Canadian Money Forum banner

5101 - 5120 of 5161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,205 Posts
Honestly, the reason you don't think COVID is a threat is that the government has protected you very well. In other countries, people have seen their family members drop like flies. Even Americans have seen triple the death rate that we have... you are a lucky guy that you have the Canadian government protecting you.
Typical rhetoric of every authoritarian and dictatorship government! "Canadian government protecting you." - what a BS propaganda spread by Trudeau CULT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5,104 ·
Anti-lockdown people are desperately looking for examples of where no lock downs were successful. Unfortunately..........there isn't any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Australia also locked down outbreaks in cities, with some very severe restrictions, including for domestic travel between states.
Yes, but they could do that because of small numbers.
And the reason they had those small numbers was stopping flights from China on January 31, 2020, and then quickly extending that to countries where virus was spotted.

Australia was locked, and after that Canada determined that stopping travel from China is racist, prime minister and his wife were busy personally importing virus to Canada, Hadju did nothing but sent money to WHO, and Tam was telling everyone who listened that masks aren't needed.

They dropped the ball at the beginning and never recovered. By the time they tried it was already too late.

And there is plenty of examples of countries where very small measures were successful.
South Korea, Japan, Iceland, Sweden, multiple States (10 with fewest restrictions were all below national average in deaths/pop), Belarus, Turkey, Serbia.
Just because you choose to ignore facts that don't support your opinion, doesn't mean those facts don't exist.

There is no data that looks at significant number of jurisdictions that showed restrictions decreased amount of deaths. Not a single one of you supplied data that looked at 20-30+ countries and determined that there is correlation between deaths, people in ICU and restrictions, let alone causation.

You are arguing your position with absolutely no merit, based solely on your opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,727 Posts
Australia was locked, and after that Canada determined that stopping travel from China is racist, prime minister and his wife were busy personally importing virus to Canada
We probably got most of our COVID from the US, which was a huge outbreak zone... and the total lack of response from the US government at the time probably caused thousands of unnecessary deaths in Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
We probably got most of our COVID from the US, which was a huge outbreak zone... and the total lack of response from the US government at the time probably caused thousands of unnecessary deaths in Canada.
At least this time you used the word 'probably'.
Let's flip the previous argument.
Countries and states with some of the highest death total:
  • Hungary
  • Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
  • Brazil
  • Belgium
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • UK
  • Argentina
  • Spain
  • France
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Massachusets
  • Pennsylvania
  • Michigan
  • Indiana
  • Illinois

What do they have in common - vast majority had crazy strong restrictions with closed borders, police hour, total closures, people being forbidden to go outside. Yet despite all those measures they are among the highest in death count. There is no correlation between strictness of restrictions and severity of COVID. There was correlation between timing of restrictions - if they were introduced in january/february, but after that, actions taken by governments turned out to be completely ineffective in stopping the spread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,727 Posts
We're in a race against time, with regards to the "delta" variant

Canada has a 'narrow window' for containing delta variant, also known as B1617, warns U.K. expert

Delta is spreading fast in the UK, and the aggressive re-opening of the UK might have to be halted if delta gets out of control. The expert warns that Canada has to get two doses into people ASAP, since a single dose is only partially effective at preventing delta's spread.

Currently, "alpha" is the dominant strain in Canada (and is effectively contained by single doses). But delta is already found across the country and it's only a matter of time before it becomes the dominant strain. Even if you close the borders 100% at this point, delta is already spreading domestically.

This should also remind people to maintain caution in their daily lives, especially if you've only received one dose. For example, I have one dose but I will NOT be eating indoors at restaurants or bars, and I will be wearing a mask around other people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,188 Posts
Typical rhetoric of every authoritarian and dictatorship government! "Canadian government protecting you." - what a BS propaganda spread by Trudeau CULT
... so why are you hiding in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,188 Posts
Exactly! There are more deaths due to lockdowns than due to Covid! And Canadian "tsunami of cancer" it's on the way!
... there'll be more tsunami of everything if those infection numbers changes course and goes up.

Reopening stage 1 (for Ontario, Canada) has been moved up 3 days early but that could change. You and that Blabber-mouth just keep shooting dirt from your mouths and we can all enjoy the summer with a modified Reopening schedule aka 'extended lockdowns'. Feel better now?!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts


Great study, as you point out it clearly shows that lockdowns were by far the most effective measure.

Implementing lockdowns took R from 4 to 1, that shows they were incredibly effective.
Figure 2 of that study

21763
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Great study, as you point out it clearly shows that lockdowns were by far the most effective measure.

Implementing lockdowns took R from 4 to 1, that shows they were incredibly effective.
Figure 2 of that study

View attachment 21763
Come on Matt. Now you are being plain disingenuous. You negate study that looks at 16x jurisdictions, 3x as long time period, yet you praise this one?

This study literally looked at countries who had exactly the same response to the virus, and determined their curves were similar. Based on that built their model.
Then they tried to apply it to only European country that had different restrictions and the curve still looked the same.
So they determined that model has 'inaccuracies' :ROFLMAO:

Some of golden quotes:
"Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation. "
"We assume that individual interventions have a similar effect in different countries, and that the efficacy of these interventions remains constant over time. "
"The retrospective stability of our model (Supplementary Videos 13) is variable when the implementations of interventions are very dissimilar; an example of this is seen in Sweden, where interventions were dissimilar to other countries and led initially to large uncertainty. "
"Our partial pooling model requires only one country to provide a signal for the effect of a given intervention, and this effect is then shared across all countries. "
"We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic; "



This study is about as reliable as China claiming the virus doesn't move from human to human and Tam claiming masks are useless.
I understand people with blinders on the sides, but Mr. Matt, you disputed other studies with far more data and far longer time period based on much less, yet you are praising this. Bit of a double standard

Look at date where their data acquisition ends :ROFLMAO: :
21764
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
Come on Matt. Now you are being plain disingenuous. You negate study that looks at 16x jurisdictions, 3x as long time period, yet you praise this one?
Experts in the field (ie peers) didn't review how they determined "excess deaths"
I didn't review the data on how they determined "excess deaths".

The reality is we know lockdowns work.
In Sweden maybe their "behave yourself" guidance was effective.

But Sweden reported a hell of a lot more COVID deaths than Canada. That's a fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
So apply the same standard to both situations.
If you dismiss the study that I have provided, there is absolutely no reason why you should be praising a study with much less data and significantly more limitations which showed that government intervention has no effect on limiting deaths and ICU hospitalizations.

No, the reality isn't that we know lockdowns work. The reality is that you think lockdowns work. Don't confuse assumptions with verifiable knowledge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
So apply the same standard to both situations.
If you dismiss the study that I have provided, there is absolutely no reason why you should be praising a study with much less data and significantly more limitations which showed that government intervention has no effect on limiting deaths and ICU hospitalizations.

No, the reality isn't that we know lockdowns work. The reality is that you think lockdowns work. Don't confuse assumptions with verifiable knowledge
I'm applying the same standard.
One study was peer reviewed.
One study was not peer reviewed.

Then upon further investigation the data in one study roughly made sense, in the second it isn't as clear.

yes I think a lockdown does work, it makes logical sense, we have many examples of lockdowns reducing case numbers and deaths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I'm applying the same standard.
One study was peer reviewed.
One study was not peer reviewed.

Then upon further investigation the data in one study roughly made sense, in the second it isn't as clear.

yes I think a lockdown does work, it makes logical sense, we have many examples of lockdowns reducing case numbers and deaths.
Made sense only according to you. That's the entire issue with conversations nowadays.
Something makes sense based on your bias - must be a fact
Something doesn't make sense based on your bias - must be fake news.

And study i was referring to is this one:

Peer-reviewed, and with much less disclaimers and inaccuracies, based on more data and longer time period than the one you praised. That's what I am referring to when claiming you are displaying double-standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
Made sense only according to you. That's the entire issue with conversations nowadays.
Something makes sense based on your bias - must be a fact
Something doesn't make sense based on your bias - must be fake news.

And study i was referring to is this one:

Peer-reviewed, and with much less disclaimers and inaccuracies, based on more data and longer time period than the one you praised. That's what I am referring to when claiming you are displaying double-standard.
Isn't that the one where the study authors said that it shouldn't be interpreted to mean that the interventions were not effective?
If not, I'm not sure if I've read it yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,951 Posts
Difference in overdose alone ages 25-44 is 3 times greater than all Covid deaths age 20-50. Add suicides, 265k surgeries+1m cancer screenings. This is a nightmare.
But Canadian fake stats about Covid deaths looks groovy LOL

It's idiotic to complain about delayed hospital treatments. The treatments were delayed because ICUs were full of COVID patients. Unless you think we should have euthanized everyone who came to hospital with COVID, I don't see how we would not have had the challenge we did with hospital capacity regardless of what was done with lockdowns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Isn't that the one where the study authors said that it shouldn't be interpreted to mean that the interventions were not effective?
If not, I'm not sure if I've read it yet.
Exactly, that's the one.
Data has been peer reviewed. All the results have been verified.

And you get hanged up on a disclaimer that is most likely there for liability reasons.
Very same reason that study showing smokers are significantly underrepresented among hospitalization due to COVID have a disclaimer stating that study shouldn't be used to promote smoking.
The disclaimer doesn't invalidate the data.

Let's move on to the study you praise.
It literally admits to manipulating the data (extrapolates correlation from one country to assume it isn't only correlation but also causation in all the others),
"Our partial pooling model requires only one country to provide a signal for the effect of a given intervention, and this effect is then shared across all countries. "
and model failed to work for a country that didn't have exact same restrictions as 11 (only) countries the model looked like.
"The retrospective stability of our model (Supplementary Videos 13) is variable when the implementations of interventions are very dissimilar; an example of this is seen in Sweden, where interventions were dissimilar to other countries and led initially to large uncertainty.

Yes, when you look at small amount of countries, all with same restrictions, manipulate the data based on just one and extrapolate it to others, the model will work for those specific countries. It is utterly useless for other situations as the author himself admits in the bolded statement.

Meanwhile here you have 160 jurisdictions, much longer time period, and pure, unmanipulated data.
Yet this is the one you choose to dismiss. Yes - double standards.

Unmanipulated data from 160 jurisdictions from 3x time period shows lockdowns don't work.
Manipulated data from 11 jurisdictions from short time period shows lockdowns work.
 
5101 - 5120 of 5161 Posts
Top