quelling chaos since 2352BC
So... how do you know if it's present or not? I know you know how the math works, but it raises to a probability of someone having it the more people that gather because it multiplies. The more people you're in contact with, the higher the odds. Any one of them could have it and not care (as is the case with some of my in-laws) or they simply didn't know they have it (because of the extended delay to onset of symptoms).Agreed. However the point I was making is that first the virus has to be present. If it's not. It's pointless, and the evidence does not indicate the virus is ubiquitous. There are only places of relatively higher or lower risk. Therefore the presumption that anyone who is not wearing a mask is either getting or spreading the virus is false. Unless they are in a high risk area, the likelihood of them being exposed is also very small, and even if they are exposed the chances of infection are small, and even if they are infected, the chance of any serious health issues is also very small.
That's exactly the experiment we ran. Again, look at those graphs. Low/no restrictions - cases increase geometrically.Given the above, I think that higher risk places should have the option of mandating masks of their own accord, and that people should have the right to voluntarily wear masks if they feel like it. I don't believe in the bylaws or the fines.
I'm simply not buying it, Randall. Let's use drunk driving as an example. Odds are actually staggeringly high that if you drive while intoxicated, nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, nothing goes wrong.Exactly, and whenever we have we convicted people of crimes based on probabilities rather than actual crimes, there has been discontent. We put up with very few examples ( seat belts, insurance, impaired driving ). When it comes to an epidemic, or pandemic, there could be sufficient reason to invoke emergency measures ( which is what this is ), but in this case, the data shows the initial danger was far less than was assumed. See some of the other postes where there are actual statistics.
The problem is that when something goes wrong, it goes very very wrong, and it impacts other people. We have the same effect here with Covid. We don't allow for drunk driving, have random check stops, and you lose your ability to drive when caught. Why is this any different?
Again, not afraid at all. I'm in a low risk category, as is my family. Just trying to do my part so we can get on with the business of life and put this behind us.I've been to Chinook. The only thing I got was a sore dry eye from the goddamned mask. I could hardly wait to get out of there. I'm just not as afraid of infection as you seem to be. That being said, I don't want to get it either, and I do my part.
But I also hate the mall, Chinook especially. Damn apple store.
Again, not wearing a mask is akin to driving drunk in my opinion. That only changed when MADD made the social stigma of driving drunk so severe that the rates went down.Whether or not the lockdowns were necessary before or even now is a matter of debate and I have taken on the side of The Great Barrington Declaration. That's where the real debate is. From what I can tell, the lockdowns are livelihood and economy killers that overall contribute to the loss of lives, most probably to the extent that they cause more of an overall problem than they solve.
I think that people should not be harassed for wearing masks. If they want to put on a mask it should be entirely their right to do so, and it should not be construed as some sort of political statement or condemnation of other people's belief that they shouldn't be forced under threat of law, to wear one.
I think we should do the same thing. A bylaw is a bylaw. If you don't like it, go into politics.
Herd immunity isn't working. Interesting that you reference Sweden next, where it isn't working: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?Like I've said many times now. I signed the Great Barrington Declaration.
I don't think we need to disagree here so much as accept the data, and the data clearly shows that the largest infections and deaths have come from high-risk locations like long-term care facilities etc. This doesn't mean that group gatherings cannot themselves become a high risk. However if they don't consist of high-risk individuals who are going to clog the hospital system, then all they need to do is self-isolate for 14 days, and contribute to the herd immunity.
Swedish model isn't working. Period.Revisit the vid I posted on the progress of the Swedish model, and consider how that would look if they'd just protected the vulnerable better at the start. How this plays out in the long run is where all the numbers will matter. Managing the virus alone is only one factor in a much bigger picture.
Contact tracing worked when infection rates are low. It can't work when infection rates are high for logistical reasons. It's partly why we need the lockdowns. We're chasing our tails on this one.The rationale is that the failure of contact tracing means we we're making assumptions about lockdowns that have certain sweeping negative ramifications, but uncertain positive ramifications, and a possibility of them doing more harm than good in the long run. Therefore before these AEMA lockdowns became a strategy, there should have been far more convincing data to support them.
We ran an experiment in Alberta. It failed. Again, look at the graphs. It's quite clear.As you can see from the 50,000 plus signatures of scientists and medical professionals on the Great Barrington Declaration, the authors of which are PhDs, not everyone agrees with the "medical establishment". The "establishment" has been known to be wrong on more than one occasion in history, and I believe it's lockdown strategy has the serious potential to be one of them.
Prove it. It's not working in areas without lockdowns. So how can you make that claim?And again, we could have done this all without lockdowns in the first place, and therefore saying because they failed the first time is a good reason to keep using them doesn't make any sense.
Gotta run... will respond to the rest in a bit.Perhaps there were some people who fall into the category you suggest. But I wasn't there. I didn't talk to them. I don't know what the specific individuals reasoning was, or even if they had any. I do however think it's entirely safe to assume, given the prevalence of "Put Calgarians Back To Work" signs, that many were concerned about their ability to pay their rent and feed their families. That should not be equated with some kid who doesn't take his medicine.
Last edited by a moderator: