|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Does it count as UK avoiding the third wave if the variant (B117) that comprises our third wave originated there and already worked its way through the population starting in December with 1K deaths per day? Not gonna in any way say the UK did a good job, but for pure pedantic quibbling that was basically their second wave, and they've avoided a third by doing a proper lockdown and vaccinating millions of people.  Compare that to Canada, which had a similar lopsided-M-shaped second wave at the same time as the UK's but is now entering a third wave that will likely end up worse than the second: 
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
I always thought the plan in Canada was 'just let everyone die until the vaccine is ready' but it seems like I was only right about the first part
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
enki42 posted:From an individual perspective it's obviously better to get two doses, but I'm not convinced that it's not better from a public health perspective to get everyone 60% protected vs. 50% of people 90% protected. Yeah, there will be breakout cases with one dose, but I bet there's more cases when half of the population is completely unvaccinated and half are fully vaccinated. Except this particular "public health perspective" is predicated on 100% of the population being out and about breathing on each other as if the virus didn't exist at all. It's purely to facilitate business-as-usual from an economic standpoint, public health be damned. Let's be real about that first of all. And it's not a "breakout" case with one dose since they specifically say you aren't fully protected without the second one
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
You aren't "fully protected" with 100 doses, no vaccine is going to be perfect. I agree that Canada should be doing a way better job of actually doing lockdowns, but that's completely unrelated to how we vaccinate. It's not "2 vaccines + proper lockdowns" vs "1 vaccine and open 'er up", most of the provinces are going to be reckless with opening regardless of how many vaccines everyone is getting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NoLore/status/1381974635298893827quote:Words and phrases such as families and clans, from the same town in Central Italy and related by marriage were peppered throughout their print story and podcast. They lined up pictures of businesspeople akin to mug shots common in crime reporting. They created a graphic that mimics a police investigation board from the movies to augment their insinuations. crispyseaweed has issued a correction as of 19:00 on Apr 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
xtal posted:I always thought the plan in Canada was 'just let everyone die until the vaccine is ready' but it seems like I was only right about the first part Close. The plan is 'just let everyone die until we don't need to worry about vaccines'. At some point the number of living people and number of vaccines available will reach an equilibrium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
It's just a coincidence that the demo that votes for the conservatives is also the first to get vaccinated even though they're largely not front line workers! (I don't really believe it's a conspiracy but if people vote them back into Ontario after this shitshow I'm gonna lose it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
I'm in a lovely PC riding, and I'm still not reaping the benefits of croneyism 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Except this particular "public health perspective" is predicated on 100% of the population being out and about breathing on each other as if the virus didn't exist at all. It's purely to facilitate business-as-usual from an economic standpoint, public health be damned. Let's be real about that first of all. unless you think sticking rigidly to 'two doses 3 weeks apart" would somehow convince our rear end in a top hat premiers to lock down for real, I'm not sure what the relevance is. ghouls gonna ghoul whether or not we distribute our vaccines widely
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:
It has gone faster. Check out the EU's progress: https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html We are already ahead of them in first dose % despite Starks has issued a correction as of 22:44 on Apr 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:41
|
|
except the rollout hasn't gone any faster with people's second doses in freezers being turned into someone else's first dose. I get that psychologically there's a lot of power in the idea of getting definitively jabbed (woohoo! I'm safe!) but they are literally, explicitly NOT "one-and-done" vaccines like our policymakers (not even our medical experts) are pretending they are.
|
also rest in piss galen sr.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Presidents Choice Memories of Hell binch
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:unless you think sticking rigidly to 'two doses 3 weeks apart" would somehow convince our rear end in a top hat premiers to lock down for real, I'm not sure what the relevance is. ghouls gonna ghoul whether or not we distribute our vaccines widely Exactly, "our leaders are poo poo" is different from "going against the proven scheduling is fine, actually"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Presidents Choice Memories of Hell binch
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
ghosthorse posted:It's just a coincidence that the demo that votes for the conservatives is also the first to get vaccinated even though they're largely not front line workers! I would believe that conspiracy if I didn't know of, like, a lot of people in that age range who are sitting around in their houses that they own and waiting for The Good Vaccine instead of just taking the first one they can get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
Starks posted:Countries that aren't delaying the second dose have more vaccines in the freezer. I agree that it's stupid to treat a first jab as an excuse to go ham but those are two separate issues. Not really since the whole political objective of getting the first doses out as quickly possible is to get public confidence up to a point where the economy starts returning the desired numbers from people going out and spending. They are forming policy and literally counting on people being emboldened by their vaccination to go back to the mall (otherwise the mall would be closed). enki42 posted:You aren't "fully protected" with 100 doses, no vaccine is going to be perfect. I agree that Canada should be doing a way better job of actually doing lockdowns, but that's completely unrelated to how we vaccinate. It's not "2 vaccines + proper lockdowns" vs "1 vaccine and open 'er up", most of the provinces are going to be reckless with opening regardless of how many vaccines everyone is getting. This was a disingenuous one but thankfully they're not asking for us to get 100, just 2, so there's not really any equivalency between the real reasonable scenario and this irrational hypothetical one. "Full" obviously means "as much as can possibly be provided" and you do that by listening to the company who made it instead of throwing the instructions out the window. And yet again, it's unclear to a thinking person how provincial leaders being bad at their jobs facilitates a scientific argument for playing fast and loose with vaccine scheduling. They are bad at both the lockdowns and getting the vaccine out- of course, the media portrayals of who is doing a good vs. bad job changes week by week with the numbers- remember when Doug Ford and Brian Pallister were the paragons of virtue and excellence? Hey, maybe they can reach out to Andrew Cuomo for some pointers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:20
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Not really since the whole political objective of getting the first doses out as quickly possible is to get public confidence up to a point where the economy starts returning the desired numbers from people going out and spending. They are forming policy and literally counting on people being emboldened by their vaccination to go back to the mall (otherwise the mall would be closed). I only remember positive articles about Brian Pallister being written by people who don't even live in Manitoba or Canada, like they forgot that the internet exists and that Manitobans would not find the articles lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I only remember positive articles about Brian Pallister being written by people who don't even live in Manitoba or Canada, like they forgot that the internet exists and that Manitobans would not find the articles lol He's a comprehensively terrible man, like literally evil The Globe & Mail is a loving jerkoff rag of a paper, the SUN has more credibility these days lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Not really since the whole political objective of getting the first doses out as quickly possible is to get public confidence up to a point where the economy starts returning the desired numbers from people going out and spending. They are forming policy and literally counting on people being emboldened by their vaccination to go back to the mall (otherwise the mall would be closed). Is it not the case that Public Health departments have access to all the same vaccine efficacy data as the companies themselves? If so, why would we necessarily default to the companies determination regarding dose scheduling? Ignoring political economic motives for a second, a vaccine producing company is interested in individual health outcomes, while a public health department is interested in society wide health outcomes. What is correct in one scenario is not necessarily correct in the other. Is there any indication that the 'company who made it' has a better understanding of how changes to dose schedules will effect public health outcomes (again assuming that public health has access to all the same data)? But of course, your point has more to do with the political economic motives of the actors involved. It is likely you are right that there is a hope among governments that vaccination will allow an earlier reopening. But Premiers being bad at their job does facilitate a scientific argument for 'playing fast and loose' with vaccine doses. Public Health departments are not dealing with clinical trials, they are dealing with the actually existing world. Public health outcomes are impacted by government policy, and as long as governments have the urge to reopen, it may be best to accelerate vaccination as much as possible. And I don't think you can argue that vaccination is alone driving the push to reopen. Governments across Canada have been pushing to reopen since long before the vaccine was available.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
Oh my god lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:braindead sealioning and equivocation I was going to go through this point by point but you're wrong about literally everything and are thankfully in no danger of convincing anyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:I was going to go through this point by point but you're wrong about literally everything and are thankfully in no danger of convincing anyone You are trying to convince people that not delaying doses is the correct thing to do, when federal and provincial governments have decided to delay doses. I don't think I need to convince anyone of anything. You seem to be arguing that governments (and by extension public health departments) have ignored scientific evidence in favour of pursuing political-economic goals. I'm perfectly fine with that argument, it happens all the time. But I think you are associating political governments and public health departments too closely. It is clear that public health departments haven't been able to convince governments to adopt stricter measures. So why shouldn't they explore other avenues for protecting public health? What confuses me is the default to support for the vaccine companies recommendation. These companies are also guided by political economic motives. If your concern is to maintain the dose schedule, why not blame the companies for not doing all they can to facilitate wider manufacturing of their vaccines, which may reduce constrictions on supply and negate the need to delay doses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
If you are being serious and don't get it then you were never going to get it, but please don't double down on the dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Okay I guess I am not understanding your argument. I think it is a given that Canadian governments are doing a bad job of addressing the pandemic. I think you are arguing that moving to a single dose schedule is being done in order to facilitate that bad job. I am wondering if it's possible that moving to a single dose schedule is being done to mitigate that bad job. I guess the question is whether it changes the outcome. If giving people a single dose makes them feel safe, and therefore encourages greater contact (facilitated by advanced re-opening plans), and the single dose doesn't protect them, than yeah its a bad thing. But if the re-opening was going to happen anyway, and a single dose is better than no dose, than maybe it is a good plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Not really since the whole political objective of getting the first doses out as quickly possible is to get public confidence up to a point where the economy starts returning the desired numbers from people going out and spending. They are forming policy and literally counting on people being emboldened by their vaccination to go back to the mall (otherwise the mall would be closed). I see what you're saying but people will go into a frenzy as soon as things open up regardless of how vaxxed we are. You seem to believe that people will somehow be more cautious if 40% of the population is fully vaccinated versus 80% first-dosed. Also everyone is already screaming bloody murder about vaccines in freezers, imagine if there were twice as many?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:I was going to go through this point by point but you're wrong about literally everything and are thankfully in no danger of convincing anyone I'm not sure how the quoted post is sealioning? but I'm also not sure what you're arguing anymore my initial point was that the only thing special about 3 weeks between doses is that it made the trials go faster. it's not like multiple timelines were tried and 3 weeks was the best. heck, look at nova scotia, the province probably least in a rush to vaccinate, they're delaying second doses too. delaying doses is not necessarily evidence of political or politics-induced malpractice not that I need convincing that premiers don't give a gently caress, but if I did, all you need to do is point to the ever-growing body count. or the refusal to enact restrictions until the last possible moment. or the inequitable distribution of first doses. or the total incoherence of policy from day to day. thumping your fist on the trial timeline for vaccine doses is pretty far down the list
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
Tbh it feels weird to be the only one who doesn't think the rollout is going as well as it possibly could
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
My argument is that they aren't doing everything they can to protect the public, the counter argument seems to either be "actually yes they are" (factually incorrect) or "yeah nah they never were going to" (technically correct), and somehow that refutes the need for them to do it? Maybe someone can help me understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
I think we agree like 99% of the way. almost nothing about the covid pandemic has been handled well, and (especially anywhere west of new brunswick) it's been coverup after abrupt reversal after refusal to learn anything the existence of a vaccine is of course no excuse to open 'er up, we actually need people to get vaccinated first. are we vaccinating the right people in the right order? no, not really, but the doses are getting into arms (this part is going ok imo, despite the complaints there isn't actually a ton of vaccine sitting in freezers for weeks on end, though maybe we disagree here) I'm quibbling with the part of your argument where, as I understand it, you point to delaying a second vaccine dose as further evidence of political fuckery and a disregard for public health. I think there's plenty to be unhappy about, but my view is that delaying the second dose by a few weeks is consistent with a goal of maximizing public health that won't stop disingenuous premiers from pointing to first dose prevalence as a reason to open 'er up. they are wrong to do so. but that doesn't change whether it's in the public interest to delay a second dose in order to more widely distribute a first dose
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
I completely agree that the pandemic response is totally hosed, and agree with what pokeyman just posted. COMPAGNIE TOMMY, you seem to be collapsing the elected governments and the public health departments/scientific advisories decision making. As I understand it you are arguing that these bodies are completely driven by political economic concerns regarding reopening, and that there is no scientific basis or public health justification for delaying doses. I think it is potentially defensible to collapse the two groups, or to argue that they are driven by the same motivations, but this is where my issue is with your argument. I accept the idea that elected governments are primarily motivated by the desire to reopen, but I don't accept that public health departments are primarily motivated by this. I could come to accept it if you have some evidence to support it. But in my mind, if governments refuse to close schools and businesses, which they have been doing for long before vaccines became available, than there is a valid public health justification (from the perspective of the public health department) for spacing out doses. A person who works in a school or at an 'essential' business is at the same risk of exposure whether they receive a vaccine or not, but receiving a single dose may reduce the risk of severe disease. Is there no argument that providing the single dose of vaccine to these people is actually doing more to protect them than not providing the vaccine (on the part of public health, and assuming that public health departments don't have the power to force governments to shut these places down.) Ideally, governments would take more extensive non-pharmaceutical action. And there is potentially more that could be done by public health departments to force said action. If public health departments do have the ability to force the governments hand on school and business closures, than you are absolutely correct that they aren't doing all they can to protect people, and instead are falling back on the convenient solution of vaccines. But I'm not certain that public health departments do have that ability. My thought is that governments are not doing all they can to protect people (shutdowns etc). Public health departments have responded to that lack of action by doing what is in their purview (recommending delayed doses). Maybe you are correct that public health departments are complicit rather than reactionary. I could be swayed by evidence to show that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Ideally, governments would take more extensive non-pharmaceutical action. And there is potentially more that could be done by public health departments to force said action. If public health departments do have the ability to force the governments hand on school and business closures, than you are absolutely correct that they aren't doing all they can to protect people, and instead are falling back on the convenient solution of vaccines. But I'm not certain that public health departments do have that ability. it seems to me that public health departments have some levers they're slow or reluctant to use, which is a bit damning. I remember chatter last week about some local health regions (in ontario I think?) closing school systems without waiting for a provincial order to do the same. if those health regions had that power the whole time, why did they wait until the last minute? like yes, one response to government refusal to close e.g. in-person retail is to stretch somewhere else, like delaying a second vaccine dose. another response might be to cite every retail store in the region individually for unsanitary conditions and shut them down directly. might take some creative administration of existing laws, or maybe a court will slap you down six months from now, and yes your premier will be mad at you, but you're doing everything in your power to keep your people alive and well
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:it seems to me that public health departments have some levers they're slow or reluctant to use, which is a bit damning. I remember chatter last week about some local health regions (in ontario I think?) closing school systems without waiting for a provincial order to do the same. if those health regions had that power the whole time, why did they wait until the last minute? yes, the MOHs have been really reluctant to take advantage of their available powers. in ontario at least they are substantial and the MOH can basically unilaterally decide to enforce mask mandates or close businesses, etc., enforced by the police and courts, and backed with fines and potential jail time for noncompliance under provincial legislation. this is why the schools in peel were closed down - the MOH decided it was the right move based on a spike in cases. i can't speak to the other provinces. our local MOH has been anti mask and mildly refusing to do anything besides snark on twitter, and it's been really frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
I think you can probably lay the "doesn't want to be the one to make tough decisions" on pretty much every level of government and authority during the pandemic, from local school boards and PHUs up to the federal government (even Trudeau had a lot more power than he was willing to use with the Emergencies act). Early on a lot of the cities were being proactive with masks (Ontario itself didn't have a mask mandate until super late in the pandemic, but virtually every city / county had mandated by that point anyway, so it was more of a way of simplifying what already existed than a new rule), but now I think no one wants to take responsibility for anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:it seems to me that public health departments have some levers they're slow or reluctant to use, which is a bit damning. I remember chatter last week about some local health regions (in ontario I think?) closing school systems without waiting for a provincial order to do the same. if those health regions had that power the whole time, why did they wait until the last minute? Yeah this is a good point. They clearly have some leeway and it would be interesting to know how much they could do without provincial government support. I assume the government would have retaliated in some way if Peel or some other region decided not to open schools at all in September.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm starting to think that this Douglas Ford guy just isn't cut out for this...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I think you can probably lay the "doesn't want to be the one to make tough decisions" on pretty much every level of government and authority during the pandemic, from local school boards and PHUs up to the federal government (even Trudeau had a lot more power than he was willing to use with the Emergencies act). yeah i agree Duck Rodgers posted:Yeah this is a good point. They clearly have some leeway and it would be interesting to know how much they could do without provincial government support. I assume the government would have retaliated in some way if Peel or some other region decided not to open schools at all in September. in ontario at least, these fall under section 22 of the province's health promotion and protection act. it's pretty powerful.  within their purview they can basically close anything and make anyone do anything in the context of stopping a pandemic spread
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Anyone else getting a lot of federal government household surveys? Our household has three in the last 6 months. They ask about our outcomes with regard to healthcare, economic issues, etc in the last year. (I'm in ab) so we're gladly answering, but it's a bit invasive as they are asking to link to our actual a health accounts numbers to the survey. Have these surveys always existed but we got picked on this year for more of them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Yeah Ive gotten a bunch of calls, but I dont take them. I dont pick up on numbers I dont recognize and after Ive googled them I see I missed a survey (when it isnt a scammer using a spoofed number).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
I was contacted for labour survey by Stats Canada recently and the guy kept correcting me. Why don't you just look this poo poo up yourself then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
mediaphage posted:yeah i agree Right, but how willing are they to use these powers without the support of provincial and municipal elected officials? Because it's clear that the conditions in (2) are the case in most health units in Ontario, but it doesn't seem to be the case that health units are implementing measures without the support of elected governments. Ottawa was asking a few weeks ago to be moved in to a higher restriction zone, but this makes it sound like they could have just done it themselves. There is probably an issue of 'legitimacy', where unelected officials don't feel like they have the authority/ aren't seen to have the authority by others to make these sorts of decisions in contravention of decisions made by elected officials. But maybe they should be doing that, and its an indictment of them that they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 19:30
|
|