Search the Community

On another thread, there was an attempt at a reasonable discussion, but it unfortunately fell apart when a member became upset and resorted to dishonourable tactics. Almighty knows, I tried with ideas. While I'm willing to give someone patience, using fake gender-based accusations during a simple disagreement is not productive, so I'll start this one. This thread will begin by answering 20 Questions put forward by a Covid-19 Skeptic. Other things to come, later on. I prefer to focus more on the ideas and research I've come across, rather than my direct personal struggles. Quickly about the personal too, as an intro 😄 - I should mention that my busy work and longstanding trust in my family doctor have made it unnecessary for me to devote significant time to studying Covid-19. During the peak of the pandemic, I found myself working twice as much as I do now because many people were staying home and receiving government aid. This thread is about my search to confirm that I made the correct decision in trusting my physician. Doctors are doctors, engineers are engineers, and programmers are programmers, however it's not just about the job title. It's about the trust that has been built over years in my community with my doctor, who went to medical school and has the necessary qualifications to provide sound medical advice. If some of this research is out of date, please respond and will engage. However, if you are going to talk about my personal flaws that I volunteered and other low level language, will not engage, you can post, but will not engage you here, lots of other threads for that. --- --> / Series 1 responding to "1. Covid transmission: Those 'brilliant minds' couldn't even figure out the basics of viral transmission principles. Why didn't they perform experiments consisting of a control group?" A study conducted in Japan found that COVID-19 can spread through aerosols and respiratory droplets, even in outdoor settings, highlighting the importance of wearing masks to prevent transmission (source: The Lancet). Scientists have performed numerous studies on viral transmission principles, including the use of control groups. One such study conducted by the CDC found that individuals who had close contact with COVID-19 patients were more likely to contract the virus, providing evidence of person-to-person transmission (source: CDC). Earlier studies published in the journal Nature Medicine found that the virus can remain infectious in aerosols for up to three hours and on surfaces for up to three days, which supports the importance of wearing masks and maintaining good hand hygiene to prevent the spread of the virus. (source: Nature). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 Centrist's View (=) it's important to recognize that scientific consensus is not always perfect, and that the scientific community is constantly learning and adapting to new information. As I am not a Covid-19 fanatic, maybe some information above is out of date, but still more reality-based than the wild theories I have been hearing around. 😄While it's important to be critical of claims made by experts, it's also important to acknowledge the vast amount of research and expertise that has gone into understanding the virus and developing effective strategies for prevention and treatment. Additionally, it's important to balance public health concerns with individual freedoms and personal responsibility, recognizing that both are important for a functioning society. --- --> / Series 2 responding to "2. Asymptomatic spread: Surprise, surprise, they got this one wrong too. It took ages for them to realize that there is nothing such as an asymptomatic spread spread. But to be honest, I am convinced they knew that since the beginning." 1. The delay in recognizing the potential for asymptomatic spread was due in part to the novelty of the virus and the rapidly evolving understanding of its transmission dynamics. However, the scientific community has been actively studying the issue since early in the pandemic, and the research continues to refine the understanding of the role of asymptomatic spread. A study published in JAMA Network Open focuses on that. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 2. This study from Nature found that individuals who tested positive for Covid-19 were able to transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms of the disease, or even if they never developed symptoms at all. This suggests that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is indeed possible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 3. Centrist's view: It is important to acknowledge that during a pandemic, scientific understanding of the virus and its transmission can evolve as new evidence emerges. While the study cited earlier provides evidence for the possibility of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19, it is possible that later in the pandemic, there was more information available on this topic. Please add to the conversation if you consider that my points are wrong. --- --> / Series 3 responding to "3. PCR testing: Flawed, over-sensitive, and generally misleading. Bravo, consensus! Bravo, Drosten! No test, no pandemic - which is why that PCR test was introduced." 1. A study conducted in Belgium, compared the diagnostic performance of four different PCR-based tests for Covid-19. The study found that all four tests had high levels of sensitivity and specificity, indicating that PCR testing is a reliable method for diagnosing COVID-19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26531 2. A study in South Korea found that widespread testing, including PCR testing, was crucial in controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. The study reported that aggressive testing, tracing, and isolation measures helped to reduce the spread of the virus, even without the need for strict lockdowns. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea 3. Centrist's View: While it is true that some people have raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of PCR testing, multiple studies have found that this method is an effective way to diagnose COVID-19. That being said, it is important to acknowledge that no testing method is perfect, and there may be some limitations to PCR testing. However, the medical community has been working hard to address any issues with testing accuracy. --- --> / Series 4 responding to "4. No early treatment: They were so adamant about waiting for the experimental shot that they discriminated against those who called for early interventions. Imagine if everyone was encouraged to take vitamin D, which would have caused a new record low for excess mortality while being in the middle of a dangerous pandemic!?" 1. While some studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation may have potential benefits for preventing and treating respiratory infections, there is insufficient evidence (unless you can present some new studies) to support the use of vitamin D as a treatment for COVID-19. A meta-analysis published in the BMJ found that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infections, but the studies included in the analysis were not specific to COVID-19. Additionally, a study published in JAMA found that high-dose vitamin D supplementation did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay, ICU admission, or mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.It's important to note that while vitamin D may have potential benefits for overall health, in my opinion, it should not be viewed as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccinations or other medical treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583 2. Several European studies have examined the efficacy of early treatments for COVID-19, including the use of antivirals such as remdesivir, and monoclonal antibodies such as bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab.A study conducted in France found that early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with remdesivir did not significantly reduce mortality or hospital stay in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.In contrast, monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients. A study conducted in Germany found that treatment with bamlanivimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.While early treatment is important, it's crucial to rely on evidence-based medicine to determine the most effective and safe treatments for COVID-19. Monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients, while other treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir have not shown significant benefits in clinical trials. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109682 3. A centrist view would recognize the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, while also acknowledging the limitations of such treatments. Consulting with a healthcare provider (family doctor) is crucial in determining the most appropriate course of treatment based on individual circumstances. --- --> / Series 5 will be responding to "5. Fatality rate: Wildly overestimated (thanks to the fraudulent PCR test), causing unnecessary panic, which most likely caused the observed excess mortality. Great job, guys." *This will air in a few days, as information gets circulates better when is released gradually. 😎 Thank you.

I specialize in opening up controversial discussions. I was thinking about discussing Danielle Smith of Alberta, but I want to make it clear that questionable language is used by politicians from all sides, all the way to the Federal Level, AND not just conservatives, + this was in private. Some use "communists", not "nazis". I use both. 😄 Trudeau's public display of anger during the convoy protests makes me wonder what he may have said in private. Oh, I have some theories about that, when he stood around announcing the Emergency Act, before then, my theory is that he said a lot in private about the convoy group, which I don't agree with by the way, just looking at the politician's hypocrisy. SERIOUS NOTE - Danielle Smith recently apologized for comments linking COVID vaccinations to Nazi followers, which doesn't surprise me due to the prevalence of such tactics even here on the board, on a daily basis. If people are so angry over Covid-19, a self-defense mechanism kicks in, and the word "nazi" "communist" "deep state" "conspiracy" "sheep" come out. I think it's important to be open-minded and start a poll to gauge whether people find it appropriate to use the word "Nazi" when discussing COVID-19? Options: 1. Yes, it's appropriate 2. No, is not appropriate 3. Other opinion

This thread is based on the article ⬆️ Trending from Global News: Most Canadians want universal mental health care. I still don't understand, how some can use the word "most" when the poll is made online, with only 1.626 adults, but that is beside the point. My Opinion on the actual theory: The pandemic has undoubtedly taken a toll on a lot of people's mental health, including my own, which I have publicly admitted on this forum. Rather than channeling my energy toward the outside world, the pandemic has led me to become more engrossed inside, isolation via work, internet addiction and many other distractions. To counterbalance this, I installed a mini gym behind me, which is a small space where I can work out and do boxing. I attempted to return to a semi-office setting briefly, but it didn't work out. For me, getting up early and wasting time commuting to work reduces productivity. As a remote worker, I am already ahead by the time most people arrive at their office. This is a message to those who keep criticizing remote work on this forum and think "real work" is the typical communistic doctrine with a uniform in the morning early at 7am, get with the times. Regarding mental health, every time I go out, I see the effects of the pandemic on people's mental well-being and is getting worse downtown where I am. I have noticed an increase in my consumption of alcoholic beverages and changes in my interactions with others. If you look at my history on this forum during the bad days, you will see that my behavior was not that of a normal human being. I am aware that others on this forum have also been impacted by personal struggles, disappointments, and the pandemic itself. Just read some of their messages too, and you will notice how mental health issues are present in everyone, some worse than others. 😎 So, what are your thoughts on implementing universal mental health care? I worry that not everyone will understand the importance of productivity at the end of the day and might misuse the system, using the therapist as a crutch to sugarcoat their problems. Can a balanced system be put in place? To address these issues OR Uncle Sugar getting involved in this (=) a bad idea?

So Alec Baldwin got charged, every single article is about him that is trending. The other one that is trending is one that will most likely descend into chaos in terms of discussion, but before I post it, would like to say my piece on the Covid Vaccine yet again: ---> If you have a physician, please talk to them, on a personal level, this why I did, double vaccinated, I made a personal decision to stop (no booster) as I got Covid already. I survived so far, Bill Gates is not controlling my mind contrary to what the conspiracy folks are saying. ---> This article is from Reason.com, the leading libertarian publication from the US which got hold of some files. ---> There has to be a discussion amongst reasonable people, has the political class flexed their muscles too much during this pandemic? I don't believe in any grand conspiracy, possible that the virus was let out via incompetence by the CCP, I can believe that. ---> I think we can hold a rational discussion on the question above, without descending into radicalism and asking for overthrowing of governments. ---> The beauty of the West, is not like in China, once one side of the political class flexes their muscles, we change them by vote @myata ---------------- Inside the Facebook Files: Emails Reveal the CDC's Role in Silencing COVID-19 Dissent Throughout the pandemic, the CDC was in constant contact with Facebook, vetting what users were allowed to say on the social media site. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) played a direct role in policing permissible speech on social media throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Confidential emails obtained by Reason show that Facebook moderators were in constant contact with the CDC, and routinely asked government health officials to vet claims relating to the virus, mitigation efforts such as masks, and vaccines. For a broader analysis of the federal government's pandemic-era efforts to suppress free speech—and whether they violated the First Amendment—see Reason's March 2023 cover story on the ramifications of these emails. This article provides screenshots of the emails themselves. After Elon Musk took control of Twitter, he permitted several independent journalists to peruse the company's previous communications with the FBI, the CDC, the White House, and government officials elsewhere. These disclosures, which have become known as the Twitter Files, reveal that government bureaucrats put substantial pressure on Twitter to restrict alleged misinformation relating to elections, Hunter Biden, and COVID-19. The Facebook Files, which were obtained by Reason as a result of the state of Missouri's lawsuit against the Biden administration, reveal that the CDC had substantial influence over what users were allowed to discuss on Meta's platforms: Facebook and Instagram. The messages reveal an environment where the CDC kept tabs on Meta's moderation practices and regularly told the company what the agency wanted it to do. For instance, in May 2021, CDC officials began routinely vetting claims about COVID-19 vaccines that had appeared on Facebook. The platform left it up to the federal government to determine which assertions were accurate. Facebook's moderator notes that some of the above claims "would already be violating"—an implicit admission that the CDC's opinion on the other claims would be a deciding factor in whether the platform would restrict such content. Facebook was clearly a willing participant in this process; moderators repeatedly thanked the CDC for its "help in debunking." Claims vetted by the CDC included whether "COVID-19 is man-made." The CDC told Facebook that it was "theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely." For months, it was Meta policy to prohibit users from asserting that the pandemic may have originated from a lab leak. The platform revised this policy around the same time that the above email exchange took place. By July 2021, the CDC wasn't just evaluating which claims it thought were false, but whether they could "cause harm." Then, in November, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency authorization for children to receive Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. Meta proudly informed the CDC that it would remove false claims—"i.e. the COVID vaccine is not safe for kids"—from Facebook and Instagram. Meta also provided the CDC with a list of new claims about vaccines and asked whether the government thought they could "contribute to vaccine refusals." The CDC determined that this label applied to all such claims. It's important to consider the ramifications. Meta gave the CDC de facto power to police COVID-19 misinformation on the platforms; the CDC took the position that essentially any erroneous claim could contribute to vaccine hesitancy and cause social harm. This was a recipe for a vast silencing across Facebook and Instagram, at the federal government's implicit behest. Meta frequently gave the CDC lists of pandemic-related topics that had gone viral, seeking guidance on how to handle them. And the CDC informed Meta "to be on the lookout" for misinformation stemming from specific alleged misconceptions. Meta also kept the CDC apprised of criticism of Anthony Fauci, the White House's COVID-19 advisor and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). One email warned the CDC that Facebook users were mocking Fauci for changing his mind about masking and double-masking. The CDC replied that this information was "very helpful." If the tone of Meta's communications seems overly friendly, it's worth noting that staffers viewed government employees at the CDC as their "colleagues." In one email, Meta discussed providing said colleagues with access to a "reporting channel" for COVID-19 misinformation. The list of individuals with access included CDC staff, as well as employees at Reingold, a communications firm advising government health agencies. This is just a snapshot of the messages exchanged between the CDC and Meta. They also had regular conference calls. The CDC was not the only arm of the federal government engaged in this work, of course: White House staffers also castigated Meta for not deplatforming alleged misinformation fast enough. President Joe Biden himself accused Facebook of "killing people" in July 2021. One wonders whether these condemnations, from Biden and others in his administration—which included the specific threat of punitive regulation if demands for greater censorship were not met—influenced Meta's decision to delegate COVID-19 content moderation to the CDC. https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/

Based on the ⬆️ Trending article from the Toronto Sun Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he didn’t force anyone to get vaccinated. Trudeau said as much to a gathering of students at the University of Ottawa this week and a clip of the comments has gone viral promping responses from his political opponents. Poll: Do you agree with Trudeau's statement that he did not force anyone to get vaccinated? 1. Yes, I agree with him. 2. No, requiring certain employees and enforcing proof of vaccination can be considered a form of coercion. 3. I'm not sure. 4. Other.

You know, I am not a "REAL" conservative. That is a big boys title. I am a conservative when is needed. 😄 I think this country needs a change towards the Conservative Party, so having said that, will not focus on stories such as a 80 year old man, now US President mixing up a name. I think with the VP that he has (no work) and the inability of the Democratic Party to put forward someone younger, he is doing an OK job considering the monsters that are patrolling this Earth: Like Xi or Putin, old communists now pretending to be Presidents in China and Russia. So, will leave the superficial stories and focus on what Poilievre said, "Allow unvaccinated Canadians to cross U.S. border, Poilievre asks President Joe Biden." That is a point which is complex but of what a Conservative needs to do and a PM needs to do, really. Representing even fringes. Not all unvaccinated Canadians are what we see on Internet Boards (people with no purpose harassing medical staff via lies). There are a lot of unvaccinated Canadians that are reasonable and chose their own road and don't need to resort to garbage tactics such as manipulation to push their own personal agenda by harassing medical authorities. For me, Poilievre looks like a sane choice this country needs, even though I do not agree with everything he says. Compromise is what politics should be about about though.

Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says. The conclusion, which was made with “low confidence,” came as America’s intelligence agencies remained divided over the origins of the coronavirus. via New York Times (Full Read) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html ---> This is about the only thing that I could compromise on regarding Covid-19 theories, was open since the beginning that some CCP agent was stressed out, paranoid that the State is watching his every move, and leaked it by accident. ---> Anything further theory than this, I am suspicious.

Demonstrations have broken out in cities and university campuses across China amid widespread anger at Covid lockdowns. The wave of civil disobedience was triggered by an apartment fire on Friday in which at least 10 people died in the west Xinjiang region. In an unusually bold act that appeared to indicate the level of people’s desperation, a crowd in Shanghai called for the removal of the Communist party and President Xi Jinping in a standoff with police on Saturday, according to videos circulated on Twitter. Chinese people usually refrain from criticising the party and its leaders in public for fear of reprisals. Anti-lock-down protests spread in China as anger rises over zero-COVID strategy. (The Guardian).

I found this trending on a newspaper: Toronto Sun: My daughter and her fiance are working on their wedding invitations. They wish to invite only those who have received the COVID vaccination who can also show a negative test result prior to attending the event. They want to protect vulnerable friends and family members with health risks (i.e. cancer patients and elderly people). However, the groom’s mother is putting a lot of stress on the bride and groom to invite her unvaccinated brother and his unvaccinated family because she doesn’t want them to be upset and wants to be able to keep peace within the family. What would you suggest to this mother? How should she approach the daughter to try to convince her to invite the brother? Is there a middle ground here?

Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore is now ‘strongly recommending’ that Ontarians resume masking in all public indoor settings amid what he is calling a “triple threat” of respiratory viruses – RSV, flu and COVID-19. But he is stopping short of reintroducing a mask mandate for now and instead placing the onus on individuals to do their part to protect the most vulnerable among us. He is also calling on Ontarians to get their flu shots and take other precautions, such as screening for respiratory symptoms before attending work or school and practicing good hand hygiene. (Trending via the website CP24). https://www.cp24.com/news/ontarians-are-now-being-asked-to-resume-masking-indoors-here-is-what-you-need-to-know-about-when-to-mask-up-1.6151932

Making fully vaccinated travellers present the results of a $200.00 PCR Covid-19 test before they can enter Canada is highway robbery and completely unnecessary. It means that only wealthy families or small families will be able to afford to travel from or to Canada. Why did we get vaccinated? It hasn’t brought fewer restrictions on travel. On top of outrageously high energy and food prices, travellers must pay this draconian “PCR test” tax. There can be no day or weekend visits to US states or Canadian provinces along the border under these conditions. Why is Team Trudeau-Freeland burying Canadians in unnecessary costs and regulations yet again? Canadian and US businesses along the border are justifiably furious. https://apple.news/AK_BDVvuuRXebdWmqk5TvBg

Denmark, Norway, Iceland and several other countries temporarily suspended the use of vaccine while investigation of several cases of blood clots is ongoing. Health authorities of these countries clearly explained the rationale for their decisions. Not going to discuss the vaccines that is a complex scientific matter. I have a different question though: where are Canada's experts" in this matter? Right now, when their knowledge and expertise is needed where can it be found, apart from routine preachings on public health measures and the number of layers in the masks etc? As it was needed in the early days of the pandemics a year back? Will we hear another cheerful "not a problem!" and expert fingers crossed that it'll fix itself somehow and all can go back to managing pension plans? Two decades past the first calls of SARS-1 the signs are very clear that the bureaucratic system has successfully progressed from the state of limited efficiency to clear mediocrity. The objective these days is not to do it best and first but some time and anyhow. And the next frontier will be: a failure. Or a disaster. Just logical and practical progression. And the only direction a mediocre bureaucratic system void of any, forget effective, at all, quality checks and connections to the reality can evolve. Public hospital CEO salary is over $300,000. Public is asked to donate to keep the hospital running. Something here I can't quite figure out, sorry. So it wouldn't come as a surprise. It's been a while in coming.

I have to commend the public health offices of Ontario for a decent job on Covid-19 information. The level of detail is sufficient for understanding of the situation, and an effort was made to track the causes. Take a look for yourself: Ontario Covid-19 statistics So are there any essential conclusions that can be made from these numbers? Let's take a look. First I'm looking at the chart "Percentage of tests that were positive, by age group", with a clear spike around mid January, shortly before the second lockdown. Digging further into the numbers, we see, for the percentage of positive of all tests by age group: Under 13: 17.7% 14 - 17: 15.1% 18 - 24: 9.7% Above 25: 6.7% and below From these numbers it can be deduced with certain probability (but not proven because the coverage of tests has been in the range of 0.005 of the population, not enough for a confident statement - why btw?) that the incidence of the infection in the age groups involved in on-site education, schools or colleges, at the peak was 2 to 3 times higher than in the rest of the population. And after on-site classes were suspended, voila: one gets almost 50% reduction in new cases over two weeks of the lockdown (total new cases daily graph). So what conclusions can be made from these numbers? And are they the same as heard time and again from the news and experts? I recall an expert commenting that there was no evidence that on-site education setting was contributing to the spread. Is it not the evidence though possibly, not yet the proof? Can we expect, and trust experts to state their best understanding and knowledge of the situation, or only the truth of the day coming from the top? In some countries schools never closed and it did not result in an explosive development of the epidemics. Why? Are we using intelligent, science-based approach to control the epidemics at the sources of most likely spread with intelligent, effective and targeted policies? Or a shotgun approach?

After three months of distance learning that saw low student participation and put parents in the impossible position of teaching their kids while trying to work from home, the Province of Ontario is now proposing three options for September: return of all students to daily school with careful health hygiene, 100% distance learning, or a hybrid that divides all students into two cohorts that attend on alternate days/weeks. While it looks like 100% distance learning is off the table unless there's a big surge of Covid-19 cases or a local outbreak, the hybrid model seems to be the one being promoted by the Province. I believe this would be disastrous for both education and the economy. There's no way to get workplaces up and running on a full-time basis if parents cannot do their work without having to take care of their children at the same time. A part-time return to school would put working parents, including educators, in a very compromising position, having to either watch their children for half of the work week while trying to do their jobs or scramble to find daycare at the same time as thousands of other parents. Such a plan would not be safer than full-time school for students, as many of these children would be in daycares with students from multiple schools, presenting a greater health risk than having students attend one facility with the same children all week. The poorest families with the most precarious employment would be hardest hit by a part-time school schedule, having to pay for daycare or make the choice of risking losing their jobs in order to take care of their kids. We know that a learning model that is exclusively distance-learning from home is bad for student engagement, socialization, and education outcomes. We also know that having everyone return to school in a safe way than includes the necessary social distancing is a challenge without reducing class sizes and ensuring there is additional classroom space in schools. However, this can be done without substantial new hiring or budgetary increases. We need to accept a few conditions in order to make daily return to school possible. I propose, for staffing reasons, that non-classroom teachers (librarians, planning time teachers, French as a second language teachers, and a proportion of special education teaching staff) become regular classroom teachers throughout the remainder of the pandemic, so that class sizes can be reduced. While this may reduce the number of special education teachers available to provide segregated classes for special needs students, we were moving to a more inclusive special education model and classroom teachers will be better positioned to support special needs students with smaller class sizes. In order to have this kind of schedule, certain curriculum will have to be provided online, such as FSL. However, it would protect on-site learning for the core curricula of literacy, numeracy, science, and even geography and history (Social Studies). Phys. Ed would be taught within the classroom or outside where possible. This schedule requires that teachers take their planning time at home, as teachers would not be getting their own planning time coverage from non-classroom planning time teachers during the school day. The planning time and FSL teachers would teach regular classes. This schedule would shorten the school day, not only because of the planning time teachers would be taking at home, but also because this shorter school day eliminates the need for an afternoon recess, and for safety reasons, the lunch hour should be shortened, probably to 30 or 40 minutes. Unstructured periods like recess provide too much opportunity for breaking social distancing guidelines. Reducing recess time doesn’t impact instructional time. Shorter recesses could be taken in the regular classroom. Teachers could take their classes outside as long as classes don’t combine. Another sticking point for having all students in elementary schools at the same time is lack of space for social distancing, especially if class sizes are capped at an arbitrary number of, say, 15. If non-classroom teachers’ rooms are freed up (libraries, gyms, conference rooms, etc.), there will be additional spaces available for classes. There should not be an arbitrary class size cap, but rather a formula of students to square footage, so that social distancing is maintained no matter the class size. For example, a class of 28 students could easily be accommodated in a library or gym. Most elementary schools would be able to safely social distance all of their students if all of their available school spaces were used and non-classroom teachers took regular classes. In exceptional circumstances, some classes would have to be relocated to other schools, board-owned facilities, or leased facilities (adult-learning centres, high schools, banquet halls or sports facilities that cannot open until the final phase of reopening, etc.). School boards are able to implement such measures if they are given some basic criteria to follow, and they can do this without increasing budgets, as long as there is flexibility in allocations. If parents were shown such a plan and assured that social distancing and the necessary cleaning and safety measures will be taken, most students would return to school on a full-time basis, albeit with a shorter school day. It's also advisable for staffing purposes to get a short-term commitment from parents as to whether or not they intend to send their children to school, for a time frame of say 2-3 months at a time. That way schools will have a firm basis upon which to divide students and staff classes. It’s only fair to ask this commitment from parents for budgeting purposes. Such a plan would be sustainable if the pandemic continued for many months or even years. It could be flexible and adjusted for periods of distance learning if there are surges or local outbreaks of Covid-19. It's important to have a clear process for return to school that maximizes safety while returning as many students to school on a daily basis as possible, so that students are not robbed of opportunities and families are not put under unnecessary additional stress, financial or otherwise. Thoughts?

All over Ontario, people have been quarantined for weeks in order to flatten the curve and save lives, for the majority of places it has been working. Health officials are now saying that some places in Ontario have reached their peak and the daily number of cases are slowly starting to decline. However, long-term care homes are still at high risk and are being closely monitored to prevent a wide-scale outbreak. READ MORE AT https://www.youthinpolitics.net/post/leading-death-of-covid-19

All publicly-funded schools in Ontario will remain closed until at least May 31 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Education Minister Stephen Lecce has announced. Ontario schools were initially closed for two weeks following March Break in an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19. The government then extended the closure through at least May 4, though Premier Doug Ford later said that it was unrealistic to think that children would be able to return to classes by that point. Speaking at Queen’s Park on Sunday afternoon, Lecce said that the decision to extend the closure through the end of May was based on “expert advice” from public health officials. He said that “if there is a way to save some of the school year at the back end,” his government would consider it but not at the expense of safety. “The extension will provide the province more time, sufficient time to review the data and the modelling so that we can make the best decision based on the best medical advice and ensure that ultimately students remain safe and staff remain safe should they return to school at some point his year or at any point beyond,” he said. While a number of other provinces have announced the cancellation of in-person classes for the rest of the year, Ontario has so far refused to do the same though it has worked to ramp up its online learning program and has promised that students will receive final grades, regardless of whether schools reopen. On Sunday, Lecce said that he “appreciates full well” that parents, educators and students al want a “greater degree of certainty” and hopes to provide a “final update” with respect to this school year before May 31. He said that in the meantime the province will also provide “some greater” context with regards to the benchmarks that need to be hit to reopen schools when it releases its economic recovery plan sometime this week. “I think currently the advice from the chief medical officer of health is that we are not there today. We need more time we need to see a reduced risk to young people and we have accepted that advice as we always have and given ourselves another month of time,” he said. All remaining PA days cancelled Since ordering the closuring the closure of all schools last month, the province has worked to ramp up its online learning program and recently struck a deal with Apple to distribute thousands of iPads to students from low-income families. Lecce said that at this point there are no plans to extend the school year, as officials are confident that adequate instruction is being delivered through the online learning program. He did, however, say that all remaining professional activity (PA) days and examination days will be cancelled to maximize instruction time. The province is also working to introduce a more robust summer learning program to help interested students “mitigate from learning loss,” Lecce said. As for the eventual resumption of classes, whenever that may be, Lecce said that his government will take an open-mided approach to ensuring safety. “If students return at some point later this year my commitment is to come back here and communicate to you how I will ensure every parent in this province that we can ensure the safety of your child. If it involves changing how classrooms are structured or designed we will look at that. We have a duty and responsibility to be open to every idea to achieve safety,” he said. WATCH MY YOUTUBE VIDEO

Canadians won’t be able to return to life as they knew it before the novel coronavirus pandemic until a vaccine is available, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday. “Normality as it was before will not come back full-on until we get a vaccine for this… That will be a very long way off,” the prime minister said during his daily news conference on Canada’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

https://checkyourfact.com/2020/02/29/fact-check-donald-trump-coronavirus-hoax-south-carolina-rally/ Remember now, the Dem's media outlets that claim Trump called it a hoax, are the same media outlets who claimed 1st Lady Melania Trump wanted to have sex with Canada's Trudeau. All because of her lively response when Mr. Trudeau approached her to say hello back when they all were overseas at (G7 Summit?) the end of 2019.

As Canada confronts the worsening COVID-19 outbreak, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hinted his government might declare a federal emergency, giving his cabinet extra powers to battle the pandemic. “It is a major tool and I can tell you that we already have a lot of tools that allow us to do what we need to do,” said Trudeau, at his Thursday news conference outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa. “If there are other steps that need to be accomplished and can only be accomplished through invoking the Emergencies Act then we will do so.” Some experts have been urging the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, while others have shuddered at the idea, which would be an extraordinary step in the government’s response to the crisis. “We do recognize that the Emergencies Act is an extreme law with certain implications that would also require us to bring back the House of Commons to pass these measures,” said Trudeau.

So the cat is out of the bag on Covid-19 at Canada's prisons. Finally the mainstream press has taken notice. In this article the first 2 positive tests at Mission prison are admitted. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/correctional-service-of-canada-says-2-inmates-in-mission-have-covid-19-1.5522366 the total is now 11. Since the start of March PM Trudeau and Safety Minister bill Blair have been pressed to release prisoners to avoid overcrowding and take the inmates out of danger. Many thousands could be out if the categories of non-violent offences, and those within a few months of the end of their sentence were let go. The answer from Trudeau in at least 4 press conferences since early March, when asked are prisoners to be released? has been to side step the question with "we are working with correction Canada to take all steps to stop the spread of covid-19" as of now, no prisoners have been let out. Even the gross human rights abuser Iran has let out 80,000+. Investigative journalists have received phone calls from prisoners and find that there is no hand sanitizer issued, that prisoners are making their own masks from rags, and that anyone suspected of being infected is thrown into the solitary confinement cell for 24 hrs a day. The virus has now taken hold across the system . evidence from Corrections Canada https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/001/006/001006-1014-en.shtml As of 8th April Blair has ordered that critical corrections staff and contractors wear masks at all time...( Note 'critical' not 'all'). Why has it taken so long and why not 'all' ? What annoys me the most is Trudeau's 'don't worry be happy' responses. If he had just taken note of suggestions about the prisons at the start of March, many lives could have been saved. It is almost as if he has no comprehension of critical points like this and just spews out a 'we are working with' response as a knee-jerk reaction. Does he not care? Because he did nothing, now it is too late, there are cases spread over dozens of prisons, now they can't be let out because they will just spread it further. Trudeau and Blair have a lot to answer for on this issue. A very good podcast on the issue can be found on CANADALAND https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/320-coronavirus-is-in-our-prisons-and-trudeau-is-doing-nothing/ Actually I don't think it is lack of caring that is the problem with Trudeau and Blair, I think it is a mixture of incompetence and passive negligence.