Top Canadian Doctors Challenged to a Debate

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's break that down:
Origin and Epidemiology - what is the point of debating origin? Origin doesn't change a single thing, except to satisfy people whose ideology is more important than pragmatism. And very few of us understand epidemiology. It's not something to vote on.

Cost and Efficiency of Lockdowns, Masks and other restrictions - ok... but only if we can price both sides of this. What's the dollar value of an avoidable death? We must note that different countries have assigned different values here... a story told by their different death rates.

Many who early on decried the potential cost of lockdowns were wildly wrong. There hasn't been a wave of increased suicides. The majority of people and businesses have been weathering this. Economies are still chugging along.

And who gets to decide? Curiously, those who are most negative about the COVID restrictions tick most of the following boxes: younger, healthy, financially secure, white, conservative. Which means they are really putting others at risk, not themselves.

The millions worldwide whose other medical problems have been aggravated by them not seeing their doctors on time - sorry, what?? Medical procedures have been postphoned/delayed because of COVID patients taking too many resources. Increasingly these are people who didn't get vaccinated or don't observe precautions, or who were infected by others who did the same. There is only ONE way to make more resources available to those in need of those other treatments: do everything possible to avoid getting and spreading COVID! Get vaccinated, and take precautions. Period.



Well, you're kind of making my point for me. Those who own 4x4s and can afford to buy a plow kind of resent paying for the government's plows. No surprise there. But that's not how a functioning society works.

Origin and epidimiology are important bc they help to formulate a response. For example had the Dem politicians not shrill against completely closing flights to/from China early in the pandemic we could've potentially escape the worst of it. Not to mention public figures such as Schumer and Pelosi personally going to Chinatowns in February 2020 advocating against labeling China's behavior (hiding the true numbers of the infected) as the proximate cause of additional severity of the virus spread.

Cost and efficiency of the lockdown measures is largely unknown today precisely for the reason that the govt and the media have not allowed for an open and vigorous debate on the issue. How many cancers were not treated in time to not become fatal? How many mental health emergencies were needlessly aggravated? How many were additionally battered by their lockdowned partners? How many children developed life long developmental problems due to masking at an early age? None of these questions were or are being openly and thruthfully debated.

Covid hospital admissions were also mostly theatrics. If there is no officially approved treatment for Covid why hospitalize mild cases which could've been teated at home setting?

As far as cost of "an avoidable deaths" this is on all those politicians who pandered to their base when fighting against immediate and strict border crossings early on in the pandemic. How many lives would be saved if we really stopped ANY flights to/from China and surrounding regions say in early January 2020 instead of lukewarm and full of exceptions limits which were eventually enacted in March or later?

As an analogy - nuclear energy and weapons are science but using them or not in any context is politics. Same with the "science of pandemic". We cannot separate the two from each other into "science vs politics".

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And here's the age-old part that always gets left out: the flip side of freedom is responsibility. You can't maintain freedom for all if nobody acts responsibly.

When there's a pandemic (or a war, or some other widespread emergency), we have to work together to overcome it.

The core of current protests is a belief that they don't like shouldering any of the responsibility for helping end the pandemic.

Sorry, but a right or freedom is unconditional. Think about the meaning: “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…”. Endowed with unalienable rights. Does not sound conditional on responsible behavior. Can’t rescind. What some want it to read is “provisionally granted ‘rights’, rescindable if not used responsibly”, like a driver’s license. Think about the philosophical hollowness of that idea. Couldn’t build a nation on that view of the society. Some folks just object to being forced to take shots on the say so on a majority of others, especially since the purpose has changed from an epidemiological one (stop the spread) because the stuff is everywhere now, to one of personal health and well-being “because it’s better for you if you do catch it” pushed by the government, etc. Those folks know what they are about, and I doubt it’s about shirking their civic duties, IMO.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Auklet

Sorry, but a right or freedom is unconditional. Think about the meaning: “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…”. Endowed with unalienable rights.

Those words “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” aren't in the Charter of Rights...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Origin and epidimiology are important bc they help to formulate a response. For example had the Dem politicians not shrill against completely closing flights to/from China early in the pandemic we could've potentially escape the worst of it. Not to mention public figures such as Schumer and Pelosi personally going to Chinatowns in February 2020 advocating against labeling China's behavior (hiding the true numbers of the infected) as the proximate cause of additional severity of the virus spread.

You're just doing politics here. NONE of that would have mattered much, as we've since found out

How many cancers were not treated in time to not become fatal? How many mental health emergencies were needlessly aggravated? How many were additionally battered by their lockdowned partners? How many children developed life long developmental problems due to masking at an early age? None of these questions were or are being openly and thruthfully debated.

Reality is revealed, not debated. People didn't get necessary treatment because too many resources went to treating those with COVID. No other significant reason. Mental health, overdoses, domestic violence.... look around; if there's been a big surge in those, we'd know already. It's been almost two years.

I would maintain that (not even counting COVID deaths avoided), seeing a proactive response from authorities, and appropriate financial supports, gave most people the confidence to keep going. Exactly the opposite to what you're suggesting.

Covid hospital admissions were also mostly theatrics. If there is no officially approved treatment for Covid why hospitalize mild cases which could've been teated at home setting?

Since you're not a doctor, you're not qualified to pass judgment on any of that. Hint - you don't get hospitalized for a mild case of COVID.

As far as cost of "an avoidable deaths" this is on all those politicians who pandered to their base when fighting against immediate and strict border crossings early on in the pandemic. How many lives would be saved if we really stopped ANY flights to/from China and surrounding regions say in early January 2020 instead of lukewarm and full of exceptions limits which were eventually enacted in March or later?

I'm glad that you (and your family and friends) have apparently weathered all this well enough that the pandemic is just another front for your political amusement. Nothing short of a weld-the-door-shut Chinese-style absolute lockdown would have prevented the spread of COVID in the US. Would you have supported that?

Another hint - the pandemic has affected a bit more of the world than just you, CF, sailors, or Americans.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auklet

Sorry, but a right or freedom is unconditional. Think about the meaning: “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…”. Endowed with unalienable rights.

Yet there was a draft during WWII, and Korea, and Vietnam.

And please let's examine the rights currently being fought over. First, no one is being forced to get vaccinated, or wear a mask, etc etc. They're only being required to where their rights impinge on other's equal rights to life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff.

In other words, the rights of 10% or whatever shouldn't put the rights of the other 90% in jeopardy.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by pcmm

Those words “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” aren't in the Charter of Rights...

No, but represents the underlying philosophy that produced the Bill of Rights, and argued for the justification to break from the government of the time, etc.

[davil]

Originally Posted by Shrew

The foundation of science isn't debate. It's empiricism and reproducibility. Debate is a foundation of Philosophy which IS NOT a science. This entire premise is misguided.

What benefit would there be in debating the science of a virus. There are only two camps here (Science Vs Joe Rogan).

and the show goes on

"Voice in the Wilderness or a lone voice in the wilderness is an English idiom for someone who expresses an idea or opinion that is not popular or that the individual is the sole person expressing that particular opinion with the suggestion that the opinion is then ignored."

"What does it mean by the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
or a lone voice in the wilderness. someone who is pointing out the dangers in a situation or the truth about it, but nobody is paying any attention."

Sorry, could not help myself.

take care,enjoy the show.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Auklet

No, but represents the underlying philosophy that produced the Bill of Rights, and argued for the justification to break from the government of the time, etc.

You're quoting the wrong country!!!! This is a CANADIAN discussion..the U.S. bill of rights is irrelevant and not applicable!

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yet there was a draft during WWII, and Korea, and Vietnam.

And please let's examine the rights currently being fought over. First, no one is being forced to get vaccinated, or wear a mask, etc etc. They're only being required to where their rights impinge on other's equal rights to life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff.

In other words, the rights of 10% or whatever shouldn't put the rights of the other 90% in jeopardy.

If a person doesn’t have it, then cannot spread it. You can be unvaccinated and still not have it to spread. Mandates call for everyone to be vaccinated to keep from getting it, but now people who are vaccinated are catching it and spreading it. So, where are we? Get it, just in case, even though it it might not work, you encounter someone else who might catch it from you, IF have it—or else lose your job, or be taxed, blackballed, ridiculed, or whatever. I think that’s what the protesters are against. No. One does not have a “right” to force another to take action to directly protect them (prophylacticly). I certainly have not read that anywhere.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by davil

and the show goes on

Yes. The simple fact that we are all unburdened enough that the pandemic is just another front for political battle... that says to me that the west did a decent job fighting it off.

If we shared a bit more concern for less privileged (but sunny) countries, then cruising could open up a bit sooner. Just saying.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by pcmm

You're quoting the wrong country!!!! This is a CANADIAN discussion..the U.S. bill of rights is irrelevant and not applicable!

It does not change how folks perceive things. If you wish to understand why these folks might be doing this, IMO—that’s why. Yes, Canadian here, but this struggle is playing out world-wide today, and as I said, for centuries.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auklet

So, where are we? Get it, just in case, even though it it might not work, you encounter someone else who might catch it from you, IF have it—or else lose your job, or be taxed, blackballed, ridiculed, or whatever.

Where are we? We seem to be approaching a point where the built-up immunity (from either vaccination or getting Omicron) reduces the rate of spread to the point where we can say the pandemic is over.

So, the minority who have refused vaccination and other measures, have been carried by the majority who did get with the program.

[davil]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes. The simple fact that we are all unburdened enough that the pandemic is just another front for political battle... that says to me that the west did a decent job fighting it off.

If we shared a bit more concern for less privileged (but sunny) countries, then cruising could open up a bit sooner. Just saying.

============================
things are looking better and promising
let's hope this places continue their strict travel rules and "infringing" on the so-called "rights" of the "freedom fighters"

https://www.bing.com/covid/local/bermuda
https://www.bing.com/covid/local/bahamas
https://www.bing.com/covid/local/puertorico

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... that says to me that the west did a decent job fighting it off.

Just another way of saying “the ends justify the means.” But, I agree we’ve put our technology to good purpose in that respect.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, the minority who have refused vaccination and other measures, have been carried by the majority who did get with the program.

Good grief. So now we feel put upon to carry a disproportionately greater share of a common load? I think you folks might be the confused ones, not the protesters—Canadian or otherwise.