Canadian COVID-19 News

[Scorpius]

Regarding the nursing shortage here in BC at least, but perhaps in most, if not all jurisdictions in Canada:

In the late 1970's nurses in British Columbia, led by by the likes of my sister-in-law, a very senior nurse and on the board of the RNABC (the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia), formulated and drove a policy, which the provincial government subsequently adopted and implemented, to do away with a great many ancillary workers, such as orderlies, food service workers, and cleaning staff, in hospitals, and replace them with RN's. The nurses felt that it was in the patients' interests to have as much contact with their RNs as possible in order that they could be more empathetic and hence provide better care. The provincial government liked it because it greatly diminished the power of the Hospital Employees Union (HEU) which represented non-professionals in the hospitals, was quite militant at the time, and was causing significant disruptions to the health care system. RN's were not unionized and were seen by the government as being far more docile and manageable. (The RNs did unionize in February 1981 after the labour relations division of the RNABC broke away and formed a separate, independent union, the BCNU, and there have been sporadic outbreaks of their union militarism since).

This all occurred not that long after the government (pushed and supported by the RNABC) closed the hospital based nursing schools (which provided free nursing education and accreditation in return for the "slave labour" of providing student nurses as nurses' aides in the hospitals) and required nurses to graduate with a specialized Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university - an expensive four-year process (as opposed to only two at the hospital schools) which kept many interested people from pursuing nursing as a career.

Ever since these two related policy shifts there has been an acute shortage of RNs in this province.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

Anybody else raise an eyebrow when Alberta's Premier Kenny said it would be unfair to clamp down on peoples Christmas celebrations because it would hurt their feelings, knowing full well that when Alberta's hospitals get swamped again he'll start pleading for other Provinces to take his extra Covid patients?

Grrrr...

Yes.

Alberta throughout this pandemic is a textbook example of how politics and reality are often in conflict. What kills me is he promised to cutback on healthcare expenses and was well on his way to doing it before the pandemic hit and there is no indication that as soon as it is politically viable he won't go right back at trying to claw back health care in Alberta. I don't believe he has learned any of the lessons that Covid is teaching us about preparedness.

And I think we are going to take another big hit come January because of Kenney's blind spots.

[danstanford]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIqln7vT4w

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Like I say, beer is the solution to all life's problems

[hpeer]

^
Clink! ��

[Copacabana]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Dan, thanks so much for posting this. It's a glimmer of hope at a time when so much of the world is politically divided (even over vaccines and science... ). Perhaps we all just need to sit down and talk over a beer.

[N Coast Murray]

Refreshing!

[desodave]

Good one, Dan.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Maybe... but often the anti-science crowd puts huge effort into concocting their own alternative facts and theories, so it can't just be simple info overload.

There's plenty to disagree about over what we should do about climate change, or nuclear power, or Covid-19, or sex & gender in society, or... any number of other issues, without having to attack the foundational knowledge that science illuminates.

There is also the "Head in the Sand" crowd, who just don't want to know anything about it, are too scared and will do nothing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

There is also the "Head in the Sand" crowd, who just don't want to know anything about it, are too scared and will do nothing.

It's a good way to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with acknowledging something which demands action.

Some of these issues, like anthropogenic climate change or the safety of nuclear power, would require that we change our beliefs and behaviours. If there's one thing we know from cognitive science, it's that humans don't change their minds easily on issues that have become core to their being, or core to their membership in their chosen tribe.

So I guess for some it's easier to attack the science, or as you put it, stick one's head in the sand, than face a reality which demands personal change.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So I guess for some it's easier to attack the science . . .

Oh, the science.

One of the hallmarks of science is it 'attacks the science.' Indeed, scientific work must stand up under the criticism that comes with close scrutiny.

It's becoming a cliché for people to say "Trust the science." This statements is simply a slogan and actually is dogmatic (anti-science). Try replacing the word science with others and it should be obvious.

Trust the Gospel

Trust the government

Trust the corporations

Trust the experts

"Trust the Science" is a bogus statement because science isn't trusting.

The censorship we're increasingly seeing is wholly anti-science, just like the slogans above.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

Oh, the science.

One of the hallmarks of science is it 'attacks the science.' Indeed, scientific work must stand up under the criticism that comes with close scrutiny.

It's becoming a cliché for people to say "Trust the science." This statements is simply a slogan and actually is dogmatic (anti-science). Try replacing the word science with others and it should be obvious.

Trust the Gospel

Trust the government

Trust the corporations

Trust the experts

"Trust the Science" is a bogus statement because science isn't trusting.

The censorship we're increasingly seeing is wholly anti-science, just like the slogans above.

As a working scientist, I beg to differ. Yes, Science indeed is critical and continually searching; attacking, however, is not part of good science or good scientist modus operandi.

And certainly, "trust the science" is not a bogus statement.

Yours, on the other hand, is.

Over 90% of Canadians do not hold or welcome your point of view. Please go to another thread.

[CatNewBee]

Aah, the bubble and group think.... We and they...
Canadian need a safe space for self-reassurance, opposing views are not welcome.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Aah, the bubble and group think.... We and they...
Canadian need a safe space for self-reassurance, opposing views are not welcome.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]

No. It's not like current events could be called "reassuring".

Canadians want information, not MISinformation.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

As a working scientist, I beg to differ. Yes, Science indeed is critical and continually searching; attacking, however, is not part of good science or good scientist modus operandi.

And certainly, "trust the science" is not a bogus statement.

Yours, on the other hand, is.

Over 90% of Canadians do not hold or welcome your point of view. Please go to another thread.

It appears you agree with the critical aspect of science but disagree with my use of the word "attack."

If I've interpreted you correctly, then I agree with you. Attacking is not right, but scrutinizing and criticising is. I used the word "attack" to be consistent with the poster's quote.

But "trust the science" certainly is a slogan and, as such, basically meaningless. I can imagine the mainstream scientists might have said something similar to Galileo.

Trust the scientific method, not "the science."