Johnny Au
Senior Member
Not just banned, but banned with a hefty fine and imprisonment for holding large gatherings.
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Jasmine18
Senior Member
Issue is due to the amount of spread, the issue is not large parties.
Even a group of 5-6 meeting at a house can now be an issue.
Northern Light
Superstar
That would really depending on whether the number of tests drop.
If the number stays the same then statistically, the sample should be as representative.
If the testing total shrinks, then cases will be under-reported.
Northern Light
Superstar
So, this is not correct for a few reasons.
1) At scale, Covid will be present roughly equally in the population. Meaning 1 out of every X people have Covid.
This isn't necessary true in every social group or neighbourhood, but it is when you consider behavior at a regional scale.
2) As such, the more people you invite to a gathering the greater likihood that someone, or multiple people will have Covid.
Yes, that could be true in a gathering of 2 random people, but is much less likely.
3) The larger the gathering, even if spacing or masking were otherwise observed, you're increasing the number of people likely to come into contact with the infected person.
4} The larger the gathering the less likihood that social distance is being or can be maintained, thus increasing the risk of transmission.
If you have a gathering of 4 friends at a home; there is an associated risk; but certainly, if you don't want to, you don't have to be in close proximity to one another.
If you have 40 friends/strangers over.........the odds are some of you, many of you, or most of you will be in very close proximity,. Given the liklihood of alcohol and the general desire to be boisterous at party; there
are reduced odds of compliance with masking; and/or social distancing even if room permits.
More people tends to require louder talking just to be heard (which may also precipitate the removal of masks, if otherwise worn) and increases the risk of transmission.
5) The secondary transmission from a gathering of size is exponentially larger; and much harder to track. Assume you have just 2 infected people who show up at your party.
There is a material risk they might infect the majority of your 40 guests.........it could be less, but you have to track down and test everyone to be sure.
That's a lot of work.
Lets assume that only 5 people were infected by each of the 2 people who arrived infected.
That's still 10 people total (not possible if your gathering had only been 4 people in the first place); but just wait......how many people have each of those 10 infected people had high-risk contacts with since they became infected?
While for some, it may be only 1-2 people they live with............for others.........they may have been at work, attended another party, or been on a packed bus without a mask on..
The risk factor is real that your one gathering may lead to more more than 50 cases; and more than 500 contacts by Public Health.
*****
Here's the thing.
I'm in favour of government being calculated and strategic in its choices.
I oppose blanket lockdowns for any length of time, for the simple reason I don't think people will adhere to them.
That said.........clamping down on large parties, private or public is one of the highest pay-off moves government could make.
We could reasonably argue about the size limit; or more extreme actions (household only).
But you can't reasonably argue that large gatherings aren't a material risk.
Because statistically speaking, they are.
They're also a royal PITA for Public Health to follow up on.
Last edited:
gabe
Senior Member
As expected. Tests centers are fully booked for days. 
Our local centre was already booked for days. People were going to further centres to do walk ins, but now they can't do that. This has made it worse, not helped.
tiffer24
Senior Member
Ontario is reporting 615 cases of #COVID19 as nearly 38,200 tests were completed. Locally, there are 289 new cases in Toronto, 88 in Peel and 81 in Ottawa. 58% of today’s cases are in people under the age of 40. There are 541 more resolved cases.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Bayer
Senior Member
To think Doug Ford had managed to give me a favourable impression of himself and of his government, which is practically impossible for Conservatives to achieve. I checked at Women's College, the closest assessment centre, and of course they are full today; they accept a maximum of 600 registrations a day. So if I need a test, I'm supposed to plant myself in front of the computer at 6 am as if I were purchasing tickets for the hottest show. They have lost control of the situation - they don't actually have anything resembling a plan.
afransen
Senior Member
This way of rationing tests is kind of crazy. They should be triaging more. We should be suspending testing for discretionary purposes (asymptomatic testing for people to visit LTC, for instance).
Bayer
Senior Member
Especially since this is absolutely no time to visit LTC homes. My mother's home (in Québec), which managed to go through the first wave without any cases, has banned visitors again already, fortunately.
picard102
Senior Member
Seems like the plan is to just let this take its course now, and keep the economy moving.
I can't see them actually doing anything unless deaths skyrocket.
jayme2016
Active Member
Towered
Superstar
Doug Ford would have a field day with such a heavy handed approach. "Trudeau is taking all your rights away! He's killing the economy! He's stomping all over the freedoms of Ontarians, the largest voting block in the country! Vote for CPC to end the madness!"
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
But we're not actually keeping the economy moving ala Sweden's approach, are we?
This is like a half-assed lockdown where we achieve neither objectives of keeping cases down or "keeping the economy moving".