myata

In the search for information where it's not forthcoming from the expected sources there seem to be some answers: BBC: delta variant. I would ignore the title for now because the fact is clear: out of the identified approximately 8,500 delta variant cases, 196 resulted in hospitalizations, or 2.3% and there is no "adjustment" that can change this fact of observable reality. Now as many may know, not all Covid cases result in symptoms and are identified. From that it can be concluded that the risk of hospitalization due to Covid, without vaccination, in the general population is likely to be under 2%. And no, it isn't dramatically higher than that of the alpha variant (2.2% in the study). From the earlier analysis we know that by now close to 95% of the population should have a very good protection against Covid, with more than ten times (same link, 92% to 96%) reduced risk of hospitalization. A third grader can put the two together: 2% / 10 = under 0.2% risk of hospitalization, today, for fully vaccinated and equivalent (and for fully vaccinated with the Phizer vaccine - same study, the protection is 96%, or 2% / 20 = under 0.1% risk of hospitalization). For a comparison as cited earlier, the risk of a traffic injury (Ontario) is 0.6% - that's three times higher. There's also sufficient information to compare with the rate of complications from the flu. 24.7 million cases resulting in 334,185 hospital stays (USA, 2003 data) comes to approximately 1.4% of risk of hospitalization from an identified case of flu (compare to 2.3% for the delta variant of Covid). For the general population this results in approximately 0.12% risk of hospitalization due to flu. For the lazy of us, the conclusion based on published data and my calculations as it isn't seem to be coming from any other sources: the risk of complications due to Covid now, for fully vaccinated and equivalent is less than 2/1000, that is less than a double of the risk of flu complication (and for fully vaccinated with Phizer, less than that of a flu) and about a third of the risk of a traffic injury (Phizer: less than one sixth). The numbers don't lie. So is the sky still falling? Are blank and arbitrary restrictions supported by data and still justified? Or should PH authorities at last turn to their immediate business of working on effective management of the infection, as opposed to controlling the population?

Yes, looks like the difference is only in justification. Where in Xi's world it's the supreme wisdom of the party, here it's the government and its current agenda. That's it, no other difference, not noticeable in plain sight. What if we have already arrived and didn't even bother to notice, between the screen and a pack of beer?

What is the point of these scary anecdotes always with that word attached (CBC)? Did we get a scary story on every case of flu complications a few years back? Is it still information or already propaganda, and where is the line? Maybe the time is ripe to begin measuring a special and specific index, democracy degradation index. Authoritarian, unaccountable governing, arbitrary measures and decisions, free media or controlled media with government imposed agenda, independent justice or look the other way justice? At least we could track our progress this way so it's no surprise at some point down the way.

Yes, and it has to be an intelligent and responsible conversation, with participation of the society, I can't see how it could be on board actively and intelligently otherwise. Not a one-way dictate and certainly not under poorly formulated or plain wrong premises. And it needs to be ongoing, all the way while the problem is present. The realistic outcome has to be a reasonably normal functioning of the society with intelligent targeted measures to control the epidemics unless it is proven that it cannot be sufficient. And why should the outcome be bound to unaccountable one-way dictate, where is this notion even coming from in a (ostensibly) democratic society?

Note the terminology. So it has to be our, the right and shiny way or "raving lunatics" and nothing in between. And no reason or evidence needed either. Wait, what century did you say it (was) is?

These are very good questions and a subject for a discussion and determination by the society, rather than some obscure bureaucratic offices by only to them known rules and reasons. To me, the objectives are minimizing the epidemics impact on the society in all terms at the same time, i.e. we should strive at a set of measures that control the epidemics while allowing the society to function at the normal or near normal level. It isn't one or the other and certainly not a carte blanche for anything coming from high on. It has to, provably, effectively and efficiently reduce serious complications and mortality attributed to the epidemics without at the same time, unnecessarily restricting society and economy. Otherwise, if we wouldn't set these constraints on the bureaucracy, the default answer is known from the start: longer and deeper lockdowns just in case, can't lose by calling for more caution because if a new wave isn't growing it may start tomorrow and there will be no exit from this cycle.

We need to start analyzing the problem and the data may help us in that. But proving preordained conclusion by whatever mean possible just to confirm it correctness is a faulty method that isn't likely to produce the best solutions. Such an environment isn't productive for finding effective solutions. And then, there can be unforeseen and unintended risks to ongoing mass vaccination over extended time and possibly, very serious ones. In the absence of the ability and methods of careful and objective analysis of risks and benefits for the society, making such decisions ad hoc, based on assumed validity is at a minimum risky and can easily turn dangerous. And we seem to be drifting right there, to the cheerful march.

Who promised us that every problem will have a solution? Certainly not all dinosaurs found solutions to their problems. Some did though but it took a lot of jumping or running or swimming etc. One thing we should know though: if a problem is becoming more and more apparent, doing nothing will do very little to solve it. Nothing flows beneath bureaucratic bum firmly stuck to the governing chair.

Let's try to think about it objectively, and why not? 1. According to PH statistics, from 66 to 74% are vaccinated in Ontario (depending on fully or partially). Why the higher number should be taken? Because among the partially vaccinated there would be a significant group with strong natural immunity, by recovering or being exposed to infection, knowingly or not. 2. Next, children under 12 are about 15% of population, with a very small risk of complications. 3. The next group are non vaccinated with immunity protection: Wait, not scary anti aiii!, not yet. For example, those who had Covid or were exposed to it and had it confirmed by a test and for that reason delayed vaccination. And those who do regular testing that confirmed their immunity. We do not know how large this group is (why do we not know it? was it not sufficient time, or public money to find out?) but it has to be significant. The case count in Ontario is close to 5% of the adult population and one can guess that 20-30% of the recovered, so 1-2% of the population can be in this group. 4. And yet another group is non vaccinated (aiiii!!) to whom it cannot be recommended for medical reasons. These people would be very careful and would have a lower risk of infection. Estimate: 1-3% of the population. By this time we're have approximately 95% of the population with a small risk of complications and we haven't met the anathema "antivaxxer" yet. Hold your breath. Because everyone in the remaining 5% isn't necessarily out to get you, but may for example, just believe that they have naturally strong immunity and made a conscious choice to rely and depend on it. So how well is the notion "the restrictions must remain because of those scare antivaxxers" is grounded in the facts and reality? Is it still a thinly stretched version of it, or already accomplished nonsense and attempt of manipulation? The decision is yours because these are just numbers and the numbers and logic do not lie. Can the same be said of the bureaucrats protecting their chairs though?

Why do you insist projecting your emotions on those around? Who told you that someone is "discouraged" here? I only observe what can be seen in plain sight quite obviously, and gives someone a heck or no will be ultimately, their problem(s).

By that notion, if / while drowning in muck one has to act (no forget swimming to the nearest shore), get better at drowning, get a campaign manager join the party and so on? That surely will make much difference to the outcome.

That would be arithmetical and physical impossibility because the fraction of vaccinated (all types) in Ontario is approximately 75% (all ages), another 15% are children under 12 (with very low rate of serious complications) another unknown but likely significant part is non vaccinated recovered from Covid. That would make way over 90% of population with very strong (if claims to be believed) protection against Covid and there would be no reasons to keep arbitrary and unjustified restrictions in place (no matter the amount of exclamations). So nonsense and bull seems to be the only argument. OK, thanks that much is clear. And that is information in its own right.

It can only be added that closed and obscure, Politburo-style these decisions were made, with pretense to ultimate knowledge and unconditional mandate to profess isn't doing much else but shooting itself in the foot, repeatedly. Over and again in the history of science and the society it was found that the best decisions are made in an open exchange of ideas under rigorous critical examination. Sadly, that experience appears to have been entirely lost here. That only means that we're going to find it out yet again, and quite possibly, not the easiest way.

If vaccinations are as effective as said, arbitrary restrictions have to come down. Either they're coming down and the method is effective as claimed. Or something is wrong with the claims. Both aren't credible at the same time. Saying it is not doing it and showing it.

Early success story and great vaccination progress. UK: cases on the rise in all nations (BBC) What if the virus is trying to be smart and agile, while we insist on staying dumb and lazy?

That argument can be applied to anything, witchcraft included, unless defended and proven in a rigorous process based on reviewed and validated evidence. I'm scared so you must, no things don't work this way in this century's democracy. You'll have to choose one. P.S. I will not condemn those who are not complying with rules and policies that are not explained; justified and defended i.e. can be considered as arbitrary. That is not in my job description as a citizen of a democratic country. Governments can try that (again and again) and see what happens.

As discussed on a number of occasions, this country is critically missing, in both essence and the letter functional and effective mechanisms of oversight over the executive power and many of its branches and limbs. This has as a natural product, over the decades of development, an obscure, clumsy, over expensive and inefficient bureaucratic system that is strongly challenged to simply incapable of making correct decisions and producing good solutions. At the same time the complexity of problems in the world is growing at accelerating pace. It appears that the trends are on a collision course and there are no mechanisms for meaningful and necessary change. This can be illustrated by the current federal cabinet, where the results and accomplishments for the Canadians seem to have no influence on the position of certain figures. There's a known word for this style of management, and are we moving, gradually but steadily, and almost certainly, naturally, withing the rules and constraints of the system, to that model? Military: clearly failed leadership, multiple times. No impact on the leadership position. Public finance: the strategy is out of balance and based entirely on massive public spending. No clear parameters and framework for recovery under endemic Covid has been formulated and hopes for a quick exit from the pandemic and fast recovery are diminishing. No impact on the leadership position. Public health and epidemics management: failed leadership bordering on incompetence ("travel from Wuhan"). Volatile, incoherent and contradictory hand management. Problems in many areas. No impact on the leadership position.

You are making a good point. However there's a difference between a reasonable and effective policy; and an arbitrary, nonsense, an appearance only policy. Now, whose responsibility it would be to explain and prove the reasons for and effectiveness of proposed policies to the people? Who was and is being paid just for that huge and frankly, bordering on obscene compensations out of the public pocket (cited examples)? No. No automatic excuses to pass on all responsibility for all what is not working, all failures, fiascos, mumbled incoherent and self-contradictory rules and policies to the people who did not make them, and were not paid for it. Never was. Though it doesn't mean that someone wouldn't want it just this way. Maybe because for them it makes complete and perfect sense, i.e. being paid, generously and sometimes, outrageously with no, without any and total lack of responsibility for the outcomes in the reality. Does it for us though? Paid me; responsible for the stink, that has to be you. Would you hire a contractor like this, with such expectations and behavior for a private work for your own buck?

This is not about labeling people who think differently but finding an accommodation and compromise so both can coexist. This is what we're famous for after all. Is it what we really are though, in fact and reality, or is it only another self-painted pretty myth in a piping dream?

The question of early treatment is a very valid one. Since the early days enormous progress has been made and a number of effective treatments approved (feel free to have a look for yourself). Are they available to everybody in the country, and being used regularly and correctly? The problem is, no one can answer this question here, all valid and appropriate questions are muted by the propaganda drumming. But for some reason we hear a lot about ICU, "intubating" and other scary stuff way after early treatments could and should have been applied. Who can assure us, citizens who are paying for it out of our pockets that it's not yet another case of "travel from Wuhan"?

People have the right to live normal lives, make their own judgement without infusion of fear and arbitrary, unproven and not supported by objective and verifiable evidence restrictions. People have the right to honest, current and accurate information, free of interference and manipulation. People have the right to hold all and any authority accountable, including meaningful, detailed and complete explanation and justification of any decision(s) that affect them. Having paid for it, people have the right for a public health care system that can provide the best treatment on the global level, in case of need.

Actually the OP brings up an important question and thanks to the author for that whatever motivation. Clearly the society is divided into two groups, and it's not the matter of numbers. One is fine with possibly indefinite dependence on the guidance of authorities including boosters for the foreseeable future. The other wants to rely on the natural immunity and expects top quality information and treatment from the system in case of need. It is not a matter of bashing each other, neither who wins because these directions are incompatible and any attempt to impose or dominate would create further conflict. No. If we are a great democracy we like to paint ourselves on the walls and in the dreams we will find the way to accommodate and coexist and choose freely. How it could and will happen I don't know. But it isn't a wish but a test. If we are who we think and paint ourselves, we'll find a way to achieve that. And if not, if we could not or would not it could mean only one thing: we are not them, who we like to think and paint ourselves. We are someone else, in truth and essence.

Being a citizen I don't want bl..dy boosters forever. I want top notch healthcare system and modern effective treatment for everyone wherever and whenever needed. Sufficient capacity in the system. Vaccines to those at a higher risk of complications or anybody who wants it out of own pocket (not mine). Yes we have the right to expect and demand that, unless it's already a one-way country.

Obviously someone has invented a time machine, can they have more fun with it?

... then demand making it mandatory with the passport. Why omitting the essential part?