Did Trudeau Fail His Country On Covid-19

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Right but I'm asking what you think the optimal response would be,

I don't know.   I was an elite infantry soldier, but this is above my pay grade, I have no idea what is actually going on behind the scenes

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't know.   I was an elite infantry soldier, but this is above my pay grade, I have no idea what is actually going on behind the scenes

What's your best guess? I've given you mine, I've yet to hear yours. It's way above my pay grade too, but I don't let that stop me.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

What's your best guess? I've given you mine, I've yet to hear yours. It's way above my pay grade too, but I don't let that stop me.

Best guess is that they aren't at all prepared and the blitzkrieg is upon us and so buckle up because this could be a huge disaster

Hopefully not, but I'll stay in my bunker as ordered until they sound the all clear

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

Absolutely! The stirring words of your commander in chief rallying the nation will live through eternity!

Trump's direct quotes about coronavirus:

January 22: “We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China. It's going to be just fine.”
February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
February 25: “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.”
February 25: “I think that's a problem that's going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we're very close to a vaccine.”
February 26: “The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
February 26: “We're going very substantially down, not up.”
February 27: “One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear.”
February 28: "Now the democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that right? They're politicizing it…they have no clue…they dont have any clue…this is their new hoax."
February 28: “We're ordering a lot of supplies. We're ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn't be ordering unless it was something like this. But we're ordering a lot of different elements of medical.”
March 2: “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don't think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?”
March 2: “A lot of things are happening, a lot of very exciting things are happening and they're happening very rapidly.”
March 4: “If we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work, but they get better.”
March 5: “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work.”
March 5: “The United States… has, as of now, only 129 cases… and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!”
March 6: “I think we're doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.”
March 6: “Anybody right now, and yesterday, anybody that needs a test gets a test. They're there. And the tests are beautiful…. the tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.”
March 6: “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it… Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?' Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.”
March 6: “I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault.”
March 8: “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.”
March 9: ““The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power (it used to be greater!) to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant,”
March 13: "I take no responsibility."

1) Funny thing is that, during the period covered by all of these quotes, people from coronavirus hotspots were flying into Canada and walking around free (and we weren't practicing social distancing yet) while they weren't even allowed into the US. So Trump was actually doing something positive while people were stockpiling these quotes and our idiot PM still did bupkis for another 6 days. Sorry to burst your bubble.

2) You can find a video in the OP showing our PM saying that eliminating international flights from coronavirus hotspots was unnecessary as late as March 16th. That's still 3 days after all of these quotes by Trump, and it's far more idiotic and dangerous than all of Trump's quotes put together. 

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Funny thing is that, during the period covered by all of these quotes, people from coronavirus hotspots were flying into Canada and walking around free

Yeah, pretty stupid.

But that's got nothing to do with your praising your God's leadership.

Hey, maybe you should read a book. This is one of my favorites! https://www.amazon.ca/Dont-Step-Leadership-Dilbert-Book/dp/0836278445

Edited March 27, 2020 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah, pretty stupid.

But that's got nothing to do with your praising your God's leadership.

I never said he was a god, or that he never made a single mistake, but if you hold Trump and Trudeau accountable to the same standard Trump has done far better to this point. That's it. He did things early on that our own leadership thought was wrong, now it's the global standard. Meanwhile, our own idiotic media is more critical of Trump than the are of blankie boy. 

Time will tell if Trump's pumping the breaks on the shutdown too early but I don't think he is. He can still dial back the recovery of current options fall flat. Trudeau still has people in a bunker mentality with no sign of hope.

[WestCanMan]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2020/03/25/photo-chart-shows-how-terrible-the-trudeau-liberals-coronavirus-response-has-been/?fbclid=IwAR3TgMMPFDmdUjitHYkoRCRqAlzxzvVdKdPtFhYcwZMlHz2MFewMlw2eTNM

Here's a chart that shows how Trudeau did nothing, did nothing, did nothing and then did nothing for a bit longer until all of a sudden this was a crisis which required unlimited spending powers for the government. 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 3/26/2020 at 4:24 PM, Moonbox said:

I'm not so sure that it was a deliberate power-grab, but rather just something they wanted to do to avoid delays on further action down the road.  It was a poor decision and even poorer attempt regardless, and the government ought to be embarrassed that they even tried.  

They knew what they were doing.  They think they know what's good for everyone, they probably thought they had good intentions.  The path to evil is paved with good intentions.

[mowich]

On 3/26/2020 at 1:24 PM, Moonbox said:

I'm not so sure that it was a deliberate power-grab, but rather just something they wanted to do to avoid delays on further action down the road.  It was a poor decision and even poorer attempt regardless, and the government ought to be embarrassed that they even tried.  

If it was just something that they wanted to do to avoid delays then why weren't they upfront with the Opposition parties and provincial premiers from the beginning?   Why wait until the very day they were to read the bill in the HoC before releasing their final draft?  

I can well understand that the government needs the ability to move quickly to respond to new developments during this crisis but that does not give them the right to forgo Parliamentary approval which as has just been demonstrated, can take place in a a day or two. 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They knew what they were doing.  They think they know what's good for everyone, they probably thought they had good intentions.  The path to evil is paved with good intentions.

 

Yep....the Liberals overreached and tried to undermine Parliament...for years.

Let's toss all the usual terms about...."banana republic"...."failed government"...."legislative coup"...."dictatorship".

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste".....

 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep....the Liberals overreached and tried to undermine Parliament...for years.

Let's toss all the usual terms about...."banana republic"...."failed government"...."legislative coup"...."dictatorship".

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste".....

Well let's not forget your dudes Bush & Cheney reached for the stars too.  Obviously this goes beyond country, party, ideology etc.  Corruption is a universal disease.

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well let's not forget your dudes Bush & Cheney reached for the stars too.  Obviously this goes beyond country, party, ideology etc.  Corruption is a universal disease.

 

Got no problem with that....but the Grits have long crowned themselves as the "natural ruling party of Canada".

The funny part is that Trudeau wasn't exactly winning gold medals for domestic or foreign policy before COVID-19, so he tried for a hostile takeover at the worst of times, just like any other two bit dictator.  

Edited March 28, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Wearing masks everywhere seems to be the thing to do in Asia. And given they've done a better job getting control of this than western countries which say masks are less than useless, I think we have to consider they're right and the West is wrong. Unfortunately, due to a nearly complete lack of preparation and risk management on the part of the federal government, there are no masks available to the general public. As this article suggests, much of the 'masks are useless' argument appears to be simply due to managing scarcity. Which means we should have stockpiled the things, especially since they all originate in other countries.

Studies on masks’ efficacy are extraordinarily difficult to do. Enlisting millions of people to wear masks during flu season, and comparing their infection rates to people who do not, simply hasn’t been done—nor could it, really. That’s left scientists struggling to compare observational studies from places such as Asia (where mask-wearing is prevalent) with places like the US or Europe where it is not. Drawing statistically valid comparisons is difficult, if not impossible.

Mathematical models offer one form of clarity. When just 50% of the population wears masks, say researchers simulating outbreaks, the share of the population infected by the virus is cut in half. Once 80% of the population wears a mask, it theoretically stops an outbreak in its tracks. “Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence,” notes a 2008 study by the Netherland’s National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.

https://qz.com/1826717/do-masks-protect-against-coronavirus/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

[cannuck]

On 3/28/2020 at 8:25 AM, Argus said:

Mathematical models offer one form of clarity. When just 50% of the population wears masks, say researchers simulating outbreaks, the share of the population infected by the virus is cut in half. Once 80% of the population wears a mask, it theoretically stops an outbreak in its tracks. “Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence,” notes a 2008 study by the Netherland’s National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.

https://qz.com/1826717/do-masks-protect-against-coronavirus/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

That is actually a very good article, but you have cherry picked what you want to see vs. what was written.  Note in you highlighted line, the conclusions  supporting efficacy are based on simulations, not real world stats.  It makes assumptions that are not borne out by studies of the workplace, thus one must conclude the assumptions are incorrect and the study's conclusions are not conclusive.

It IS true that a mask can catch droplets, but when the water dries, they could release the virus that could then EASILY pass through any practical mask to the other side, or be released to the atmosphere if on the outside.   It also - as is mentioned in the link - can lead to over-confidence leading to greater exposure.  Also worth noting that most masks don't cover eyes, another important path for the pathenogen.

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, cannuck said:

That is actually a very good article, but you have cherry picked what you want to see vs. what was written.  Note in you highlighted line, the conclusions  supporting efficacy are based on simulations, not real world stats.  It makes assumptions that are not borne out by studies of the workplace, thus one must conclude the assumptions are incorrect and the study's conclusions are not conclusive.

It IS true that a mask can catch droplets, but when the water dries, they could release the virus that could then EASILY pass through any practical mask to the other side, or be released to the atmosphere if on the outside.   It also - as is mentioned in the link - can lead to over-confidence leading to greater exposure.  Also worth noting that most masks don't cover eyes, another important path for the pathenogen.

The argument about overconfidence strikes me as arrogance. As if ordinary people are too stupid to realize this even when told repeatedly. And as the author points out it's virtually impossible to do a real life study on this - except that we're basically seeing it done in Asia. Even the people here who assure us masks are useless to protect oneself advise wearing them if you yourself are sick. And that is the part which I've chosen to focus on. I realize ordinary masks offer little protection to the individual, but if everyone wears one it will inevitably cut down on the transmission of the virus between members of a population. Thus while it isn't the solution it is certainly one of the list of things which might enormously help.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

That is actually a very good article, but you have cherry picked what you want to see vs. what was written.  Note in you highlighted line, the conclusions  supporting efficacy are based on simulations, not real world stats.  It makes assumptions that are not borne out by studies of the workplace, thus one must conclude the assumptions are incorrect and the study's conclusions are not conclusive.

It IS true that a mask can catch droplets, but when the water dries, they could release the virus that could then EASILY pass through any practical mask to the other side, or be released to the atmosphere if on the outside.   It also - as is mentioned in the link - can lead to over-confidence leading to greater exposure.  Also worth noting that most masks don't cover eyes, another important path for the pathenogen.

If wearing masks reduces exposure then you can certainly predict a reduction in the spread of the virus. 

Re: viruses trapped in water droplets, exposure to UV light will kill most of them while they’re hung up in a mask. The net effect of less viruses entering the sinus cavities of millions of people reduces the spread of infection. 
 

 

 

[cannuck]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If wearing masks reduces exposure then you can certainly predict a reduction in the spread of the virus. 

Re: viruses trapped in water droplets, exposure to UV light will kill most of them while they’re hung up in a mask. The net effect of less viruses entering the sinus cavities of millions of people reduces the spread of infection. 

UV is line-of-sight only.  The polypropylene fiber in the mask can "hide" most of its surface area from UV.   Simply heating the mask above 56C actually does the job.  Not sure of the time above critical temp required, but any bio guy can figure that out.

Edited March 30, 2020 by cannuck

[cannuck]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

1.The argument about overconfidence strikes me as arrogance. As if ordinary people are too stupid to realize this even when told repeatedly.

2. And as the author points out it's virtually impossible to do a real life study on this - except that we're basically seeing it done in Asia. Even the people here who assure us masks are useless to protect oneself advise wearing them if you yourself are sick. And that is the part which I've chosen to focus on.

3. I realize ordinary masks offer little protection to the individual, but if everyone wears one it will inevitably cut down on the transmission of the virus between members of a population. Thus while it isn't the solution it is certainly one of the list of things which might enormously help.

1. I could list off about a million things "ordinary" people do in spite of being told constantly and consistently by professionals not to do so.  Not arrogance, reality.

2. You are once more making an assumption that is is/was wearing of masks that resulted in the outcomes of Asian countries.  There are many, many differences in what happened so as to render that as yet another factor that can not be separated from the noise in the data.

3.  Masks are not likely protection FOR an individual, but protection FROM them to some degree.  It might catch SOME of the water borne virus within a cough or sneeze.  Unfortunately, to be at all effective, a mask has to actually seal to the face of the wearer, and that means clean shaven and rubber seal, plus eyes fully shielded.  If a mask leaks around the edges (which EVERY paper/cloth mask will) the lower resistance to flow and higher velocity at the leak will aspirate the smallest of particles and project them out of the leak - exactly what you do NOTwan to do. It then needs a cartridge that guards 100% at 0.1 microns, and if you have ever been around filtration you would know that is an extremely rare and unlikely thing to be able to do (again, this applies to free virus particles, not those contained in water droplets.)

 

[Boges]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If wearing masks reduces exposure then you can certainly predict a reduction in the spread of the virus. 

Re: viruses trapped in water droplets, exposure to UV light will kill most of them while they’re hung up in a mask. The net effect of less viruses entering the sinus cavities of millions of people reduces the spread of infection. 

So in this era when medical professionals can't get enough N95 masks, your solution is to fit EVERYONE!!!! with N95 masks. 

Or people could, you know, just stay the fuck home. And when you do go out don't touch your face and wash your hands a lot. 

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1. I could list off about a million things "ordinary" people do in spite of being told constantly and consistently by professionals not to do so.  Not arrogance, reality.

2. You are once more making an assumption that is is/was wearing of masks that resulted in the outcomes of Asian countries.  There are many, many differences in what happened so as to render that as yet another factor that can not be separated from the noise in the data.

3.  Masks are not likely protection FOR an individual, but protection FROM them to some degree.  It might catch SOME of the water borne virus within a cough or sneeze.  Unfortunately, to be at all effective, a mask has to actually seal to the face of the wearer, and that means clean shaven and rubber seal, plus eyes fully shielded.  If a mask leaks around the edges (which EVERY paper/cloth mask will) the lower resistance to flow and higher velocity at the leak will aspirate the smallest of particles and project them out of the leak - exactly what you do NOTwan to do. It then needs a cartridge that guards 100% at 0.1 microns, and if you have ever been around filtration you would know that is an extremely rare and unlikely thing to be able to do (again, this applies to free virus particles, not those contained in water droplets.)

 

Thanks for taking that time to explain.

[Boges]

30 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1. I could list off about a million things "ordinary" people do in spite of being told constantly and consistently by professionals not to do so.  Not arrogance, reality.

2. You are once more making an assumption that is is/was wearing of masks that resulted in the outcomes of Asian countries.  There are many, many differences in what happened so as to render that as yet another factor that can not be separated from the noise in the data.

3.  Masks are not likely protection FOR an individual, but protection FROM them to some degree.  It might catch SOME of the water borne virus within a cough or sneeze.  Unfortunately, to be at all effective, a mask has to actually seal to the face of the wearer, and that means clean shaven and rubber seal, plus eyes fully shielded.  If a mask leaks around the edges (which EVERY paper/cloth mask will) the lower resistance to flow and higher velocity at the leak will aspirate the smallest of particles and project them out of the leak - exactly what you do NOTwan to do. It then needs a cartridge that guards 100% at 0.1 microns, and if you have ever been around filtration you would know that is an extremely rare and unlikely thing to be able to do (again, this applies to free virus particles, not those contained in water droplets.)

 

This also speaks to the idea that, unless you're being sneezed on by someone in public, you don't really need a mask. 

You're not likely to get COVID-19 if share the breathable air with someone else. 

[cannuck]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

Thanks for taking that time to explain.

You are welcome...but in the morning rush, I neglected to mention that it would be the very small droplets of water that are most easily aspirated through a leak (Bernoulli's principle) and THOSE very small droplets can stay in the air for up to 3 hours.   (on edit) for Boges:  it is those very small aerosolized particles that are potential source of infection from the air, long, long after the sneezer has vacated.  Granted, much lower potential virus loading then some touch transfer might be, but still a vector.

Edited March 30, 2020 by cannuck

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

This also speaks to the idea that, unless you're being sneezed on by someone in public, you don't really need a mask. 

You're not likely to get COVID-19 if share the breathable air with someone else. 

Public Health Officials: "Masks are useless. Don't even think about wearing them."

Public Health Officials: "We're desperate for more masks for our people! If we don't get them they'll die!!"

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Thanks for taking that time to explain.

Oh yes, I'm convinced. In fact, if I had the power and authority I'd order all the hospital workers to stop wearing masks immediately. Clearly they're too stupid to realize how useless they are.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

1. I could list off about a million things "ordinary" people do in spite of being told constantly and consistently by professionals not to do so.  Not arrogance, reality.

Sure. But that's like saying "You know, people are too stupid to drive cars. I've seen a million stupid things they do while driving. So nobody but professionals should be allowed to own one.

Quote

2. You are once more making an assumption that is is/was wearing of masks that resulted in the outcomes of Asian countries. 

It's an assumption based on observation and judgement. I'm not saying they were responsible, but that they're a part of the set of tools Asian countries used. And Asian countries are the only ones who have managed to keep their infection rate down.

And aren't you making an assumption too, that wearing the masks has had no impact?

Quote

3.  Masks are not likely protection FOR an individual, but protection FROM them to some degree. 

Yes, I said that. At the same time given the desperation health professionals show in getting masks it would be idiotic to suggest they're not of any use in protection. Or do you think all the health care professionals who use them are simply confused and mistaken.

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Argus