News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

A legitimate one to be sure.

The authors make that observation about testing capacity and contact tracing which they show to be effective if done very early when every person infected or at risk can be traced and possibly quarantined; but that there is considerably less evidence that this matters once the epidemic reaches a certain size, where there isn't as much useful to be gained by the data.

All measures effectiveness are also impacted by the willingness and ability of the population to adhere to different guidance.

This can be a general difference based on country/region; but also one that shifts with time. What people are willing to do will vary by the length of time such measures are in effect; by their proven effect; but also by the surrounding context.

That conclusion doesn't require a meta-analysis - you can't do serious contract tracing in most settings once you hit a certain threshold of cases - I believe Melbourne went full hard lockdown precisely because of this - their number of daily cases exceeded what contact tracers can reliably handle. We have the same problem (but we are more Canadian about that reality - ie. pretend it isn't a problem).

The broader compliant I have about these types of studies is their utility for in driving public policy within time-sensitive contexts - it is too wishy-washy (outcome being driven by so many uncontrollable factors that might or might not matter) in situations where you require near certainty of outcome.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Did granny sign a DNR?

I do think this an overly confrontational take.

Clearly he is not advocating for mass executions actively or passively.

His argument is that society is under-weighting the serious risks to health and life (not merely convenience) of children/youth/young adults vs the very real risk to older ones.

If @SunriseChampion turns around and says to you 'did the child sign a form consenting to child abuse?' It would be equally hyperbolus.

Lets have this discussion grounded in science; understanding that negative impacts to all generations of measures both effective and ineffective (or their absence) is tangible and deeply concerning.

What tests people's patience (both ways) is what reads as dismissiveness of those harms.

We should all agree that people dying of Covid is a serious problem and one to be mitigated.

We should also all agree that in doing so we may be causing serious harms, including death to those delayed medical treatments, to those who experience domestic/child abuse, or those whose economic harm may lead to malnutrition, homelessness etc.

Further, we can also admit that some serious harms which can scar someone for life don't end in immediate death; (the survivor of domestic violence/child abuse as example} and that this problem too is serious.

That is not advocacy for inaction; but rather for thoughtful, measured action that achieves its objective; while causing as little secondary harm as is practical.

We can reasonably differ as individuals on the right mix of measures.

The key is positive intention; then thoughtful, honest, discussion of the evidence.
 
Did granny sign a DNR?

That's a good question!

Actually.....the half-sister's mum defo did, after her last hospital visit (a stroke resulting in two month coma).
Don't know about my mum. I should ask.

She does keep banging on about the insurance papers and deed to the house though. 🤔
 
His argument is that society is under-weighting the serious risks to health and life (not merely convenience) of children/youth/young adults vs the very real risk to older ones.

Precisely.
I have 9 nieces and nephews who have a whole life ahead of them. I'm very concerned about their future wellbeing.
I also recognise that they have it pretty good because they live in stable, loving homes.....which differs greatly from the experience of many of my closest friends.
I know what trauma at a young age does to people. I've lived with its consequences through friends and acquaintances. It's not pretty and it doesn't only affect the victims of trauma, but also those in their lives.

I also know a thing or two, through relations, of early childhood development and how critical early socialisation is for children of a certain age.
Or how important not having gaps in education is for children of pretty well any age.

Brain development doesn't end at birth.
It doesn't end at puberty.
It doesn't even end after puberty.
It ends sometime in the early-to-mid-20s.

It's a question of morality: if we impose restrictions that disproportionately benefit one demographic to the detriment of other demographics, then we're making a life value judgment as a society. That's kind of messed up.

It's clear to me that a lot of people don't see it this way because they can't stop to think beyond the number of cases/deaths etc.

As it stands, with our current restrictions, it seems to me that we, as a society, have placed more importance on the lives of chronically ill and elderly people than on the lives of those who can't speak out for themselves and who should be afforded as best a chance as possible for a decent life.

That, to me, is a black mark on us all.
We should all agree that people dying of Covid is a serious problem and one to be mitigated.

It is, no question.
That is not advocacy for inaction; but rather for thoughtful, measured action that achieves its objective; while causing as little secondary harm as is practical.

I don't think our governments or our society at large have come to looking beyond the immediate threat.

Again, it's down to basic human psychology. There is a biological basis for this sort of short-sighted thinking so it's not as if we should be blaming anyone for it. I just thought it might do us good to rationally explore the very serious unintended consequences of our reactionary policies.
 
The stay at home order is about as clear as mud. Can i go for my nightly walks? or will i be stopped by the cops? I will carry my reusable grocery bag around and pretend I'm headed to the grocery store if that's the case.




Generally speaking you do not want to admit to breaking the law on a public forum.
 
The stay at home order is about as clear as mud. Can i go for my nightly walks? or will i be stopped by the cops? I will carry my reusable grocery bag around and pretend I'm headed to the grocery store if that's the case.



You can go out for exercise, and so far there isn't any noted restriction as to distance from home.
"Effective Thursday, January 14, 2021at 12:01 a.m., the government is issuing a stay-at-home order requiring everyone to remain at home with exceptions for essential purposes, such as going to the grocery store or pharmacy, accessing health care services, for exercise or for essential work."
Source: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/...ncy-to-address-covid-19-crisis-and-save-lives
 
I think it is misleading to complain about the elderly 'selfishly' imposing restrictions on younger people to benefit the older folks disproportionately. You find support for these measures high among those who are younger because they care about the older people in their lives. I'm not ready to let my family twist in the wind so I can grab a pint at the pub.
 
I think it is misleading to complain about the elderly 'selfishly' imposing restrictions on younger people to benefit the older folks disproportionately. You find support for these measures high among those who are younger because they care about the older people in their lives. I'm not ready to let my family twist in the wind so I can grab a pint at the pub.

Did anyone advocate re-opening pubs? If so, I missed it.

If not, perhaps we could stick to responding to the substance of others posts.
 
Lets hear from an Infectious Disease specialist w/Trillium Healthcare in Mississauga on all this:


I will screen shot the entire 19-part thread:

1610489041613.png

1610489066980.png


1610489109707.png

1610489144420.png


1610489168836.png
 
The main gripe in general seems to be about small retail. I agree that small retail should be able to continue to operate with capacity limits. Not sure what Sunrise is even advocating. Yes, a lot of people are suffering right now in different ways due to the pandemic. I don't know that we can scapegoat older folks as being to blame. It is not their fault that we are experiencing a pandemic, nor should they be guilted into martyring themselves for the young. Even if they could, a lot of the suffering experienced by the young would happen anyway as a consequence of this time. Enough 40 and 50 year olds get sick enough to require hospitalization that even if we put over 70s on the proverbial ice floe, hospitals would be overwhelmed with people who are still caring for children and active members of the workforce (I guess how we define 'people who have value to society').

I'm telling you.....it's the older generation seeking outcomes that benefit them the most whilst sabotaging the futures of subsequent generations. Clear as day.

This is pretty inflammatory.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that we can scapegoat older folks as being to blame. It is not their fault that we are experiencing a pandemic

If we can blame them for polluting the planet, maybe we can blame them for governments being woefully unprepared?
 

Back
Top