myata

Well, what else can you get for two centuries or so benevolent ruling without slightest of checks and accountability? "We think so you are". "Avoid non-essential travel till further notice". "Welcome fully vaccinated tourists from around the world". In one sentence, and from the same mouth. Is it fait accompli, already? Have we arrived?

This is just the latest, and to remind, we are almost exactly twenty years past SARS and well into the second year of the Covid story: 1. Canada issues travel advisory to avoid non essential travel until further notice 2. Canada welcomes fully vaccinated tourists from the world. After all the puzzles and conundrums of the last year and this one, what can you make of this new idea? Can any sense be made of it, on the second year, and into the third decade?

Exactly. Plus they may have vastly different effectiveness in different settings and situations until proven otherwise to be a hugely effective universal panacea sorry, instrument. All time highs of waves two and three were reached with mask mandates in place, while in the first one they were not advised. The bottom line is, there can be two very directions of policy: intelligent and effective management of the epidemic; and appearance of action and cover bureaucratic bum management. And not a minor problem with proclaimed and drummed panaceas is that they may easily distract and change the direction from the former to the latter. For example what do masks do in the environments with low infection rate and sufficient spacing, do they actually do anything good, or otherwise as some studies shown? But it's easy to invest all time and effort into drumming versus for example, serious work on the ICU factor, the rate of cases and hospitalizations to ICU. The first is plain and st(andar)d drumming; while the second means serious work on the quality of emergency care, availability and timely and correct use of the latest and most effective treatments. So which one would you choose?

Sigh means that the energy was exhausted after the first paragraph? "Only one observational study has directly analyzed the impact of mask use in the community on COVID-19 transmission... (in China)". "However, the review included only three studies of mask use outside health care settings, all of which were of SARS, not of SARS-CoV-2..." "The remaining study found the use of masks was strongly protective, with a risk reduction of 70% for those that always wore a mask" that's one study, likely in China as well and one has to read it carefully for elimination of false correlation, for example "those that always wore a mask" can be extremely careful to avoid all kinds of contact so that the effect may not be attributed solely to mask wearing. "Overall, evidence from RCTs and observational studies is informative, but not compelling on its own" "None of the studies looked specifically at cloth masks." Sigh, indeed. "The lack of direct causal identifiability requires a more integrative systems view of efficacy. " OK, it goes on and on. The bottom line is, it's been close to two years and there's not one clear peer-reviewed experiment to the extent "this close group of 100 people wore masks and that did not, and here's the result". Why? There are almost certainly situations where mask use is warrantied. But to prove that it's an effective universal solution one has to try a lot harder and with much more convincing evidence. Remember, waves two and three reached all time highs in the same jurisdictions, with full mask mandates in place, while in the first wave they were optional and not enforced. Hows that for epidemiological and ecological evidence.

Very good, but why stopping there? Let's see, what happened next, after the mandates were reinstated or imposed? Did they turn down right away? And if they did not (waves two and three, all time records with full masking in place for months) then why were they imposed? Why impose something if it makes no clear difference to the outcome? Isn't it what's called "arbitrary" and voluntaristic? It's not about how serious (in your view) the limitations imposed on others are, but that it's arbitrary and in their view, unnecessary, and you adamantly refuse to explain and prove otherwise causing mistrust and resistance. So no, not the same as seatbelts, it's proven with facts that they save lives. But you have not proved the same for masks as a universal and default solution for all situations and environments.

And there's an obvious reason for that too. It's much easier to pursue the impossible goal to the infinity and beyond with propaganda playing orchestrated muzak, drums beating cheerfully for the last steps to perfect vaccination (that could easily take forever like dropping into a black hole) than to come up with, implement and show in reality working, effective solutions. Maybe they long forgot how that (the latter) is done?

It looks like something important is missing from the picture. And the longer we look the other way and pretend that it's just them the sore scapegoats, the harder it's going to hit eventually, because the real problem is overlooked, not understood and not solved and not even attempted. And so, by October or November either the cases would stabilize and the hysteria subside, or it would be the time for a change in the direction of the march and the muzak. That makes it interesting to watch.

And absolutely, the example is entirely valid and relevant because very obviously it's not an isolated doctor that was the source of the problem, in a normal professional environment he would have been just one of grotesque incompetents laughed out of the profession. The problem is with the environment that allows such doctors and experts to flourish, make pitches and recommendations to the powers and influence critical decisions without checks, independent review and if necessary, call to an explanation. And so once again, in another time, another pandemic can we afford to march for two decades blindly, with eyes and ears firmly shut in a wrong direction? Are there guarantees and who gave them, that all problems could always be fixed with a belated apology and compensation out of bottomless taxpayer's pocket?

How logical is "travel from Wuhan, not a problem!" after SARS (2002), MERS (2006), swine flu and the pandemic movies (2009)? Who stood up and said, no it shouldn't be right, like they were calling for ever more strict lockdowns? No it's not me, only the facts. I'm not saying that there aren't honest individual professionals but as a community it looks like the duty of the medical establishment is to the government where it gets its handout and not to the public, who ultimately pays the bill.

The repeated references to unvaccinated without any evidence, really and seriously smack of propaganda directed scapegoating. It was shown that the numbers of unprotected population by now have to be a tiny fraction of the population and it's hardly believable to entirely unbelievable that several hundred thousand could produce an infectious wave with the same counts as twelve million a year earlier. Why does it smell like another big stretch and distraction? Like something big is missing from the picture? A few months, or years from now we may even find out what.

The statement was about voluntary compliance and the comment was "apparently not". Apparently not, what? Over 90% of eligible population with strong protection, including very high level of voluntary vaccinations as can be seen immediately from the published numbers? Or apparently not 100% absolute and perfect compliance like in a communist or a Nazi state (this is not a comparison, only a quantitative similarity)?

What is that statement based on, any facts or evidence? The numbers are known and up to now they can be attributed to voluntary compliance. Are you expecting perfect 100% compliance? At this point the question can be asked, is it genuinely about safety and epidemics, or about looking for and appointing scapegoats because something is not working as expected and we haven't a clue why.

This is no laughing matter though. There is a well-known case of Dr. Charile Smith, an expert in pediatric anatomy whose expertise was used extensively (and without questioning) in Ontario's judicial system for decades resulting in numerous convictions. Till, decades later it became clear that the subject itself does not exist, and it was just incompetence or worse, charlatanism. Question: can we afford this kind of mindset and attitudes in the public health? And what could the cost of that be, in the next pandemic?

Forgot that word, "arbitrary"?

If you keep a lockdown till cases drop naturally, that is smart, but of course no evidence of effectiveness of lockdowns. It was already discussed, and the effectiveness can be evaluated based on the time from the beginning of the lockdown to the peak of the cases. So if you want to prove that lockdowns work, go ahead, do another lockdown right now when it's so scary, and we'll see if the cases will be dropping by end of the month. Don't wait till a certain point before the calculated peak, based on known duration of the wave. Why wait if one is so eager to bring them down? The story of brutal savages and the messenger of the Sun God who saved himself by making the Sun turn its face from them.

Not true, as recorded and proven by facts. Arbitrary, never explained or justified restrictions, imposed without due process and oversight are not only incompatible with the democracy; they are also counter-productive, just as we can observe for the second year of the story. Being entrenched; closed to different views and arguments; ignoring evidence that wouldn't support the party line only reinforces wrong decisions, while keeping the mind and eyes closed to better options. And unfortunately this can easily develop into a funnel where it's easier to keep pressing in the wrong direction than admit that it was wrong all along.

OK we have to do the math (only for Grade 3 experts) again. 1. The population of Ontario is 14.7 million 2. Children 12 and under: 2 million (Ontario demographics). Eligible population (over 12): 12.7 million 3. Vaccinated (very strong or good protection): 10,840,000 (Ontario vaccinations) 4. Recovered from Covid (considered equivalent to full vaccination): 567,000 (including unreported cases, possibly up to 1 million) 5. Exempted from vaccination for medical reasons: 1-3% (estimate): 250,00 Total: 11.7 to 12 million with strong or very strong (according to claims) protection. What remains is supposed to be the cause of this new scary wave. Several hundred thousand, less that 10% of the eligible population, many of them in the younger age group for obvious reasons, could produce a wave greater than the last one, without any vaccines? Either that; or something isn't working with the great new panacea as planned and being clueless, someone is in an urgent need of a new narrative and a hastily appointed scapegoat. The numbers are out there, so pick one.

Just recall that cases were down to practically zero by June and July. Delta - no delta, no delta - delta!!! Looks like the scary delta is like one of those reusable masks, used as and when needed. And looks like those who were hired and paid for understanding what's actually going on, naturally transitioned to drumming. Much easier and the pay is same, a no-brainer.

As of Sep. 2, Ontario: Fully vaccinated: 68% (total population 14.7 million) (Grade 3 math: 9,983,796 / 14,730,000 = 0.6778) Children under 12: up to 15% Fully recovered (equivalent to fully vaccinated): 5-8% (including unreported cases) Partially vaccinated (previously claimed to have strong protection): 8-10% Medical exceptions to vaccination: 1-3% Can you do the math? Who can?

There's a simple and short word: "untrustworthy". Cannot and not to be trusted. So many times, so many different stories fed and promises made, and not a single one came true (please spare me another listing). This appears to have been just another one in the long list. We're approaching the level of full vaccination of the population, down to the last couple of percent. There's simply no physical ground left for the covid-hysteria, it's all in the imagination, another detached reality created by incessant drumming. It can be understood though when looking from the other side. We have no clues and perfectly aware of that ("travel from Wuhan"). Something is happening that we did not expect and don't understand. What should we do, any clues, anyone? Where to distract, who to blame and what next muzak to play? Just forget everything what happened and was promised before, and march on, on and on. And we'll provide the drumming, what you thought the deal was managing the epidemics, ah so cute.

Remember the famous 18,000 cases models last spring? Have they been turned on again by any chance (and why not)? Ontario is facing 'substantial' fourth wave of COVID-19, modelling suggests

How hard is it to get that there's no automatic and unconditional right to limit the freedom of others, any one(s), even the tiniest-slightest ones (in your view) because a) it's not for you to judge the value of other's freedoms and b) there's no automatic right for arbitrary limitations of freedoms of other for any, however remote and stretched pretexts. And stop explaining and rationalizing such by your own failures and ineptitude (an incomplete list is below). It's been two decades after SARS, not even funny. Whose fault is it that after uncounted public billions were spent in two decades, epidemiological preparedness was at an insufficient level as confirmed by the report, and protection of vulnerable population, completely failed? Failed preparation to possible and predicted pandemics 18 years after SARS; "travel from Wuhan"; closed parks; all time highs in cases and hospitalizations with mandated masks (including ridiculous covid-dances in restaurants and gyms as described in place of effective methods to limit the spread); multiple lockdowns, 18 thousand cases forecast "models"; and most recently, not including the recovered to passport areas and activities, contrary to all science. And now, two decades, and almost two years on, as clueless as ever how to manage it efficiently and effectively, without theatrical appeals and dramas. It is already clear that the only chance of this ending in any foreseeable future is by the virus walking and handing the surrender, here, I had enough. I understand that this is the main hope of the strategy" but what's the chance of it happening, in this reality?

Or memory loss, can it be a side effect? Don't go here, just stay there! put this on maybe please, just put it on! vaccinate please just get the shot! .. I just hope it does not end with just line up here for your next mandatory shot, or face isolation for higher risk elements. Why, there have been known precedents.

Right, turn on the naive. By the way, works just as well in China too. Can be a bonus.

Definitely. Difficult to justify logically appealing to the state to prevent others from making legitimate choices then cry and shout when getting the back end of it. And equally hypocritical would be to proclaim devotion to freedom of choice and then attempt to deny or limit it on purely ideological grounds without sufficient justification and evidence.