Should the public have full access to vaccine distribution information?

[cannuck]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Brand new virus. Why did people expect 100% knowledge on day one? Some scepticism of political motives is not unhealthy, rejecting science is.

Management is not science, it is just management.  When it was clear to the world that the center of a SERIOUS problem was in Wuhan, our Liberal government welcomed any and all flights, not even bothering to question, never mind scan for temperature thousands of travellers DAILY.  It was THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT that totally ignored the science from day one.

UK is a worthwhile note: they had no vaccine production capacity at the start, and have a large capacity to serve both their domestic and many international needs while our truly STUPID government made are really STUPID deal with China - completely ignoring the wisdom of ANY scientist that would have told them the standards for truth and transparency - never mind political interference - would be no where near Western standards.  That is simply TOTAL mismanagement by stupid people who we were stupid enough to elect and allow to hire/appoint really inept professionals.

[myata]

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Brand new virus. Why did people expect 100% knowledge on day one? Some scepticism of political motives is not unhealthy, rejecting science is.

Was it intended as a joke? SARS-1, 2002. MERS, 2006. In both cases this country's at the top of the list, and not in a good sense. Several pandemic series on TV and couple of movies. And two decades on, as "brand new" wow!

This is an epitome what was meant. And ten years from now (Canadian) bureaucracy will go "this is still oh so new to us" and why not? Of course not because it makes any sense to anybody but because it's what it knows to do and how to communicate clearly and meaningfully, and manage effectively, not so much. Sure there's Taiwan and New Zealand.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

..., rejecting science is.

Among many things that this pandemic has taught us is to be careful with words. Who is an "expert" and what is "science" for example? Is every individual in a certain chair by definition "an expert of science" and regardless of what they produce; or the result should matter too, in the definition?

Certainly, someone who managed to land a space vehicle on another planet with a clock precision, are expert scientists. And they don't need announcements and presentations on CBC for everybody to understand that, the result speaks for itself.

When a health administration expertly manages novel and dangerous disease with only a handful of casualties in a year, those are the experts, no qualifications or doubts.

And when a state-of-the-art vaccine is delivered and tested in less than a year, research excellence and management expertise produced a clear result.

But if billions of public funds sunk into a bottomless black hole without any visible results? If so called "experts" mumble and bumble about obviously clueless policies (like mask in the line outdoors but not in the restaurant, like travel from Wuhan and so on) someone, the public has to ask, what is the result here, forget the wonderful titles.

There's "science" and science, "experts" and experts and the meanings and importantly, the results aren't necessarily the same, however easy it could be to just say the word.

Edited March 2, 2021 by myata

[Aristides]

In this case the science is epidemiologists, public health professionals, specialists in the problem at hand and the medical professionals who take their cues from them. Not anti vax, anti mask homeopaths from Denman Island like Steven Malthouse. 

If you are close to people outdoors, masks are probably a good idea. Went to a restaurant last night. You have to wear a mask to and from your table and then you can take it off. Tables were all decently spaced and separated by six foot plexiglass dividers. They aren't all clueless policies, they are policies that try to give businesses a chance to operate safely in a pandemic without going broke.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Aristides

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Brand new virus. Why did people expect 100% knowledge on day one? Some scepticism of political motives is not unhealthy, rejecting science is.

There never has been any real proof that this China virus was any more dangerous to the many other viruses that have been visiting humanity for centuries now. Many doctors and scientists have been lying to us for some nefarious reasons on their part. Probably they are on the payroll of the vaccine pushing billionaire globalists. Hey, we never know, eh? 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

There never has been any real proof that this China virus was any more dangerous to the many other viruses that have been visiting humanity for centuries now. Many doctors and scientists have been lying to us for some nefarious reasons on their part. Probably they are on the payroll of the vaccine pushing billionaire globalists. Hey, we never know, eh? 

This has killed over two million world wide in the past year, including a half million Americans. Doctors and scientists lying for some nefarious reasons that you can't name. LOL

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

 They aren't all clueless policies, they are policies that try to give businesses a chance to operate safely in a pandemic without going broke.

I have yet to see a "plexiglass divider" in this city. In over a year of the pandemics the rules have changed about as many times as there were weeks but not a single effective method of controlling the spread was found, other than a total lockdown.

Still I need to return to the same question, though: the epidemiologists etc who produced the result of 5 casualties per million capita in a year; and those with the result of a thousand, are they the same "experts", "epidemiologists" and so on, and should they use the same title and the same benefits and so on. And obviously, why? Do you get the same pay for making a thousand cakes a day, versus only five. Or is it "still oh so new to us"?

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

I have yet to see a "plexiglass divider" in this city. In over a year of the pandemics the rules have changed about as many times as there were weeks but not a single effective method of controlling the spread was found, other than a total lockdown.

Still I need to return to the same question, though: the epidemiologists etc who produced the result of 5 casualties per million capita in a year; and those with the result of a thousand, are they the same "experts", "epidemiologists" and so on, and should they use the same title and the same benefits and so on. And obviously, why? Do you get the same pay for making a thousand cakes a day, versus only five. Or is it "still oh so new to us"?

I don't know what to say about where you live but restaurants where I live they have been using plexiglass dividers since before last fall.

Scientists give the advice, politicians either take it or they don't. Most public health experts in this country have been on the same page but the same cannot be said of all provinces or the attitudes of their citizens.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Aristides

[myata]

57 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Scientists give the advice, politicians either take it or they don't. Most public health experts in this country have been on the same page ...

Including the infamous "travel from Wuhan", two decades after SARS-1 and MERS? Not good enough: these scientists cannot have it both ways, propping poor and even disastrous decisions and maintaining the integrity of their position in the eyes of the public. Some expert(s) could have voiced their informed opinions last spring and quite likely it would have saved lives.

Nope: the trust and respect of the public do not come in a package with the chair as some experts" seem to think, or want to imply. They need to be earned, and maintained, with the factual result delivered to the public. And for that reason I turn the thing off or switch the channel the moment another expert comes on to profess about something. Until I see how it works, better and differently, in the reality.

[Aristides]

53 minutes ago, myata said:

Including the infamous "travel from Wuhan", two decades after SARS-1 and MERS? Not good enough: these scientists cannot have it both ways, propping poor and even disastrous decisions and maintaining the integrity of their position in the eyes of the public. Some expert(s) could have voiced their informed opinions last spring and quite likely it would have saved lives.

Nope: the trust and respect of the public do not come in a package with the chair as some experts" seem to think, or want to imply. They need to be earned, and maintained, with the factual result delivered to the public. And for that reason I turn the thing off or switch the channel the moment another expert comes on to profess about something. Until I see how it works, better and differently, in the reality.

Wuhan, Wuhan. Serology studies in BC showed last May that most of its first cases came from Europe, Eastern Canada and the US, not China.

[myata]

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Wuhan, Wuhan. Serology studies in BC showed last May that most of its first cases came from Europe, Eastern Canada and the US, not China.

Sure hide behind that "serology" thingy rather than admit responsibility for a dumb, irresponsible and incompetent act. That's precisely why there's no credibility to these folks and that which remains drains very quickly.

[Aristides]

57 minutes ago, myata said:

Sure hide behind that "serology" thingy rather than admit responsibility for a dumb, irresponsible and incompetent act. That's precisely why there's no credibility to these folks and that which remains drains very quickly.

Serology is a science. RNA sequencing done last spring showed the majority of BC cases originated from Europe/Eastern Canada like strains, half as many from Washington St. like strains and only a very small number from China and Iran.

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Serology is a science.

So sitting on the bums for two months was justified because the serology in the future would show us that it didn't matter anyways? Now it isn't so hard to understand how New Zealand has 26 casualties in a full year of this pandemics and this country, runs but such super cool experts - 22 thousand. That's the expertise and science speaking for themselves.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, myata said:

So sitting on the bums for two months was justified because the serology in the future would show us that it didn't matter anyways? Now it isn't so hard to understand how New Zealand has 26 casualties in a full year of this pandemics and this country, runs but such super cool experts - 22 thousand. That's the expertise and science speaking for themselves.

New Zealand and Australia did a lot of things right.  Arguably more than any other western countries. They are also island countries in the South Pacific.  They don't share a 5000km land border with the biggest Covid disaster country on the planet.

[dialamah]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Sure hide behind that "serology" thingy rather than admit responsibility for a dumb, irresponsible and incompetent act. That's precisely why there's no credibility to these folks and that which remains drains very quickly.

 

Experts in public health and disease have far more credibility than some yahoo on the internet doing some armchair quarterbacking about a game he knows nothing about.  Did you give up on yourself because you didn"t have all the right answers immediately, the day you started a new class or a new job, where would you be?  Would you do that to your kids or friends?  If so, your expectations of people are way out of whack.

[cannuck]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

In this case the science is epidemiologists, public health professionals, specialists in the problem at hand and the medical professionals who take their cues from them. Not anti vax, anti mask homeopaths from Denman Island like Steven Malthouse. 

If you are close to people outdoors, masks are probably a good idea. Went to a restaurant last night. You have to wear a mask to and from your table and then you can take it off. Tables were all decently spaced and separated by six foot plexiglass dividers. They aren't all clueless policies, they are policies that try to give businesses a chance to operate safely in a pandemic without going broke.

I am not a medical guy, but I do support some of them from a mech-tech perspective.  Rather than quote all of your posts, let me first thank you for posting the BC source data.  Yes, serology is a valid science for contact tracing, and how such data has been generated worldwide.  At least here, the chances of the sources being credible are significant.  Serology is retrocative and not nearly the kind of accuracy required for infection indentification but it is not intended to do so.   PCR may be the gold standard, but CRISPR blows it out of the water - and I am extremely disappointed in governments not getting the latter technology into point-of-care status in a timely manner.

That said: how our governments have managed this pandemic is laughable...or would be if it didn't cost people their lives and livelihoods.  Where it comes down to reality is this idea that you can put people in a confined space (i.e. ANY room together) and that a rag over their face is somehow going to prevent them from transmitting or inhaling virus in the air.  The whole mask thing is IMHO (and that would be in my professional opinion) the primary cause of the second wave.  That and of course a MUCH higher number of carriers wandering around unchecked.  Yes, a mask and/or a plastic face or countertop shield will prevent a massive gob of snot from landing on the other side, but the real risk is airborne water vapour that carries virus particles into the air.  They can stay airborne for HOURS, and nothing short of a properly fit tested and verified seal chemical mask with the correct cartridges and NO exhalation valve will do anything at all to prevent aspration of said particles.   Masks that leak around the nose not only do not protect, but provide the aerodynamic conditions to far more effectively project water vapour and micro droplets into the air, and in a closed building, they WILL cause communication - that is a 100% guarantee.  Part of that is because when they do settle, they can persist on some surfaces for several days.  SOME cleaning efforts can deal with the surfaces, but not the air.

If you think back to the spring: most businesses were ordered or persuaded to operate by doing curbside delivery with pickup from tables.  If you look around now, you have people crammed into stores with masks doing as I just explained.   Staying a 2 meters apart might be somewhat effective out-of-doors, but is a total farce inside.

[myata]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

They don't share a 5000km land border with the biggest Covid disaster country on the planet.

OK, how about writing a report outlining all the plausible explanations for the mediocre if not deplorable outcome? I can even help with the starting line: "and so almost two decades after the SARS-1 debacle a brand new virus has struck and based on the conclusions of the future serology it was wisely decided to sit on the hands and do nothing for two months (while collecting paychecks and benefits, how else?)"

Couple of millions of taxpayer dollars should do, as a preliminary budget but can always be extended in progress. There's a complete skill set and good use of time and resources, agree?

[myata]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

Did you give up on yourself because you didn"t have all the right answers immediately, the day you started a new class or a new job, where would you be?  Would you do that to your kids or friends?  If so, your expectations of people are way out of whack.

That would be funny (if it did not cost over twenty thousand lives) about "new job", twenty years after SARS and MERS but OK illustrates well the mentality there. I don't give up on any information, and listen to the experts that have or can confirm their claims with the matching results. That is called btw "the empirical approach" that some scientists may have heard about.

[cannuck]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

Experts in public health and disease have far more credibility than some yahoo on the internet doing some armchair quarterbacking about a game he knows nothing about.  Did you give up on yourself because you didn"t have all the right answers immediately, the day you started a new class or a new job, where would you be?  Would you do that to your kids or friends?  If so, your expectations of people are way out of whack.

This is something I deal with ever day, and have for decades.   While an epidemiologist may have reasonable credibility when assessing the biological and even bio-chemical aspects of their day (although that is something my bio-chemist would argue vigorously), that is in no way any endorsement that they can deal with the physics of things involved in transmission.  One thing that is noteably deficient in North America (and even worse in Asia) is inter-disciplinary knowledge and exchange).

Putting blind faith in someone based on their professional accreditation and far worse than that their status conferred by GOVERNMENT!!!!!!! is technically, professionally and scientifically irresponsible to put it mildly.

Edited March 3, 2021 by cannuck

[myata]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Putting blind faith in someone based on their professional accreditation and far worse than that their status conferred by GOVERNMENT!!!!!!! is technically, professionally and scientifically irresponsible to put it mildly.

There's a very good illustration to this apt observation: Dr. Charlie Smith scandal. First the taxpayers paid his paychecks and benefits (and possibly, the golden parachute eventually) for two decades of busy activity. Secondly, they paid for the commission of inquiry. Thirdly, ended up on the hook for multi-million compensation to the victims of the "expertise". And finally, the cost to the parents who lost children is impossible to estimate.

All to the cheerful applauding to the experts for two decades without asking a question, once. No thanks.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Putting blind faith in someone based on their professional accreditation and far worse than that their status conferred by GOVERNMENT!!!!!!! is technically, professionally and scientifically irresponsible to put it mildly.

Why would you assume that someone who trusts experts over non-experts has "blind faith" in experts?  Making the best of a bad situation and allowing that mistakes will be made when a brand-new virus hits town isn't "blind faith".  It's reality. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, myata said:

to the experts for two decades without asking a question, once. No thanks.

Yup. So where you "questioning" after the SARS virus and all the warnings then and since about the certainty of another pandemic and our lack of preparedness?  Or did you relax into disinterest, like 99% of humans around the world? 

If we abdicated our responsibility to hold our leaders to account, we certainly can't hold them and the experts who've been warning of a pandemic for decades as solely to blame when we find ourselves scrambling to cope when that pandemic hits.

[myata]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

and allowing that mistakes will be made when a brand-new virus hits town ..

Reality check: SARS-1, 2002. MERS, 2006. Same lackluster performance (takes one minute to check). Same mistakes. And yes, there are examples where these mistakes aren't made time and over, repeatedly. Where people actually learned from experience and mistakes.

Sorry, you're implying that after those experiences I should have performed a detailed audit of epidemiological preparedness in multiple jurisdictions, without being paid a dime and in my free time? While those with public pay and benefits did exactly what, for 15-20 years? That's a novel thought, but I'm sure even more daring ones should be around, judging by the results.

Edited March 3, 2021 by myata

[myata]

So easy to forget that in a democratic society, the government is responsible to the citizens, and not the other way around.

[dialamah]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

So easy to forget that in a democratic society, the government is responsible to the citizens, and not the other way around.

Imagine this:

A pandemic hits a country.  The government limits travel and closes borders to prevent virus spread.  Citizens complain that the wrong borders were closed, weren't closed soon enough, and shouldn't be closed at all.

The government limits business activity to prevent virus spread.  Citizens complain that more businesses should have been closed, the wrong businesses were closed, no businesses should be closed.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, government does nothing to prepare.  Citizens complain that they want both low taxes and more/better government services.  Government gives the citizens and corps lower taxes, quality of medical care decreases and more people are in poverty. When pandemic hits, government is scrambling, poor people are the most severely affected and citizens complain, complain, complain, complain - but are as unwilling as government to inconvenience themselves to ensure this situation won't repeat.

So government may be "responsible" to the citizens, but the citizens need to have a clue first.  Do you really think we do?