Snowbird Concerns Winter 2020-21 | Page 3 | Your stories | Discussion forum

Briguy said
A lot of young people feel like Bill- COVID being no big deal to them. In Alabama they are now having COVID parties where they pay to get in, and invite people to the party with known COVID, and the first person to have contracted COVID after the party gets the proceeds of the ticket sales. I don't get a good feeling about the next generation reading this LOL . I guess this is part of the reason USA has had over 130K deaths so far.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/people-in-alabama-are-throwing-covid-19-parties-with-a-payout-when-one-gets-infected-official-1.5007903  

What a coincidence ! Tuscaloosa , Alabama has just voted to mandate mask wearing starting July 6. Toronto city council also recently "voted" to mandate masks to be worn effective July 6. Small world. Lockstep.

Jon said
Oscar, I read the abstract of your article, and I also quickly read through the article, the only thing I see is the incompetency of government in isolating the elderly and the sick which leads to massive death spike.

It is rare to find people that are evil in intention, however, it is common to find people that is evil in consequences because of their incompetence. It is quite an assumption to argue that government have committed mass homicide.

However, the long term impact of the disease is worrisome, perhaps it is the most worrisome thing about the disease as we know little about the disease.  

Jon I think the main finding of the report was that the overall death rates have not been higher overall and therefore he concludes that there was no plague.

Looking at any statistic in isolation will likely lead you astray.

We are not in a position to do a controlled experiment where we compare those who were only having a normal season in terms of death with those who had a covid season.

This is because some jurisdictions have put in more stringent measures to prevent and control covid, some areas are underserviced by health care, some did or did not have sufficient protecctive gear, and many many other factors.

It is very often quite difficult to clearly prove the value of preventive public health measures because, when they succeed, nothing much happens, a lot of people don't die, everyone forgets there was a risk, and public health budgets get slashed.
This makes some people think that those measures didn't work or were not important. And that's where we get into trouble.

Wasaga & beaches is mainly hordes of barely-clad young folks having a blast together in the sun, some older folks maybe don't approve. Planes and subways are for people with money and for going to work, those are seen as acceptable reasons to overlook distancing. Like some protests are ok sans distancing, political leaders even show up, but not Trump rallies. It's been very confusing to me.

Also Wasaga is a decision by local authorities trying to protect the locals, airline travel is regulated by feds.

Regarading air travel: what I heard on the radio was that the planes are NOT being filled to capacity but that fares will necessarily go up.
What they said was that on a 3-seat row, only the middle seat would be filled - although presumably families travelling together could occupy 2 or 3 seats. There were other measures that were also mentioned. I think there was something about fresh air rather than recirculated, but that might have been for subways; not sure as I didn't listen that closely.
I haven't verified this and have no plans to travel by air, regardless.

canadian.100 said

That is not correct re the middle seat. As of July 1 the middle seat WILL be available for a passenger - so all 3 seats in the row can be filled. Previously the middle seat was left empty while the seats on either side were occupied - for physical distancing. That will end according to the news link below.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7122339/coronavirus-airplane-seats/  

So that makes no sense- government is forcing us to socially distance in supermarkets so we end up lining outside to get in and at cashes to pay, and we can't enjoy our beaches en masse because of social distancing, but it's ok to be crammed in a jet for long periods of time with no social distancing. Or in a subway.

As Bill said, different levels of government, but no consistent message.

I agree that there are lots of inconsistencies, many within the same government's decrees.

For instance, we are allowed to take my mother out from her retirement home in our car and go anywhere we please for 12 hours, with the stipulation that we are all to wear masks and remain socially distant - impossible in a car and I doubt very much that everyone plans to obey this.
However, I am not allowed to visit her in her room under any circumstances except impending death, and must provide a recent negative covid test in order to visit with her in a very limited designated area in the building for a maximum half hour.
Further, we may not keep her out overnight under any circumstances. Apparently sleeping is more dangerous than I realized - but only at night. All of htis courtesy of the Government of Ontario.
The reality is I am at more risk from being with her than she is from being with me, since we follow all guidelines strictly, only go into stores when absolutely necessary, don't use public transit,
get covid tests every two weeks (for the above reasons only), and don't visit patios.
And that's only the beginning of my list of issues.

Sorry to hear about the details of the airline situation. I agree, it's ludicrous to cram people in, but let's bear in mind that, all along, many of these decisions have been made for economic reasons. With airlines, the choice is either sky-high prices, no air travel, or pack 'em in. Without at least one of those, the industry will collapse and nobody will be going anywhere by plane.
For most people, air travel is optional, so you do't have to cram yourself into those seats if you don't like the risk, but the risk remains in terms of passengers passing it on to the general public.
I understand some screening will take place at airports but probably not enough to eliminate risk.
But, again, it's never been about eliminating spread. It has always been about reducing it, so that the economy can keep going, albeit at a slower pace.
If the goal had been to eliminate it absolutely, they would have done a lot more and done it a lot sooner. But they didn't want to do that because it would disrupt the economy more than was felt acceptable. They have always talked in terms of "balancing" the needs of the economy with disease prevention, which has always meant that a certain degree of risk and, ultimately, death, is acceptable. The thing is, they aren't very transparent about how that is defined or arrived at, and we have no say in the matter. If they came out and told the public that "we believe X number of deaths will ensure and that that is an acceptable price for keeping the economy going", people would get upset, but this is in fact what they do every day with their projections. And this applies to all levels of government.

Canada sits somewhere around the middle on a world scale in this regard. Some countries have tipped the balance more in favour of reducing spread of virus and consequent deaths, and others have removed restrictions early or never had them and have more illness and deaths.

Stay home if you can. Don't take unnecessary plane trips. Get your groceries shopped by store staff and delivered or arrange pick-up. Where I live, pick-up works well as staff put the bags directly in the trunk of the car and payment is online. Look after your self!

I can be as critical as anyone of government policies, and I have more reason than many to do so. Among friends and family, I have a lot more to say. But, faced with the challenge of balancing the economy with covid, I think all governments have been in a difficult place, and certainly all in this country and the US were unprepared.
Should they have been better prepared? Absolutely. This disaster (and others yet to come) have been foreseen. But it is on the heads of all our governments that they did not invest enough in preparation, allowed nursing homes to become lethal cesspools, and so on.

@Loonie I agree with all your points, and to add to them I think most of the Covid situation in Canada was preventable. At the beginning when our federal government said there was no need to restrict our borders, wear masks etc. a tragic mistake was made. They were blindly following WHO ( puppet of the Chinese government ) advice. If from day 1 we all were wearing masks with proper social distancing, didn't allow any flights to Canada without a mandatory 14 day quarantine, only allowed health care workers in nursing homes to work in 1 location with full PPE, put all at risk people in full lockdown with government help in obtaining food, then this whole country wide lockdown could have been avoided, in my opinion.

Just for fun, I went on expedia.ca and attempted to book a one way flight from Covid hotspots to YYZ. It seemed possible- Miami to YYZ would cost 274.00 CAD to fly tomorrow. San Paolo Brazil to YYZ cost 2478 CAD to fly tomorrow, and involved 2 stopovers at US cities on the way ( Houston and Boston ). Are they not restricting flights from COVID hotspots? If not, not is there anyone policing people getting off plane at YYZ to make sure they don't stop at supermarket on way home?

@Oscar, I didn't see the clip about Tory and the MOH taking their masks on and off. It's not good form and they should have explained publicly why they were doing it because it would have been a good educational moment - assuming they had a good reason.
It may be that it just shows how reflexive it is to take off something that is in your way when you want to do something else. It may display their human weaknesses under pressure - they must surely be totally exhausted by now. It could even be an example of how (in my opinion) most of us tend to think that we could not possibly be vectors of this virus and are somehow exempt from what others are expected to do. In that regard, I personally detest wearing the mask, but I do it when I go out, all the while complaining to spouse - who is a more cooperative soul than I.
But I think it's quite possible that they were doing this because clear communication demanded it. A press conference with a muffled speaker is not going to communicate - especially to those of us who are hearing impaired. In fact, the Toronto by-law specifies that masks may be not be required when speaking with the hearing impaired.
But I do agree that an explanation was in order and we shouldn't have to speculate. Perhaps one will be forthcoming if enough people raise the question..

But I also think that in order to understand some of these contradictions or apparent contradictions, it is crucial to recognize that there has never been any official expectation that all the rules would be followed diligently all the time.
I can't emphasize enough that Public Health work is about trying to achieve the greatest effect on a given population, especially in a crisis. It depends on somehow coaxing people to do the right thing, knowing that not everyone will do it. They don't have the resources to enforce all the rules; it's simply impossible.
I am extremely well aware of the contradictions, but if you want to understand what they are doing, you have to absorb the fact that they are not aiming for consistency or eradication of the virus (would be nice but not the goal); they are aiming to reduce it as much as they can in the circumstances and considering the state of the economy. Even given that, I certainly think there is room for criticism and improvement. Still, we are much better off than some countries, including the US, because , although uneven, we have a had a reasonably consistent track record of gradual improvement - so far. I'd keep those planes grounded if it were me as I think the risk is high and the precautions inadequate, but that too raises big problems ass it's not so easy to start up an airline. Most fail from what I've seen. (I was on the first flight to London of Laker Airways back in 1977, which was supposed to revolutionize low cost travel. It didn't last too long. So I started paying attention.) While plane travel has been popular, Greyhound has cut most if not all of its routes, train tracks have been pulled up, and so on.

It goes back to what I said earlier. the goal was to reduce the number of cases as much as possible while minimizing disruption.

As for the question of why masks are now being required but weren't before, yes, you are right. The research on this evolving situation did not show that masks could be effective until part-way through the pandemic. I remember Dr Tam making this announcement and have no reason to disbelieve her. That's why it wasn't required earlier and in fact we were told it would not help. I think they could have pushed for mandatory use a few weeks ago, but the masks weren't even available then in quantity to the public. It was only at that point where the evidence started changing that people started thinking about making cloth masks.

As regards the nursing and retirement home visitor policies, there is a lot about them that is questionable.
The rules are set by the province and implemented by local health units. Some of the wording (and I have read most of the provincial directives) is very hard to even understand clearly, not because of medical jargon but because it is badly written. And I still can't get straight answers form anyone on some crucial questions, although I started asking over a month ago. Long story.

I can't speak to the international meeting you cite as I don't know much about it. But what I do know is that it's one thing to be aware and agree that there is a risk and even agree to try to get one's country or business into shape to anticipate it, but it's quite another matter to get everything in place.
September to December/January is no time at all in that context. For one thing, assuming a plan had been drawn up (a lengthy process in itself) it would require budgetary allocations (as we are now seeing in the extreme) and the Official Opposition would have almost certainly have poo-poo'd it. Provincially, the Ontario government pulled $37 million from the long term care funding when it had been known for decades by governments of all 3 parties that care in them was inadequate. I can remember my father complaining that my grandfather was barely getting enough food to keep a bird alive in his nursing home and was complaining of being hungry - and that was 40 years ago. No point in getting into how that money was being spent here but they sure weren't planning for a pandemic. As you may recall, we didn't even have anywhere near the necessary PPE, a basic requirement to deal with any pandemic or epidemic of this type, and it would have taken some time to get it under normal circumstances, and then it might have been found defective,as some of it was - if anybody bothered to look at it.
I would imagine that nobody at that meeting thought they'd be experiencing this very crisis within a few months.
This could be compared to the progress or lack thereof on the Paris Accord on climate change. Th countries made promises based on a known risk which actually had a timeline (unlike this pandemic). Some countries have done better than others but the overall impact has been underwhelming.