Waiting for things to get better, will not make things better

[oops]

At the start of 2020 Canada’s federal debt was over $900 billion dollars. This year Justin has borrowed another $300 billion. As this was happening the gdp (gross domestic product) fell by 38% in the second quarter of the year. This has resulted in an unprecedented 114% rise in the debt to gdp ratio. This needs immediate attention by a leader with the will, and ability do address that situation. Justin is not that guy. During his time in office he has run deficits during times of prosperity. Increasing the debt during good times. This is a departure from the precedent set by former prime ministers. With a stated intention of borrowing a further $200 billion this year he clearly is not the answer to our problems.

Edited December 8, 2020 by oops
missing word wrong meaning

[betsy]

I don't mind the huge debts for economic recovery........it's unavoidable.  In order to recover and get back on our feet, we have to invest and spend.

 

But, what I really worry about is that,  based on the history of this administration when it comes to planning and investments and expenses, we end up with poor results!  - like the second-hand pipeline that we ended up buying for how many billions when we could've have had it for free!

 

Let's not forget how Trudeau is like a kid with a limitless plastic card.

We'd likely end up spending all these hundreds of billions or is it a trillion now.................................................for nothing.  

Edited December 7, 2020 by betsy

[oops]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

I don't mind the huge debts for economic recovery........it's unavoidable.  In order to recover and get back on our feet, we have to invest and spend.

In order to have economic recovery you need to let business do business.

[betsy]

41 minutes ago, oops said:

In order to have economic recovery you need to let business do business.

Well, yes.   But it's a tough call. 

When you've got soaring numbers - especially so when it greatly impacts our health system, you've got to try to control the surging covid first.   What happens if hospitals are so inundated by the numbers and there are also other kinds of cases that need hospitalizations - like, heart attacks, life-or-death surgeries.....surely we don't want hospitals to be turning people away! 

 

On one hand, yes businesses are open....and yet on the other hand, we need to build more hospitals and hire health workers (with the additional incentive of high pay-rate) - so we're losing on that end.   Not to mention, we'd still have the surge!  What good are businesses open?

That's only common sense.

But.....we know there are idiots who not only refuse to cooperate, but some even openly challenge the guidelines.   Unless the government can crack down and enforce their guidelines, we're not going anywhere other than wait for the vaccines......and hope they work! 

In the meantime - it's a roll of the dice if you and I are going to end up with covid!

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by betsy

[betsy]

I don't know why they're trying to "save" Christmas.  I hope it's not for religious reasons because faith isn't tied to Christmas!  Faith isn't tied to going to church.  We can practice our faith anywhere we are.  maybe they mean - Christmas shoppings.

 

Actually, the 2-weeks Holiday season when kids are home from school,  is the perfect timing for a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN (ALL CANADA)!

Just have stores prepare and be ready for the weeks before the lockdown so shoppers can all shop til they drop before the lockdown!  WITH MASKS, of course! 

Then - have a complete Canada-wide lock down for 2 weeks.  That should bring the surge down and buys us more time til the vaccines comes.....and hope they work!

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by betsy

[oops]

I believe that lockdowns are a bad idea. They are bad for our economy, bad for our healthcare system, and result in many deaths that should have been avoided. Most of my reasons are explained in the topic Should it be illegal for government to prevent businesses from operating?, but I could go through them again.

[Shady]

2 hours ago, oops said:

I believe that lockdowns are a bad idea. They are bad for our economy, bad for our healthcare system, and result in many deaths that should have been avoided. Most of my reasons are explained in the topic Should it be illegal for government to prevent businesses from operating?, but I could go through them again.

Even the world health organization doesn’t recommend lockdowns anymore.

[BubberMiley]

34 minutes ago, Shady said:

Even the world health organization doesn’t recommend lockdowns anymore.

Sorry to always be the one to point out you've been misled by your alt-right blogs but...

Once again, what you say is not only wrong, it's very stupid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, oops said:

I believe that lockdowns are a bad idea. They are bad for our economy, bad for our healthcare system, and result in many deaths that should have been avoided. Most of my reasons are explained in the topic Should it be illegal for government to prevent businesses from operating?, but I could go through them again.

I agree it is all bad for the economy, health care sys, physical and mental health for individuals. So we keep everything open, Now what, what is your plan ? 

The government can do what ever it thinks is best for the country (anything), in the past they have used the emergence powers act to shut down Montreal and some surrounding areas during the FLQ crises, and gave the military powers of arrest, and in one night they had locked up thousands criminals. they put in place a curfew, and restricted travel.. 

Look back through our history and you'll find lots of examples where our government has suspended rights, and constitutions. Shit how many times has Justin apologized to someone or some group...

[Infidel Dog]

37 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Sorry to always be the one to point out you've been misled by your alt-right blogs but...

Once again, what you say is not only wrong, it's very stupid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

Hang on there hero. Are you sure your article said what you hoped they said? Because I read it and it looks more like another case of somebody should have read past the title.

I'm not sure Shady is in disagreement with this article when it points out how The Who is back tracking. Weasel-Words who wrote the piece would like you to think there was not back tracking, but the truth slipped out:

Quote

As you can see, Nabarro said, “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.” Note the word “primary” here. He did not say, “do not advocate lockdowns as a means of control of this virus.” Nabarro continued by saying, “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Note the words “rather not do it” as opposed to “should not do it” or “will not do it.”

Nabarro went on to describe how “lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” He added, “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.” So basically, Nabarro was pointing out the potentially serious negative consequences of lockdowns. That, of course, makes sense.

So I remember when the WHO was pushing total lock downs. There was no use of the nebulous term "primary means of control." I see why they're backtracking to use it now though. Anytime things screw up they can say "Oh but you used the lockdown as a 'primary means of control'. We never advised you to do that.

But yeah Shady's right. The WHO backtracked.

[oops]

51 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Once again, what you say is not only wrong, it's very stupid.

Kind of a blanket statement. It doesn't seem that much thought went into that one. I am not saying that this makes your post seem stupid... but?

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

But yeah Shady's right. The WHO backtracked.

On what planet does "the WHO does not recommend lockdowns as the primary means of control" mean "the WHO doesn't recommend lockdowns anymore". Do you think people are too stupid to understand words, or do you just not understand them yourself?

[BubberMiley]

Just now, oops said:

Kind of a blanket statement. It doesn't seem that much thought went into that one. I am not saying that this makes your post seem stupid... but?

It was correct, blanket and all.

[Infidel Dog]

  

11 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

On what planet does "the WHO does not recommend lockdowns as the primary means of control" mean "the WHO doesn't recommend lockdowns anymore". Do you think people are too stupid to understand words, or do you just not understand them yourself?

 

"Primary means of control" is a mealy mouthed, weasel-word, nebulous term meaning whatever they want it to mean as the situation arises. Things go bad, so that was because you didn't use "primary means of control." Things work out so it was good that you didn't use "primary means of control." I knew what the Who meant when they were pushing full lockdowns.

But no, I don't believe "people" universally are too stupid to understand words. Evidence suggests some are though.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[BubberMiley]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

"Primary means of control" is a mealy mouthed, weasel-word, nebulous term meaning whatever they want it to mean as the situation arises. Things go bad, so that was because you didn't use "primary means of control." Things work out so it was good that you didn't use "primary means of control." I knew what they meant when they were pushing full lockdowns.

Whatever you're talking about now, it's still dangerous misinformation to say they don't recommend lockdowns anymore. Don't try to defend idiotic lies just because a fellow Trumper is saying them. It just makes you look stupid too.

[Infidel Dog]

Last we heard the Who now recommends some sort of lockdowns in some sort of situations. Perhaps we'll get more detail later on what those are.

At one time though there was no ambiguity as to what they were talking about. It was full lockdowns. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[oops]

21 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Don't try to defend idiotic lies just because a fellow Trumper is saying them

Your willingness to speak with authority on subjects that you know nothing about, makes it unlikely that you have a good grip on what is stupid. I do not in fact have fellow Trump supporters, and when the U.S. election results were verified they were to my liking.  As for right or left wing, I actually prefer two wings. Having only one might explain why you spend so much time going in circles, and arriving nowhere.

[BubberMiley]

1 minute ago, oops said:

Your willingness to speak with authority on subjects that you know nothing about, makes it unlikely that you have a good grip on what is stupid. I do not 

I'm sorry you haven't been able to follow. Try rereading and maybe that will help.

[Infidel Dog]

31 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Whatever you're talking about now, it's still dangerous misinformation to say they don't recommend lockdowns anymore.

Pardon me then, let's be specific. The WHO does now appear to be recommending some sort of lockdowns in some sort of situations. I imagine we'll discover what those are specifically after whatever happens, happens.

[BubberMiley]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Pardon me then, let's be specific. The WHO does now appear to be recommending some sort of lockdowns in some sort of situations. 

They always were. There was some alt-right misinformation that confused a few gullible Trumpers, but I was happy to clarify things once again for you all.

[Infidel Dog]

Some of us remember the Who recommending "full lockdowns."

And your best defence to that seems to be "Don't believe your lying eyes."

Look, your article didn't say what you wanted it to say when you just read the title. Live with it.

[BubberMiley]

No, it totally did. Shady said they weren't recommending lockdowns anymore. The article indicated they never stopped recommending them. That was my point. Why are you guys so easily confused by the simplest matters?

 

[oops]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

I'm sorry you haven't been able to follow. Try rereading and maybe that will help.

Quite true, I did seem to miss the fact that it was addressed to someone else. In view of that I might have taken it too personally, my apologies. As for blanket statements, they often mean that you have nothing specifc to say. As for the lock downs they were meant to flatten the curve. This means less infections at first more later.

 

The graph shows that there is a point in time when you have more people with the virus under the lock downs than you would have had without them. It is the lock downs that put stress on the hospitals, not the virus. The lock downs kill many save no one.

[BubberMiley]

The graph doesn't show that. It just shows you have fewer people with the virus all at once, which has always been the point of the lockdown.

[oops]

20 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The graph doesn't show that. It just shows you have fewer people with the virus all at once, which has always been the point of the lockdown.

The graph shows more than that. It shows that with protective measures we get fewer  infections early, but more later. It is now later, and we may be seeing the more infections now because of the measures. The point of the lock down was to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed, and reduce deaths. When your hospitals are stretched to their limits, with people waiting on months long ques for life saving treatments for cancer, heart disease and other ailments, and then close the hospitals, the waiting lists get longer. Some people will die waiting for treatments. Stop doing procedures, more people will  die. Of course when the hospitals reopened, people who were in need of treatment, but  but unable to be diagnosed during the shut downs  were now able to be scheduled for treatment adding again to the que.  Ontario now has 725 covid hospitalizations, and 384 hospitals. This means less than 2 cases per hospital (1.88 to be overly precise).  The government created a problem, and is now trying to blame the virus.

The lock downs also caused an increased number of deaths in opiod dependent people. Domestic abuse also increased as a result of the shut downs. Covid is a virus that has infected a small portion of the population, most suffering mild to moderate symptoms and the with a very large majority of the people recovering. The governments response affects almost everyone, and will leave people burdened for decades. 

 

Lockdowns mean the same number of infections, we will just have to live with them longer.