/day spike from holiday gatherings generated by people you think shouldn't need to follow stricter guidelines. Your argument doesn't pass the Colander Test.
 
Brian P said:
^ Add up all of those conditions, and you have probably a third of the population - particularly the obesity category. So do you want to wall off a third of the population from the other two-thirds? How do the people in that third of the population get medical treatment (for anything, not just covid)? How do they get food?

It just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Right now the " third of the population " is getting minimal treatment . With doctors doing mostly phone visits .

Have you heard of deliveries .
 
pfbmgd said:
If you have any of the above . You should be self isolating because you are in danger especially if the illness is not under control . Especial if you have more then 1 .

How about spending the money on these people . Giving them the resources to protect themselves . Most people on the list are aware of their conditions . But due to the lockdown many probably not . Since most doctors doing phone visits . People afraid to go to the hospital in fear of getting the virus ,

You can see where the risk group is . The NHL was able to make a bubble . Keep the players safe . We can create bubbles around long term care homes and senior homes ? Provide support to those with conditions that make them at risk . We had 10 months to figure it out . Instead we a locking up the majority and healthy people . Threatening them with fines and lock downs . Instead of telling the sick to isolate till they can get the vaccine .
Click to expand...
OK, but now make it hard and fast.
I've seen 70 year olds that are in far superior shape physically to 40 year olds.
If the 70 year old has 1 of those possible underlying conditions, and the 40 year old has none, who should isolate?
 
Apart from the rights infringement point (which I've argued here already) there are other problems with a curfew:
  • People now have reduced hours to shop, leading to line ups and more people in stores in a shorter period of time. More people in stores during a given time = higher chance of COVID infection.
  • More people out walking before curfew sets in (this is big for us apartment dwellers who go for walks at 10PM or later when the streets are quieter) = more people jamming the streets, higher risk for outdoor transmission
  • People breaking the law already are unlikely to stop: they will either ignore the curfew or switch to sleepover parties/day drinking.
  • Curfews are reactive: the cases we see today are coming from Christmas/New Years, not things happening today. The damage is done, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it will continue to get worse ("we don't know what will happen next" isn't a compelling argument to putting people under house arrest)
  • No work from home order: there are still people going into the office because their boss doesn't believe in WFH. This should be enacted before any type of curfew.
  • Schools are still scheduled to reopen in a few weeks.
  • International travel is still permitted for some mind boggling reason.
Something as heavy handed like a curfew should be reasonable. Given the points above, I don't think it is.
 
d4rktrooper788 said:
Apart from the rights infringement point (which I've argued here already) there are other problems with a curfew:
  • People now have reduced hours to shop, leading to line ups and more people in stores in a shorter period of time. More people in stores during a given time = higher chance of COVID infection.
  • More people out walking before curfew sets in (this is big for us apartment dwellers who go for walks at 10PM or later when the streets are quieter) = more people jamming the streets, higher risk for outdoor transmission
  • People breaking the law already are unlikely to stop: they will either ignore the curfew or switch to sleepover parties/day drinking.
  • Curfews are reactive: the cases we see today are coming from Christmas/New Years, not things happening today. The damage is done, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it will continue to get worse ("we don't know what will happen next" isn't a compelling argument to putting people under house arrest)
  • No work from home order: there are still people going into the office because their boss doesn't believe in WFH. This should be enacted before any type of curfew.
  • Schools are still scheduled to reopen in a few weeks.
  • International travel is still permitted for some mind boggling reason.
Something as heavy handed like a curfew should be reasonable. Given the points above, I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your bullets and I believe Douggie has come completely off the rails. Instead of a well-thought out and measured response, he is now at the stage of throwing handfuls of darts and the board and hoping for the best. This is also leading to legislated winners (amazon, costco, walmart) and losers (small retail, etc) which I strongly oppose.

As mind boggling as allowing international travel is, that's a tough one to stop with regulation. You would have trouble enforcing a hard lockdown (eg. you don't leave unless you are a pilot or driver moving cargo) and a soft lockdown (prove your trip is essential) is easy to cheat. Cheaters gonna cheat. I have no problems with consequences outside of the law being used for these idiots (eg. social or employment repercussions).
 
While I'm in fair agreement with the majority of restrictions, outside of Walmart / COSTCO being able to sell non-essential goods, I'm totally against the curfew and agree with @d4rktrooper788 on this point.

I heard it somewhere....a curfew is what you do when you have no other plans. I love my walks, does that put me in (or others) in danger as I walk outside. What difference is it when it's 6pm, or 8:05pm?

This was also criticized when malls were opened with shorter hours early on during this pandemic. Now you're just squeezing the same amount of shoppers into a shorter timeframe...% increase contact may follow.

WFH should be mandated wherever possible. I'd say the vast majority of office work can be WFH. There's very little that can't be done from home if you don't physically need to put your hands on a product. Meetings are easy, emails are easy, communication is easy....but many dinosaur managers refuse to allow it because their workers can't be trusted.

Every one of my friends that are able to WFH have had no issues with management. The ones that go in to work are the same as others...factory, construction, testing, etc. that needs to be PHYSICALLY touched/installed/measured or tested. My office is open if you choose to do so...there's no one that's been there since March of last year outside of the executive assistant as she lives alone and hates being home 24/7.
 
GreyGhost said:
I agree with most of your bullets and I believe Douggie has come completely off the rails. Instead of a well-thought out and measured response, he is now at the stage of throwing handfuls of darts and the board and hoping for the best. This is also leading to legislated winners (amazon, costco, walmart) and losers (small retail, etc) which I strongly oppose.

As mind boggling as allowing international travel is, that's a tough one to stop with regulation. You would have trouble enforcing a hard lockdown (eg. you don't leave unless you are a pilot or driver moving cargo) and a soft lockdown (prove your trip is essential) is easy to cheat. Cheaters gonna cheat. I have no problems with consequences outside of the law being used for these idiots (eg. social or employment repercussions).
Click to expand...

It is tough. But they could do something to at least try. Or at least force people to quarantine upon return (put them up in a hotel for 2 weeks) as part of the condition of traveling.

In other news, looks like a curfew is off the table (or at least that's what they are leaking): Ford cabinet not considering curfew as part of new COVID-19 lockdown measures
 
mimico_polak said:
While I'm in fair agreement with the majority of restrictions, outside of Walmart / COSTCO being able to sell non-essential goods, I'm totally against the curfew and agree with @d4rktrooper788 on this point.

I heard it somewhere....a curfew is what you do when you have no other plans. I love my walks, does that put me in (or others) in danger as I walk outside. What difference is it when it's 6pm, or 8:05pm?

This was also criticized when malls were opened with shorter hours early on during this pandemic. Now you're just squeezing the same amount of shoppers into a shorter timeframe...% increase contact may follow.

WFH should be mandated wherever possible. I'd say the vast majority of office work can be WFH. There's very little that can't be done from home if you don't physically need to put your hands on a product. Meetings are easy, emails are easy, communication is easy....but many dinosaur managers refuse to allow it because their workers can't be trusted.

Every one of my friends that are able to WFH have had no issues with management. The ones that go in to work are the same as others...factory, construction, testing, etc. that needs to be PHYSICALLY touched/installed/measured or tested. My office is open if you choose to do so...there's no one that's been there since March of last year outside of the executive assistant as she lives alone and hates being home 24/7.
Click to expand...
I agree, there should be some line for offices, I am ok if some people are in, but maybe something like offices are limited to 10% of capacity. Make the office the exception not the rule. I know some people that go into the office for online meetings (maybe quieter, maybe too much pr0n in the background at home, etc).

Curfew without a plan for active and measured enforcement is a waste. People would lose their crap, but without that, it is just more useless words. What would that look like? Random door knocks between 20:00 and 21:00 and if you don't answer, you get left a note where you have to call in and explain your absence? If they don't like your answer, you get placed on the route and future non-responses are $2000? ALPR drives and look for plates not registered to the driveway they are sitting in? Talk to occupants and if they don't like the answer, tow the vehicles? Going after the solo evening walkers will breed a lot more contempt than it will solve transmission. In QC there is a dog exception so people are sharing their animals.

I conceptually like full-time geographic restriction more than most of the measures currently implemented or proposed. Something along the lines of, stay within 5 km of your house unless going to work. Exemption to let you get to the closest grocery store/pharmacy if more than 5 km away. I don't care if you like to shop at Longo's in Aurora, for the next while, you are shopping at Superstore in Newmarket. That eliminates many visits to friends and family (or at least makes them financially risky), eliminates travel for recreation (you can showshoe in the park near your house, you don't need to travel to collingwood to do it), eliminates people travelling to four different stores chasing deals (we are in a pandemic, stores are open for essentials, idgaf that you can save $0.10 on pudding at the other store). It just seems easier to enforce and more effective. Cops pull random people over like they do for insurance checks and if you are in violation $2000 ticket, have a good day, now go home.
 
d4rktrooper788 said:
Apart from the rights infringement point (which I've argued here already) there are other problems with a curfew:
  • People now have reduced hours to shop, leading to line ups and more people in stores in a shorter period of time. More people in stores during a given time = higher chance of COVID infection.
  • More people out walking before curfew sets in (this is big for us apartment dwellers who go for walks at 10PM or later when the streets are quieter) = more people jamming the streets, higher risk for outdoor transmission
  • People breaking the law already are unlikely to stop: they will either ignore the curfew or switch to sleepover parties/day drinking.
  • Curfews are reactive: the cases we see today are coming from Christmas/New Years, not things happening today. The damage is done, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it will continue to get worse ("we don't know what will happen next" isn't a compelling argument to putting people under house arrest)
  • No work from home order: there are still people going into the office because their boss doesn't believe in WFH. This should be enacted before any type of curfew.
  • Schools are still scheduled to reopen in a few weeks.
  • International travel is still permitted for some mind boggling reason.
Something as heavy handed like a curfew should be reasonable. Given the points above, I don't think it is.
Click to expand...
Rights go out the window during a pandemic.
 
d4rktrooper788 said:
It is tough. But they could do something to at least try. Or at least force people to quarantine upon return (put them up in a hotel for 2 weeks) as part of the condition of traveling.

In other news, looks like a curfew is off the table (or at least that's what they are leaking): Ford cabinet not considering curfew as part of new COVID-19 lockdown measures
Click to expand...
Returning is a whole different story. I would have had government mandated hotel stays for almost everyone starting many months ago. You pay, it's 14 days of lockup upon your return. I don't care if you went on vacation or travelled to work in another country, 14 day lockup and you pay the bill. Many people are either aholes or too entitled to believe that any restrictions should apply to them. They will say they will quarantine and continue to live life as usual. Temporary lockup is a very reasonable and justified response to demonstrated non-compliance by so many.
 
I'm not in favor of a curfew, because I think walking my Dog at 11pm is safer than being forced into shorter opening times at the grocer. Bars are already closed, restaurants are shut. Being home at 10 means what exactly?

I don't get a lot of what the current plans include , and the number of people that are "essential" is ludicrous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom