• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

COVID-19 News


Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that's what's been widely publicized. The Moderna vaccine is using a similar technique. Both are shown to be roughly 95% effective in Phase 3 trials, which is above the level of efficacy of most vaccines. Very very promising.

Pfizer's product is expected to gain preliminary approval, if the data is borne out, by December 10th.

The U.S. and other countries have given many vaccine makers advance orders based on the promise of their vaccines, so they can be produced. But they have to be approved to be administered. This is being done to get more supplies into the field, although the U.S. "Operation Warp Speed" falsely implies they are doing something unique in doing what other countries have done. They aren't of course.
 
Yes, that's what's been widely publicized. The Moderna vaccine is using a similar technique. Both are shown to be roughly 95% effective in Phase 3 trials, which is above the level of efficacy of most vaccines. Very very promising.

Pfizer's product is expected to gain preliminary approval, if the data is borne out, by December 10th.

The U.S. and other countries have given many vaccine makers advance orders based on the promise of their vaccines, so they can be produced. But they have to be approved to be administered. This is being done to get more supplies into the field, although the U.S. "Operation Warp Speed" falsely implies they are doing something unique in doing what other countries have done. They aren't of course.
Although very promising, there are still serious questions around the use of mRNA vaccine. For example, if it can target the receptors on the virus that allow it to bind to our cells and replicate, then it would also bind to the same receptors on other cells, and perhaps some of those cells are useful cells that our body uses to deliver important stuff that healthy cells need to live, so maybe blocking those receptors could be more dangerous than the virus itself in terms of longer term consequences. But I don't know enough about this yet to be able to answer concerns of this type. More digging required.
 
You have to check the information published so far from Pfizer and Moderna.
New Vaccine Strategies

As usual, this requires looking beyond the basic press releases. I've just finished looking at the company pages about mRNA vaccines, as well as some of the basic science from other sources, and then drilled down into the mechanism that is thought to play a critical role in the success of the vaccine. I'm obviously not an expert in this, but so far, I've now gone deeper into it than the average person.

One new strategy of for these vaccines is in blocking the receptors for Neuropilin-1 ( NRP1 ), a protein that in healthy people plays a crucial role in vascular and neural development. This implies that using this vaccine on children could be a very bad idea because they grow miles of new blood vessels and neural connections as they mature; and if they're faulty, serious problems can result.

Given that children are at very low risk from COVID-19, I wouldn't vaccinate my child with this type of vaccine until all the relevant questions around its effect on vascular and neural growth and maintenance for both children and adults have been answered.

However, in fully grown adults, it could be a completely different story. It has been theorized that NRP1 inhibitor therapy, could be used to battle cancer, in particular, those in brain, prostate, and breast tumors. In the case of COVID-19, the highest risk groups are adults who also happen to have a higher risk for such cancers.

So personally, I might be one of the first to line-up to get both doses before the pandemic is over. However I would have to be sure it's the right type, and I would also have to be sure that it doesn't inhibit the maintenance of existing nerves and blood vessels, or inhibit the growth of new ones for very long, because neural and vascular growth isn't completely inactive in mature people.

 
Last edited:
Britain Advises no COVID-19 Vaccines in Hospitals Without Resuscitators

According to a news bulletin here in Calgary, British health authorities have reported that people with allergies can have adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, and are advising not to administer the vaccine in hospitals without resuscitators. I haven't found any links only to cross reference this news item with yet. Those who get the vaccination here are being advised not to go anywhere for at least 20 minutes in case they experience an adverse reaction.

I have also not been able to find anyone who has considered the risk of using the mRNA vaccines with the Neuropilin-1 ( NRP1 ) blockers, on the formation of nerves and blood vessels. Any complications from this action would not likely be noticeable in the time that we have had to do the vaccine testing, but might possibly manifest as very serious complications over the course of months and years.

Important Questions About The Vaccine We Need Answered
  1. What allergies cause the most severe reaction to the vaccine?
  2. Does the vaccine block Neuropilin-1 ( NRP1 ) receptors on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or on human cells, or both?
  3. If the vaccine blocks Neuropilin-1 ( NRP1 ) receptors on humans, what effect does it have on the normal formation and maintenance of nerves and blood vessels, particularly in children?
 
Last edited:
This is something one should take up with their physicians before getting a shot. I got the impression, based on the reactions in UK, that this would tend to involve people with more severe sensitivities. With other vaccines coming online (Moderna will get emergency approval for the U.S. FDA next week they expect), there will be options for those with sensitivities one hopes.
 
This is something one should take up with their physicians before getting a shot.

I doubt that even most physicians will be able to answer those questions. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate all the variables. The best anyone can do right now is make an intelligent guess. I've already heard doctors on the radio make comments about the mRNA vaccine that aren't in keeping with the science behind it. So at this point, if any doctor claims that they have all the answers, it's BS.

I got the impression, based on the reactions in UK, that this would tend to involve people with more severe sensitivities. With other vaccines coming online (Moderna will get emergency approval for the U.S. FDA next week they expect), there will be options for those with sensitivities one hopes.

Here's how the issues have appeared on my radar:
  1. First we started hearing about the rapid development of vaccines
  2. Then came the news of a relatively new type of vaccine called mRNA vaccines
  3. Then came the news that this new vaccine is over 90% effective with "no serious vaccine side effects".
  4. Then this new vaccine was passed by health officials and hundreds of millions of orders were placed.
  5. Then we started hearing that the vaccine shouldn't be given to pregnant women and those under the age of 16.
  6. Then came the recommendation that people should avoid getting pregnant for months after getting vaccinated
  7. Then we heard that there were cases of serious allergic reactions in Britain
  8. Then came a report that no vaccines should be given in hospitals without a rescuscitator
  9. Then came a list of side effects that include sore arms, fever, headaches, and fatigue
Does anyone else see a pattern here?

The questions I posed in my previous post about the effect of this mRNA vaccine on the growth and maintenance of nerves ( including neurons ) and blood vessels fits with the recommendation to avoid young and pregnant people. Sheer coincidence? Or did they know about this potential hazard before the vaccine was approved, but kept it on the down-low so as to be first out of the gate to cash-in?

Given that the admitted side effects of the vaccine are worse than the symptoms that between 40 and 90% of those who get COVID-19 will experience, what rationale is there for low-risk individuals to get the vaccine? It doesn't prevent infection, or even transmission, and the way the vaccine works doesn't even offer or facilitate immunity in people who don't get the virus.

We've also been through how the numbers on deaths from the virus have been skewed so that they look far worse than they are in reality, but saying anything about that, or alternatives to lockdowns, tends to elicit irrational criticism and shaming from the COVID Nazis. Note here that I use the term "COVID Nazi" very loosely, similar to the term "coffee nazi" and not as a literal comparison.

Although it hasn't literally reached anything near actual Nazi proportions, people have been arrested and fined thousands of dollars, had their businesses and livelihoods ruined, forced into isolation under threat of incarceration, and neighbors have been encouraged to report each other to the authorities for breaking the rules. Others have openly picked physical fights with otherwise peaceful protesters.
 
Last edited:
Compensation Schemes For Victims of COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Australia providing drug companies with indemnity against legal claims ... Who pays compensation if a COVID19 vaccine has rare side effects

Most Common Side Effects The Same As The Milder Symptoms of the Disease

FDA List Of Side Effects: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

The most commonly reported side effects, which typically lasted several days:
  1. Pain at the injection site
  2. Fatigue
  3. Headache
  4. Muscle pain
  5. Chills
  6. Joint pain
  7. Fever
"Of note, more people experienced these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose."​
Note here that these are the milder side effects. When they get serious, they can be as serious as the serious symptoms of COVID-19. The two recipients in the UK who had an allergic reaction were so serious that a caution was issued not to administer the vaccine unless the hospital had a resuscitator.

Given that between 40% and 90% of the people who contract COVID-19 experience symptoms so mild they may not even know they have it, and that this vaccine will not prevent infection or transmission to others, or even guarantee immunity, plus the longer term effects on healthy patients just aren't known, I can appreciate that healthy people in low-risk situations may not want to get injected with a substance that practically guarantees they'll feel crappy ( and who knows what else ).

  • FACT SHEET ATTACHED
  • ALSO SEE THE DATA IN THE FDA Review of Efficacy and Safety PDF ( Interesting stuff starts on page 34 )
 

Attachments

  • Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Recipients.pdf
    190.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-Vaccine-Safety.pdf
    555.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
It is not unusual to have flu-like symptoms even with flu vaccine. They are generally brief when they occur, and are gone within a day or so.

As to the allergic reactions, this appears to involve people who, in general, have severe reactions of that sort. And they should be careful about considering this vaccine.

There is obviously no way to predict the extent of the symptoms if one gets COVID-19. Some famous people have died from it, including Charley Pride, one of the first black country singers to become a big star. I played his recordings when I worked, once, as a DJ at a country station in Alabama. In contrast, Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson had less severe symptoms, but they still lasted a couple of weeks.
 
There is obviously no way to predict the extent of the symptoms if one gets COVID-19 ...
Well, actually, the statistics for the seriousness of the disease are directly related to the age and health of a person before they are infected. So we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what will happen to most people. Yes there will be exceptions, but even those are only due to us having insufficient information about them.
Some famous people have died from it, including Charley Pride, one of the first black country singers to become a big star. I played his recordings when I worked, once, as a DJ at a country station in Alabama. In contrast ...
Charlie died at about age 86. The lifespan of the average American blacks is 75. He beat the odds by over 10 years, and it's entirely common for elderly people to die from some form of pneumonia ( the generic name for a respiratory infection ) and that is exactly what COVID-19 was originally described as.

So doesn't it make more sense to just add SARS-CoV-2 to the list of other germs that cause pneumonia, and chalk his death up to the ravages of age, than to cherry-pick this virus out of the pot? Yes. So why do it then? Could it be that it's because coronaphobia is dominating the news right now? And as with all news stories, if it bleeds it leads?

BTW, I loved Charlie's songs when I was a kid. Something about him came across to me as very genuine. He's a true legend in his genre.
 
Last edited:
IMPORTANT UPDATE

The connection between neuropilins and mRNA vaccines still needs clarification. Further efforts to find a direct reference for a neuropilin strategy in the specific Pfizer mRNA vaccine now being administered only reveals related articles. I can no longer find the original article that connected the two, and the rest have separated the direct neuropilin blocker strategy and the mRNA strategy into two separate groups. This might be good news.

If the original source citing the connection was in error and retracted, it could alleviate the related concerns about blocking neuropilin receptors. So far, I have now only found a statement saying, "In theory, blocking the spike would mean people wouldn't become infected with the virus." ( source ). But it is not specific about what is doing the "blocking" when it comes to mRNA vaccines, so it could also be worse.

Presently however, the outlook seems positive. While neuropilin blockers are a vaccine strategy, it doesn't appear to be exactly the same strategy used by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Instead of blocking the receptors directly, it looks like it gets our immune system to do the job. So now questions remain about the effect that the antibodies that attack the virus's receptors will have on the human receptors that the virus is mimicking.

The last thing we want is for our own immune system to start attacking our own cells because it thinks they're a COVID-19 virus. That sort of thing is really serious. For example Type 1 Diabetes is exactly this type of immune system disorder. In the case of Neuropilin-1, instead of pancreatic cells, the affected cells would be nerves and blood vessels.

So are we entirely sure there's no cause for concern? I'm not so sure yet, but will post news and info as it becomes available. If anyone else can answer these sorts of questions, please add yourself to the discussion. As an aside: I'd like to know just how the SARS-CoV-2 virus managed to "mimic" a human spike protein, and what aspect of a "zoonotic"process out of the animal kingdom could account for that.





 
Last edited:
COVID-19 and Human Rights - We are All In This Together
A Document From The United Nations

"COVID-19 is showing that universal health coverage (UHC) must become an imperative."​
"Countries that have invested in protecting economic and social rights are likely to be more resilient."​
"States need to be respecting and protecting, among other rights, freedom of expression and of the press, freedom of information, freedom of association and of assembly."​
"The threat is the virus, not the people. Emergency and security measures, if needed, must be temporary, proportional and aimed at protecting people."​
"This is not a time to neglect human rights; it is a time when, more than ever, human rights are needed to navigate this crisis in away that will allow us, as soon as possible, to focus again on achieving equitable sustainable development and sustaining peace."
Merry Christmas
AB_COVID_Banner-01a.jpg
United Nations Document Attached Below​
 

Attachments

  • UN_OnHumanRightsAndCOVID-19.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 1
Last edited:
FYI: My handicapped nephew, Jaret, suffered from severe stomach symptoms beginning yesterday. It may have been food-based, and he seems better today. But his mom is testing him today to be sure. Now he isn't a child — he's in his mid 40s — but children are being impacted by the virus, although severe symptoms aren't as frequent. However, they can infect older people even if asymptomatic, including parents and grandparents, and that factor is often overlooked in saying children are immune.

As of mid-November: "While severe complications are rare among children, they are possible. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionshows 1,163 children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with a serious condition linked to Covid-19 called multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Twenty of those children have died.

"Overall in the pandemic, the AAP said the number of pediatric Covid-19 deaths has reached 133. That is a fraction — 0.06 percent — of the total number of U.S. deaths."

Bu it doesn't make those deaths any less tragic.
 
FYI: My handicapped nephew, Jaret, suffered from severe stomach symptoms beginning yesterday. It may have been food-based, and he seems better today. But his mom is testing him today to be sure. Now he isn't a child — he's in his mid 40s — but children are being impacted by the virus, although severe symptoms aren't as frequent. However, they can infect older people even if asymptomatic, including parents and grandparents, and that factor is often overlooked in saying children are immune.

As of mid-November: "While severe complications are rare among children, they are possible. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionshows 1,163 children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with a serious condition linked to Covid-19 called multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Twenty of those children have died.

"Overall in the pandemic, the AAP said the number of pediatric Covid-19 deaths has reached 133. That is a fraction — 0.06 percent — of the total number of U.S. deaths."

Bu it doesn't make those deaths any less tragic.
Indeed. I'll have to take a closer look at those stats. However a death that is "linked to COVID-19" may still have no direct causal connection between COVID-19 and the cause of death. In the articles I've read, there hasn't been any deaths of healthy children as a direct result of COVID-19. But maybe those are now out of date or missed some of the evidence.
 
COVID-19 and Human Rights - We are All In This Together
A Document From The United Nations

"COVID-19 is showing that universal health coverage (UHC) must become an imperative."​
"Countries that have invested in protecting economic and social rights are likely to be more resilient."​
"States need to be respecting and protecting, among other rights, freedom of expression and of the press, freedom of information, freedom of association and of assembly."​
"The threat is the virus, not the people. Emergency and security measures, if needed, must be temporary, proportional and aimed at protecting people."​
"This is not a time to neglect human rights; it is a time when, more than ever, human rights are needed to navigate this crisis in away that will allow us, as soon as possible, to focus again on achieving equitable sustainable development and sustaining peace."
Merry Christmas
AB_COVID_Banner-01a.jpg
United Nations Document Attached Below​
Did you see footage of the anti-masker protests downtown? With Trump 2020 flags?

Infuriating. Nauseating. So stupid.
 
Did you see footage of the anti-masker protests downtown? With Trump 2020 flags? Infuriating. Nauseating. So stupid.
I didn't see the "Trump 2020" flags but I'll take your word for it that they were there someplace. I'll share your sentiment on that particular element.

However, what I have seen are photos with Canadian flags, and poster boards that say "Lockdowns Are More Deadly Than COVID" and "Let's Get Calgary Back To Work". These are valid sentiments, and what I find even more infuriating, was our pompous, presumptuous, judgmental, condescending Mayor demeaning them by labeling them as "self-indulgent", "not really standing up for their rights", and "only there to be cool".

I haven't heard a politician say something so outrageous in a civilized Western Democracy - ever. The overbearing attitude that he can see inside of the minds of a group of protesters and condemn them in public for what he thinks they believe and feel, is sick. Even if I might disagree with some elements within the protest, I have no doubt that many of them are genuinely concerned for rights and freedoms, as well as saving lives and livelihoods, by taking a non-lockdown approach, and I believe they should have every right to express their concerns without unconstructive offhanded condemnation.

In particular, whatever your views might be ( and I know we seem to have some differences here ), there are now over 50,000 medical & public health scientists and practitioners who don't agree with lockdowns either ( source ). That alone should be sufficient for any reasonably intelligent person to recognize that it is worthy of serious consideration, rather than being written off as uninformed childish opinion.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the "Trump 2020" flags but I'll take your word for it that they were there someplace. I'll share your sentiment on that particular element.
Yup it's wild. There were 3-4 people with them there.
However, what I have seen are photos with Canadian flags, and poster boards that say "Lockdowns Are More Deadly Than COVID" and "Let's Get Calgary Back To Work". These are valid sentiments, and what I find even more infuriating, was our pompous, presumptuous, judgmental, condescending Mayor demeaning them by labeling them as "self-indulgent", "not really standing up for their rights", and "only there to be cool".
I hate Nenshi, but he's right about this. Lockdowns are not more deadly than Covid. They are damaging, to be sure - so we should minimize them. And the way to minimize them is to wear masks and abide by the lockdown. The more we do it, the shorter it will be, and hopefully be avoided further.

That's the problem here - people not following the rules and not being stringent enough with enforcement (or the policy itself) has lead to more and longer lockdowns. Simply because people don't want to be told what to do.

It's childish.
I haven't heard a politician say something so outrageous in a civilized Western Democracy - ever. The overbearing attitude that he can see inside of the minds of a group of protesters and condemn them in public for what he thinks they believe and feel, is sick. Even if I might disagree with some elements within the protest, I have no doubt that many of them are genuinely concerned for rights and freedoms, as well as saving lives and livelihoods, by taking a non-lockdown approach, and I believe they should have every right to express their concerns without unconstructive offhanded condemnation.
My freedom to live outweighs their freedom to protest. It's quite a simple value proposition, quite frankly. I'm glad criminal charges have been laid, as well as tickets for not obeying the bylaw.
In particular, whatever your views might be ( and I know we seem to have some differences here ), there are now over 50,000 medical & public health scientists and practitioners who don't agree with lockdowns either ( source ). That alone should be sufficient for any reasonably intelligent person to recognize that it is worthy of serious consideration, rather than being written off as uninformed childish opinion.
We all know the facts, man. The world knows the facts. Lockdowns work. Masks work. If we would have been wearing the masks and not being stupid in our province, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place. But we didn't, and now we do, and numbers are already going down.

I love you man, but right is right here.
 
Yup it's wild. There were 3-4 people with them there.

I'm glad you decided to engage on this, because although we seem to have some very different views, we both respect the process by which differing views should be resolved. So it should be interesting to see how this unravels. I hope you're up to it. Also, although I don't agree with much of the way the pandemic has been managed, I personally have not broken any of the rules or restrictions in place.

For anyone who suggests that might be hypocritical of me, I will say that there is a difference between what the better approach might be, and one that works to some degree, but not as well. So if that's the boat we're in, then we still all need to do our part to make sure it is as effective as it can be, regardless of whatever else we might think. At least to a point, but I won't get into that now.

I hate Nenshi, but he's right about this. Lockdowns are not more deadly than Covid.

Whether or not lockdowns are or aren't more deadly than Covid depends on how we frame that debate, and what sort of data we allow. Are we going to only allow the subset of data that supports our particular frame of reference? Or are we going to consider the bigger picture?

To determine this in a fair minded way, I submit that if the main issue here is the cost in lives, then the considerations need to include the all the consequences of lockdowns and restrictions, and not only the issue of viral transmission.

To do otherwise would be to insist on being willfully ignorant of factors other than viral transmission that contribute to loss of life. I don't imagine you would want to take the tunnel vision approach, but we might as well be clear on it. Otherwise there is no way to know tell who is right or wrong or somewhere in between.

Can we agree on this point before continuing that issue?

They are damaging, to be sure - so we should minimize them. And the way to minimize them is to wear masks and abide by the lockdown. The more we do it, the shorter it will be, and hopefully be avoided further.

That is split into two different issues: 1. Masks & 2. Lockdowns. So let's look at those two issues:

Masks:

Masks may or may not do anything to prevent a COVID-19 infection. For example, where there is no virus, a mask is pointless, and no scientist can argue that. So the question then becomes: How many people are pointlessly wearing a mask at any given time? On top of that, how many people falsely believe that despite it being pointless, it is actually "protecting" them or anyone else?

A specific answer to this question is almost impossible to ascertain, but a little extrapolation on what we know from the data suggests that at any given time, the virus simply isn't present in the vast majority of individual situations where people are. It's not ubiquitously floating around in the air that everybody breathes. Therefore the vast majority of the time, it's totally pointless to be wearing a mask.

However, we do know that there are certain places where there is a higher risk of exposure, but even in those situations there is no guarantee of exposure, and even if exposed, there's no guarantee of infection, or that a mask will prevent the infection, because there are other routes for infection besides simple breathing.

Nevertheless, there are reasonable grounds for people in high-risk situations to wear a mask, because given enough time, the likelihood of becoming infected will approach near certainty. Those places have been identified as medical facilities, long-term care facilities, jails, retirement homes, places where people are self-isolating due to being tested positive, etc.

However for the many millions of the rest of the population, their mask is at this very moment, doing them no good at all. In fact, it's contributing to a lower quality of life, unnecessary fear, and adding to the litter of garbage on the street along with cigarette butts, plastic bags, sanitary wipes, and used condoms.

Bottom Line: Masks are an obvious "Yes" in some places, but not in others, so only high-risk places should be included in any requirement that they be worn. That is sort of the way it is already, and the way it was before the enforcement came into play. So I don't see the justification for enforcement bylaws. Outside the designated high-risk areas, masks should be entirely voluntary.

Do Lockdowns Work:

Again, how exactly do we define "work" and by what standard are we measuring that? A leaky paddle boat will "work", but maybe a bridge will work better, and fewer people will drown along the way. I signed the Great Barrington Declaration as a concerned citizen because when we look at the bigger picture, lockdowns have the potential to cost more lives than the virus itself.

I have included in other posts, links to papers that say the same thing, as well as references to statistics on the number of deaths caused by poverty, and a WHO report on the effects of the lockdowns on poverty. These numbers are in the many millions worldwide. There are now over 50,000 medical & public health scientists and practitioners who also agree with this concern.

Therefore I'm sorry to say, that while lockdowns might "work", it's certainly questionable whether or not they're the best option. We can't even be sure that in the places where they have been alleged to have worked, that they had anything to do with the result. At best, those are only unverifiable correlations. It may be the case that other factors played a much more significant role.

Bottom Line: A Lockdown will obviously lower the risk of transmission of a virus that is present in a place that is locked down. However widespread lockdowns that affect low-risk places that we don't know have any virus at all aren't justifiable, especially when there is a very real possibility that widespread lockdowns may cost more lives from the indirect economic and social consequences than the virus itself.

That's the problem here - people not following the rules and not being stringent enough with enforcement (or the policy itself) has lead to more and longer lockdowns. Simply because people don't want to be told what to do.

Relatively few situations seem to fit that assumption. The evidence shows that higher numbers of serious cases, are in the high-risk facilities mentioned earlier, where despite taking the precautions, the virus has been transmitted between people living there, or has unintentionally migrated from there to others outside those facilities, due to carriers not being aware that they had been exposed.

For those who are testing positive outside those high-risk areas, contact tracing has been very difficult. We simply don't know for sure how they were exposed, and therefore we don't know if masks or physical distancing were contributing factors or not. We can make an educated guess based on certain factors that are known, and make some broad assumptions, but when it comes to radically and negatively affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, we need to do better.

Lockdowns are not caused by the virus, they are caused by the Government, so putting the responsibility for lockdowns on people instead of Government is a bit like blaming the victim, especially when a closer look at the consequences of lockdowns makes it very uncertain that they are the best route to take.
It's childish.

Not necessarily. Concern about whether or not you can feed your kids and put a roof over their heads because you can't work isn't childish at all. There are perfectly healthy families out there now who are losing their homes, people sleeping in their cars, people committing suicide. Calling it childish is just a little too glib.

My freedom to live outweighs their freedom to protest. It's quite a simple value proposition, quite frankly. I'm glad criminal charges have been laid, as well as tickets for not obeying the bylaw.

That's a completely specious argument, but making it personal like that gives it an air of righteousness. The reality is that none of those people were any threat to your life at all, or for that matter, anyone else's. If they were such a big threat to anyone's life, why weren't they all falling dead on the street from COVID? Why aren't you dead right now?

Studies show that if you get COVID, there's a 40-90% chance it would be so mild you don't even know you have it. Not to mention that so far as I know, you personally aren't in a high-risk group. So no. Those protesters were no threat to your "freedom to live" at all. But nice try. It would make a great sound byte for the propaganda machine.

Something else to consider is what the protesters wanted. A significant number of poster boards were expressing a concern over the loss of their livelihoods and collateral loss of life as a consequence of the lockdowns. These are legitimate concerns, that from the point of view of someone who is facing eviction, and is wondering how they are going to provide for their family, is a much more direct threat to their lives than the virus.

So their concern about their lives are no less valid than yours. The difference is that some bully bylaw officer can take them down and fine them. Which brings up the issue of the right of citizens to protest. The only reason that any of these restrictions are in place is because we're in an AEMA situation, otherwise none of these measures would have any legal validity.

So it's fair to ask if AEMA measures are really necessary. To answer that we need to have a closer look at just how bad the situation is, not how bad we thought it might get when we knew less about it. We now know that this is a disease is so mild that 40-90% of the people who get it don't even know they have it. There simply aren't masses of people dropping dead in the street from the virus.

The vast majority of the rest recover fine within two weeks, the majority of the the rest also recover without hospitalization, and that only a small percentage end-up in a hospital bed. Most of them also survive, and virtually all who don't are already suffering from something that any number of other things besides COVID could be what finishes them off.

The Province has thousands of available beds and we are not near capacity. People aren't dying in the street from COVID, but there are people dying in the street from pandemic management fallout. We're in an economic crisis, not because healthy people couldn't work if they wanted to, but because the government has forced them not to. These factors do not in my mind justifying AEMA measures.

We all know the facts, man.

Not really. Some of us are more well informed than others ( including yours truly ). For many others, a lot of fear based assumptions are being made that could be making things worse, not better. They are not childish offhanded opinions either. Again, read the WHO paper on this and consider that some 50,000 medical & public health scientists and practitioners also have the same concerns. It's not reasonable to think their concerns are baseless. Additional info that supports my present view is included elsewhere on this thread, and in some new posts below.

The world knows the facts. Lockdowns work. Masks work. If we would have been wearing the masks and not being stupid in our province, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place. But we didn't, and now we do, and numbers are already going down.

We've just been through all that and it's far from that cut and dried.

I love you man, but right is right here.

Hey, at least we're having the discussion right here. And at least we're healthy enough to have it. Like I said at the start, I haven't personally broken a single bylaw. I am doing my part, because even if it is a leaky paddle boat, it's the boat we're in, and we have to do our part to get to the other side. I also have a bad habit of sticking up for the oppressed instead of the PTB, which can make me unpopular with the majority.

But for me it's not a popularity contest anyway. It's perfectly fine for people to complain about public policy and offer what they think is a better solution, so long as they do it at the same time as they are doing their part. Dragging the boat down just because they don't like it isn't the answer. Hopefully now that the vaccines are on the way, they'll assist in stomping out the pandemic, and things will get back to normal by next summer.

In the meantime, I hope you and your family stay well. Keep-up the conversation if it's not too draining for you. I'm not sure where exactly it should go from here. My final thought to throw out there is the following:

We've heard that the reasoning for the AEMA measures is to "protect the system from being overloaded". We still have thousands of available beds, and at present, they're making sure we have even more. But then we'd need support staff to work them. Could it be that the Government has invoked AEMA measures to keep the numbers so low as to not need those 11,000 healthcare support workers they want to get rid of?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top