Social distancing made ridiculous

36 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2020-07-21 20:11

Aristotleded24

So while we are all doing what we can to flatten the curve and practise social distancing, even the staunchest social distancing advocates must admit that sometimes things are taken to a bit of an extreme. What kinds of things have you seen?

For one, I have seen urinals taped off in men's washrooms. Why? When guys use urinals they already try and space one between themselves and others naturally. And even if they are forced alongside someone else, it's not a close encounter that anyone is eager to prolong. Guys just want to do their business and go along. If a couple of guys end up beside each other inadvertently, it's not going to be long enough to pose a serious transmission risk.

Thu, 2020-09-03 03:02

Aristotleded24

Now doctors have weighed in on how to date:

Quote:

Skip kissing and consider wearing a mask when having sex with a new partner to protect yourself from catching the coronavirus, Canada's chief public health officer said on Wednesday, adding that going solo remains the lowest-risk sexual option in a pandemic.

Dr. Theresa Tam said in a statement there is little chance of catching COVID-19 from semen or vaginal fluid, but sexual activity with someone new does increase the risk of contracting the virus, particularly if there is close contact like kissing.

"Like other activities during COVID-19 that involve physical closeness, there are some things you can do to minimize the risk of getting infected and spreading the virus," she said.

Skip kissing, avoid face-to-face closeness, wear a mask that covers your mouth and nose, and monitor yourself and your partner for symptoms ahead of any sexual activity, Tam said.

"The lowest-risk sexual activity during COVID-19 involves yourself alone," she added.

Sexual health is an important part of overall health, Tam said, and by taking precautions, "Canadians can find ways to enjoy physical intimacy while safeguarding the progress we have all made containing COVID-19."

Wow. It's always been a good idea to be very careful about who you date and have close physical contact with because of STIs. Stop kissing to avoid the coronavirus? Many people who get the coronavirus will recover from it without the need for medical intervention. How many STIs can be resolved on their own without seeing a doctor? Wear a mask during sexual activity? What about condoms?

This is why public health officials have no credibilty. They are going overboard to over-police and restrict individual actions, they have clung to their models and early assumptions about an unknown virus without applying any common sense (remember the click-bait picutres of people hanging out at the beach when being outside in the sunshine is one of the least likely places where a respiratory infection will spread) and the big-picture items that drive covid spread they are silent on.

By the way, do people who are advocating that people stay inside their bubbles and not interact with anyone new realize that everyone in a bubble was new to each other at some point?

Thu, 2020-09-03 12:35

Bacchus

So if my wife and I wear masks and have sex though a glory hole we should be safe?

Thu, 2020-09-03 20:58

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Casual sex can be dangerous and certainly the practice of using condoms is critical but among some groups, it doesn't happen and STIs incidences are high. Similarly, casual sex among young people with close mouth to mouth contact will pose a danger for transmitting COVID-19. Maybe they will only suffer mild symptoms or even no symptoms but what if they work or interact with more vulnerable people? All of a sudden their night of passion may put a number of people at risk of severe illness if not death.

Fri, 2020-09-04 00:15

Aristotleded24

I have had enough of this culture of moralizing, shaming, and frankly, bullying of people who go on about living their normal lives in the covid era, especially since I would expect people on the left to understand larger systemic issues at play. People make all kinds of decisions they shouldn't that put other people's health at risk. IV drug users are putting paramedics and emergency room staff at risk of serious blood-borne diseases if they overdose. Yet we don't tolerate that kind of moralizing for a second, and instead we advocate for harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges and safe injection sites. Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long difficulties, yet we have had many discussions on these forums over the years about whether the messaging directed towards women is useful. Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there. Why is this all of a sudden acceptable now with the coronavirus? If these young people do interact regularly with vulnerable people, then I presume they are taking precautions in all their lives to avoid covid, including in their sex lives. Which brings me to the bigger point that casual sex has never been a good idea, covid or not. But instead of using that as a jump off to say, "while we are worried about covid, remember that sexual activity carries risks of other diseases so be careful, take time getting to know your partner, use condoms, be tested for STIs, yada yada yada," they are simply saying ridiculous things about kissing and masks while missing the bigger picture. And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer.

I get that we have to make some collective sacrifices for public health. But the truth is, we are all different in our perception of and our tolerance of taking risks. How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions? The alternative is to live in a society where we rely on the government to protect us completely and our role as citizens is to obey without question. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Thu, 2020-09-03 23:54

Aristotleded24

Aristotleded24 wrote:
For one, I have seen urinals taped off in men's washrooms. Why? When guys use urinals they already try and space one between themselves and others naturally. And even if they are forced alongside someone else, it's not a close encounter that anyone is eager to prolong. Guys just want to do their business and go along. If a couple of guys end up beside each other inadvertently, it's not going to be long enough to pose a serious transmission risk.

I've also seen toilet stalls in washrooms closed off for the same reason.

Fri, 2020-09-04 01:03

Left Turn

I believe that we as a society should make a collective decision to end the COVID pandemic as soon as possible, with the least ammount of loss of life. I believe that we should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to achieve this, after which life can go on without any COVID restrictions, without putting anyones health at risk from this virus.

If human society had taken an approach to COVID that I could uncritically support, the COVID pandemic would be OVER by now. As it is in Wuhan, where they have had no new COVID cases since May. Wuhan was able to have large music festivals last month with NO fear of COVID, because of the lockdown they endured earlier in the year.

I'm alao a aocialist who believes that the governments could have ended evictions and rent payments, both residential and commercial, until the pandemic was over; and could have provided every citizen with $2,000 a month until the pandemic was over (clawing it back later from people who have enough money that they don't need it). This way no one would have needed to oppose taking the meaures necessary to end the pandemic asap, with the least loss of life, in order to make ends meet.

Fri, 2020-09-04 01:02

(Reply to #7) #8

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
I believe that we as a society should make a collective decision to end the COVID pandemic as soon as possible, with the least ammount of loss of life. I believe that we should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to achieve this, after which life can go on without any COVID restrictions, without putting anyones health at risk from this virus.

If human society had taken the approach and approach to COVID that I could uncritically support, the COVID pandemic would be OVER by now. As it is in Wuhan, where they have had no new COVID cases since May. Wuhan was able to have large music festivals last month with NO fear of COVID, because of the lockdown they endured earlier in the year.

Except the lockdown measures have led to increased drug overdoses, suicides, treatable cancers becoming terminal, will cause large famines in Asia and Africa, and the deaths of disabled children in China.

Fri, 2020-09-04 01:10

Left Turn

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Except the lockdown measures have led to increased drug overdoses, suicides, treatable cancers becoming terminal, will cause large famines in Asia and Africa, and the deaths of disabled children in China.

Well obviously we should have safe supply of drugs for those who need it, governments should house the homeless in government owned housing (I believe in taking purpose built rental housing out of the private market entirely).

As for people dying from not getting necessary surgeries, might I remind you that all necessary surgeries were cancelled earlier in the year under a COVID response that failed to eliminate the virus.

Amd people who have mental health issues should have been provided with free virtual menatal health counselling during the pandemic (and after it, as I support counselling services being made available for free to everyone who needs them as part of our health care system).

Fri, 2020-09-04 01:17

(Reply to #9) #10

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
Amd people who have mental health issues should have been provided with free virtual menatal health counselling during the pandemic (and after it, as I support counselling services being made available for free to everyone who needs them as part of our health care system).

No. Virtual mental health options are not a substitue for having healthy, in-person communities people can rely on, and the negative impact of excessive screen time on mental health has been well-documented pre-covid. This response has been so over-focused on an inflated fear that covid is the only threat to life and safety, comlpetely disregarding everything else that is vital to human vitality and flourishing.

Fri, 2020-09-04 23:20

(Reply to #10) #11

Ken Burch

Bacchus wrote:

So if my wife and I wear masks and have sex though a glory hole we should be safe?

Well yeah...if you're sure it's your wife on the other side of the hole...

Sat, 2020-09-05 12:35

(Reply to #11) #12

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I have had enough of this culture of moralizing, shaming, and frankly, bullying of people who go on about living their normal lives in the covid era, especially since I would expect people on the left to understand larger systemic issues at play.

There has been no bullying or moralizing and the only "shaming" as been the usual sort for scofflaws. Understanding larger systemic issues doesn't change the impact of Covid 19 on those who catch it and on the health care workers that risk their own lives to care for them. I think people wo deliberately make life harder for health care workers should be shamed.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
IV drug users are putting paramedics and emergency room staff at risk of serious blood-borne diseases if they overdose. Yet we don't tolerate that kind of moralizing for a second, and instead we advocate for harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges and safe injection sites.

We don't tolerate moralizing because it is useless and doesn't reduce the number of addicts so doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Harm reduction strategies are not supported to be nice to addicts they are supported because they work to protect addicts, and society from addicts, and it's cheaper than law enforcement approach. It's simply a more effective approach.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there.

No there isn't. Trying to force women into treatment is ineffective because it leads women to avoid having their pregnancies monitored. Furthermore pregnant women do want help both for the pregnancy and the addiction. There is a serious shortage of addiction services. There aren't enough residential addiction programs which are likely much cheaper than prisons anyway and you wouldn't have to force women into treatment.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
If these young people do interact regularly with vulnerable people, then I presume they are taking precautions in all their lives to avoid covid, including in their sex lives.

Yes of course they are but there in insufficient N 95s to provide them to households at the rate needed to treat home environments like hospital environments. Not everyone has multiple washrooms or the ability or desire to separate members of the household. For example do you want to forbid your 6 year old from having any contact with your newborn infant without being freshly showered and fully outfitted in PPEs? Personally in such a situation I would prefer to help my child with distance learning.

I would have done much better with distance learning. I have ADD. I don't learn from lectures and taking notes is torture. Online classes I get straight As. Piece of cake if I can do all my learning through reading which allows me to take notes and allows me to go back if I lose focus. I LOVE online learning. Children that get bullied at school are probably also relieved not to be forced to go there.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Which brings me to the bigger point that casual sex has never been a good idea, covid or not. But instead of using that as a jump off to say, "while we are worried about covid, remember that sexual activity carries risks of other diseases so be careful, take time getting to know your partner, use condoms, be tested for STIs, yada yada yada," they are simply saying ridiculous things about kissing and masks while missing the bigger picture. And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer.

Protests weren't encouraged they were tolerated as the lessor evil but authorities should have been encouraging silent protests and sit ins with masking and distancing rather than demonstrations. Organizers themselves should have and should be more mindful.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions?

As far as we can before they start forcing risk on others who don't want to take the risk, for example, essential workers. Grocery store workers were forced to work or starve. They should not be forced to be exposed to people who don't have the common sense to protect themselves and others.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
The alternative is to live in a society where we rely on the government to protect us completely and our role as citizens is to obey without question. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Extreme much? I want to live in an educated society that elects a responsible government capable of managing the country in such a way that maximizes our potential to live together safely and harmoniously. We are unlikely to arrive at utopia anytime soon so we are far from reaching that goal.

Our constitution is pretty good at protecting our individual rights and it is a living document that grows along with our understanding.

Your idea of freedom infringes on the rights of people to act collectively for the well-being of the whole.

100% of taxes are an infringement on our individual freedom as are all traffic laws.

You want absolute freedom you have to live alone off the grid and not rely on other humans to do things for you like build roads and run grocery stores and clothing stores and farms. If you want to live in a community then you have to respect the will of the majority as long as it doesn't contravene constitutional rights.

Animals living in the wild have absolute freedom. Humans, as animals, have the capacity to choose that route. "Rights" are a human construct bestowed by humans on other humans. Absolute freedom means no rights. Although I guess "freedom" is a human construct as well.

What I am saying is there is no such thing as rights or freedom. We can live like animals not because we have the right to but because we are animals. We can all go run off in the forest and live alone but humans are pack animals. We survive by depending on each other to perform functions that contribute to group survival. Hunters don't share the spoils to be nice. They share the spoils because without the group they perish.

Within a democracy the government is in the service of the people and can only govern with the collective consent of the governed.

You frequently make reference to what position leftists should take but ideologies aren't straight-jackets. There is no allegiance to the ideology as though it is a religion that dictates the proper response to everything.

I agree with you that the government is not acting in our best interests across the board and is manipulative rather than informative. That does not mean that all the measures taken are unreasonable or that they are not acting with the consent of the people.

[/quote]

Sun, 2020-09-13 20:22

(Reply to #12) #13

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
Women who drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant are setting up their children to have serious life-long Should pregnant women who do drugs or alcohol be forced into treatment against their will? That's a huge ethical dilema right there.

No there isn't. Trying to force women into treatment is ineffective because it leads women to avoid having their pregnancies monitored. Furthermore pregnant women do want help both for the pregnancy and the addiction. There is a serious shortage of addiction services. There aren't enough residential addiction programs which are likely much cheaper than prisons anyway and you wouldn't have to force women into treatment.

What if there are treatment spots available and a pregnant woman still refuses treatment?

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
And please do not get me started on the hypocrisy of moralizing around the idea that everyone needs to stay home and not have private parties with our friends only for it to be okay to take to the streets and protest as people did over the summer.

Protests weren't encouraged they were tolerated as the lessor evil but authorities should have been encouraging silent protests and sit ins with masking and distancing rather than demonstrations. Organizers themselves should have and should be more mindful.

The whole point of protesting is to challeng rules and authority, so following guidelines set down by authorities would have been counter-productive. Besides, it doesn't matter how creative the protesters are, if the protests are a threat to power, those in power will either use the existing social distancing rules or come up with new ones to target the protest group.

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
How far do we go before we treat people like adults and accept that they will make decisions about the level of risk they wish to take, even if we don't agree with those decisions?

As far as we can before they start forcing risk on others who don't want to take the risk, for example, essential workers. Grocery store workers were forced to work or starve. They should not be forced to be exposed to people who don't have the common sense to protect themselves and others.

There is risk in everything. Where do you draw the line? Just because a person is afraid of something, that doesn't necessarily obligate everyone else to change his or her behaviour to make that person feel better. You're never going to have a situation where everyone feels good. Sometimes we just have to accept that people do things we don't like and move on rather than demanding they change everything to suit our emotions. I see people doing things all the time that make me feel bad for some reason, but I just move on.

Pondering wrote:
Our constitution is pretty good at protecting our individual rights and it is a living document that grows along with our understanding.

If my house is broken into and I don't report it to the police, even the best police agency can't help me. Sure we have the laws, but the orders have not been tested in court. We are also living in unprecedented times. A six-month state of emergency here in Manitoba? Who ever came up with that braindead idea?

Pondering wrote:
What I am saying is there is no such thing as rights or freedom.

On that we can agree

Mon, 2020-11-02 21:05

#14

Aristotleded24

Edmonton ice castles not returning:

Quote:
The Ice Castles will not return to Edmonton’s Hawrelak Park this winter because of COVID-19.

The U.S.-based company announced its decision on Wednesday.

“Although we have decided not to return this winter, we look forward to being back in Edmonton in the future," CEO Kyle Standifird said in a written release.

The company will operate four of its usual six locations this winter.

The popular winter attraction first opened in Edmonton in 2015. It is built by hand using hundreds of thousands of icicles and features sculptures, tunnels, slides and more.

Edmonton was the Ice Castles’ first Canadian location.

So we know that respiratory diseases spread more easily in cold weather because people spend more time inside. It's hard enough to get people outside in the winter time to do exercise as it is because of the weather. So now we are giving people one less reason to go outside, where the chances of transmission of respiratory diseases is slim to none (and covering one's mouth and nose isn't an issue because in the winter it's too cold to be outside without doing so anyways), so they stay inside more and spread more sickness. Maddening.

Sun, 2020-11-22 15:25

#15

Aristotleded24

No drive-thru light display at Red River Exhibition park this year:

Quote:

Winnipeg's annual Winter Wonderland drive-thru light show has been cancelled by the provincial government, and the head of the Red River Exhibition Association wants to know why.

"We really thought that we had the perfect COVID event because you actually don't leave your car — it's a drive-thru light show. There's no reason to have contact with anybody," said CEO Garth Rogerson.

"If you can drive through Assiniboine Park, you can drive through here. There just happens to be lights up."

Manitoba Health sent him notice notice earlier this week that the show would not be allowed to happen this year, despite being set up and ready to welcome guests as of Nov. 21.

The display, at Red River Exhibition Park on the western edge of Winnipeg, features more than a million lights in 26 themed areas. People drive the 2.5-kilometre route while tuning into the park's Christmas radio station.

It's a drive-thru event where people are staying in their cars. I don't know how it gets any "safer" than that. People enjoy looking at lights, and it would be a big boost for people after everything else has been cancelled this year. What is the rationale for canceling this event?

Sun, 2020-11-22 20:29

#16

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I agree per se that the two examples are not exactly unsafe in terms of COVID-19 spread but even though I was perplexed by the drive-through Xmas Light event in Winnipeg, I am thinking that two things may be at play. 1) Businesses and even entertainment non-profits putting pressure on the government for a level playing field and the government using a blunt instrument to address it. 2) All the exemptions and changes the government has introduced seems to be confusing citizens so that it dillutes the key message - STAY HOME and don't contact others outside your bubble except for gathering essential supplies and health care emergencies.

You can still go for walks and drives but not congregate.

Tue, 2020-11-24 11:30

#17

Pondering

What would the working conditions be for the people setting up and running these events? Trailers set up for worker's breaks are usually small and crowded. The Ice Castle may require American supervisors for set-up. (Because apparently Canada can't build it's own ice castles.)

These events usually occur in January, February and March. We will be in peak Covid season. Essential workers have no real choice as they have no access to income support. They are forced to work. The least the rest of us can do is stay out of their way.

Get ready. Expect everyone to be ordering their groceries during those months. Bread, milk, meat, will all be available but it's a good idea to get in all your non-perishables. I had double cataract surgery which is normally not done because my doctor expects Covid to cause cancellation of elective surgeries.

Legault is dangling allowing Christmas gatherings if things don't get worse, but it's a tease because things will get worse over the next few weeks so by Christmas he will blame us for not being careful enough.

The political games are disgusting.

Wed, 2020-11-25 02:13

(Reply to #17) #18

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
What would the working conditions be for the people setting up and running these events? Trailers set up for worker's breaks are usually small and crowded. The Ice Castle may require American supervisors for set-up. (Because apparently Canada can't build it's own ice castles.)

Maybe for the ice castles. What do you really need for a light show, other than one person in a booth to accept payment for people coming in their cars?

Sat, 2020-11-28 10:07

(Reply to #18) #19

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
All the exemptions and changes the government has introduced seems to be confusing citizens so that it dillutes the key message - STAY HOME and don't contact others outside your bubble except for gathering essential supplies and health care emergencies.

You can still go for walks and drives but not congregate.

That's not quite correct. The coronavirus doesn't spread at large political rallies that support causes that public health officials personally agree with. Those are okay. Remember, rather than spreading indiscriminately through the population wherever people are gathered, the coronavirus asks public health officials which kinds of gatherings are okay and which ones aren't, and spreads and infects people accordingly.

Sat, 2020-11-28 20:18

#20

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Those so-called large political rallies whether they supported what Public Health support or not (never really heard Brent Roussin or Lanette Siragusa's political views on Black Lives Matter), most of the events at the Legislature occured during the summer months (right through October for some activities) after Pallister announced the 2nd or 3rd level of lifting restrictions and opening up for business. At that time, people were going to clubs, playing pool and eating indoors at restaurants - all with certain safety protocols in place.

Sat, 2020-11-28 20:33

#21

Aristotleded24

Saagar Enjeti called out this hyporcisy at the time it happened. In Ontario, Dr. Matt Strauss also called this out before the tweet supporting the protest was apparently deleted. In addition, I saw 2 pop-up anti-cop demonstrations, one in front of the downtown police headquarters and one in front of the RCMP station. In both cases, it looked to me like protesters were not always practisinc proper distancing. If it's okay for you to gather in a large group and shout anti-cop slogans, it's okay for me to have as many people over at my place as I want or for me to visit whichever friends and family (or make new friends) as I want. I can't believe we're seriously having a debate about whether or not it's okay for the government to restrict how many people we are allowed to have in our private residences on babble of all places. It's bad enough that the mainstream culture has bought into the social media mob mentality that everyone around you is a potential threat to give you covid and infect you, but I'm very disappointed with the lack of critical thinking or pushback on this topic from this online community.

Wed, 2020-12-23 02:40

#22

Aristotleded24

More consistency from top officials:

Quote:
People who live alone in Alberta will be allowed to attend one event at another household over the coming holiday long weekend, says Premier Jason Kenney.

A change to public health restrictions will allow these Albertans to visit another home on one occasion between Dec. 23 and Dec. 28, the premier announced Tuesday at a news conference.

"This is a small change that was just adopted based on advice from the minister of health, with input from the chief medical officer, by the COVID cabinet committee," Kenney said. "It will make a world of difference for single Albertans who otherwise would not be able to visit their families over Christmas.

"Similarly, it will allow parents who would otherwise spend Christmas alone to welcome their children home for the holidays,.

Not only is this a bit less strict than what we have in Manitoba, but as the article notes, this was a reversal of position. But I thought the virus just wanted to spread and it didn't care how, as long as there were gatherings of people to infect. Why is it okay for family members to visit each other in Alberta but not in Manitoba? Did Dr. Hinshaw talk to the virus and get the virus to agree to not infect people over this time frame? If so, why can't Dr. Tam and Dr. Roussin have a similar talk with the virus so that the rest of us can enjoy somewhat a normal Christmas? Or better yet, why not talk to the virus and convince the virus to stop infecting us so life can return to normal completely? Or maybe the virus is simply tired of the high cost of living in Alberta and prefers to save money by settling in Manitoba?

Wed, 2020-12-23 03:26

#23

JKR

Maybe people including politicians are trying to deal as best as they can with Covid-19. Maybe Covid-19 is inherently horribly inconvenient?

Wed, 2020-12-23 21:23

(Reply to #23) #24

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Not only is this a bit less strict than what we have in Manitoba, but as the article notes, this was a reversal of position. But I thought the virus just wanted to spread and it didn't care how, as long as there were gatherings of people to infect. Why is it okay for family members to visit each other in Alberta but not in Manitoba? Did Dr. Hinshaw talk to the virus and get the virus to agree to not infect people over this time frame? If so, why can't Dr. Tam and Dr. Roussin have a similar talk with the virus so that the rest of us can enjoy somewhat a normal Christmas? Or better yet, why not talk to the virus and convince the virus to stop infecting us so life can return to normal completely? Or maybe the virus is simply tired of the high cost of living in Alberta and prefers to save money by settling in Manitoba?

If you are now talking to the virus you really have gone off the deep end. Each province makes its own rules as health is a provincial area of control. The virus is governed by its physical attributes not rules.

When the government lifts restrictions it doesn't mean that the activity is safe. It just means that the politician decided it was better for their political future to lift it. Likewise they can impose restrictions for the same reason.

There is only one metric that matters. Is the local hospital close to capacity on Covid or is it foreseen within weeks based on current rate of infection. You know what happens when the system collapses and staff simply can't meet the needs of patients?

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/records-reveal-chaos-in-the-...

When the nurse and others arrived at the Herron, they came across residents in beds with urine bags full to bursting, so dehydrated that they couldn’t speak at first. Others were covered in so much dried excrement that cleaning it risked peeling off their skin. The workers would describe the scene to the Gazette as a “concentration camp.”

Around 4:30 p.m. that day, Dr. Nadine Larente, director of professional services at the CIUSSS, raced to the Herron. Since there were so many residents who needed to be fed immediately but still not enough staff, she phoned her husband and her three teenage children to come to the Herron to pitch in with the feeding. Larente’s husband and children would don personal protective gear, Chowieri told the Gazette.

That happened last spring. Our health care workers are on the verge of burnout. They are not robots. Nurses are already quitting in significantly higher numbers than usual. That the system can't bear the load is factual not theoretical. Like a bridge if you overload it it will collapse and it can't be repaired as easily as it was broken. We can't afford to be wrong. The army can't be everywhere. It is completely unfair to ask health care workers to sacrifice themselves. I don't blame them for leaving. It's all very well to call them heroes but that is just lip service if we don't follow through by being cautious not just to the letter of the restrictions but to the spirit of the restrictions. If I see that a store is busy I turn around not because there is a restriction but because it is the prudent thing to do both for myself and for others, such as workers, who must be present. Staying out of the way of others is the least I can do along with good hygiene and mask-wearing. It's a very small price to pay in comparison to the sacrifices being made by health care professionals.

Yes, there is negative fall-out on the most vulnerable in society. More burden on top of unbearable burden.

Wed, 2020-12-23 23:55

(Reply to #24) #25

JKR

Pondering wrote:

If you are now talking to the virus you really have gone off the deep end. Each province makes its own rules as health is a provincial area of control. The virus is governed by its physical attributes not rules.

When the government lifts restrictions it doesn't mean that the activity is safe. It just means that the politician decided it was better for their political future to lift it. Likewise they can impose restrictions for the same reason.

There is only one metric that matters. Is the local hospital close to capacity on Covid or is it foreseen within weeks based on current rate of infection. You know what happens when the system collapses and staff simply can't meet the needs of patients?

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/records-reveal-chaos-in-the-...

When the nurse and others arrived at the Herron, they came across residents in beds with urine bags full to bursting, so dehydrated that they couldn’t speak at first. Others were covered in so much dried excrement that cleaning it risked peeling off their skin. The workers would describe the scene to the Gazette as a “concentration camp.”

Around 4:30 p.m. that day, Dr. Nadine Larente, director of professional services at the CIUSSS, raced to the Herron. Since there were so many residents who needed to be fed immediately but still not enough staff, she phoned her husband and her three teenage children to come to the Herron to pitch in with the feeding. Larente’s husband and children would don personal protective gear, Chowieri told the Gazette.

That happened last spring. Our health care workers are on the verge of burnout. They are not robots. Nurses are already quitting in significantly higher numbers than usual. That the system can't bear the load is factual not theoretical. Like a bridge if you overload it it will collapse and it can't be repaired as easily as it was broken. We can't afford to be wrong. The army can't be everywhere. It is completely unfair to ask health care workers to sacrifice themselves. I don't blame them for leaving. It's all very well to call them heroes but that is just lip service if we don't follow through by being cautious not just to the letter of the restrictions but to the spirit of the restrictions. If I see that a store is busy I turn around not because there is a restriction but because it is the prudent thing to do both for myself and for others, such as workers, who must be present. Staying out of the way of others is the least I can do along with good hygiene and mask-wearing. It's a very small price to pay in comparison to the sacrifices being made by health care professionals.

Yes, there is negative fall-out on the most vulnerable in society. More burden on top of unbearable burden.

I agree.

Fri, 2020-12-25 01:13

(Reply to #25) #26

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Not only is this a bit less strict than what we have in Manitoba, but as the article notes, this was a reversal of position. But I thought the virus just wanted to spread and it didn't care how, as long as there were gatherings of people to infect. Why is it okay for family members to visit each other in Alberta but not in Manitoba? Did Dr. Hinshaw talk to the virus and get the virus to agree to not infect people over this time frame? If so, why can't Dr. Tam and Dr. Roussin have a similar talk with the virus so that the rest of us can enjoy somewhat a normal Christmas? Or better yet, why not talk to the virus and convince the virus to stop infecting us so life can return to normal completely? Or maybe the virus is simply tired of the high cost of living in Alberta and prefers to save money by settling in Manitoba?

If you are now talking to the virus you really have gone off the deep end. Each province makes its own rules as health is a provincial area of control. The virus is governed by its physical attributes not rules.

When the government lifts restrictions it doesn't mean that the activity is safe. It just means that the politician decided it was better for their political future to lift it. Likewise they can impose restrictions for the same reason.

There is only one metric that matters. Is the local hospital close to capacity on Covid or is it foreseen within weeks based on current rate of infection. You know what happens when the system collapses and staff simply can't meet the needs of patients?

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/records-reveal-chaos-in-the-...

When the nurse and others arrived at the Herron, they came across residents in beds with urine bags full to bursting, so dehydrated that they couldn’t speak at first. Others were covered in so much dried excrement that cleaning it risked peeling off their skin. The workers would describe the scene to the Gazette as a “concentration camp.”

Around 4:30 p.m. that day, Dr. Nadine Larente, director of professional services at the CIUSSS, raced to the Herron. Since there were so many residents who needed to be fed immediately but still not enough staff, she phoned her husband and her three teenage children to come to the Herron to pitch in with the feeding. Larente’s husband and children would don personal protective gear, Chowieri told the Gazette.

That happened last spring. Our health care workers are on the verge of burnout. They are not robots. Nurses are already quitting in significantly higher numbers than usual. That the system can't bear the load is factual not theoretical. Like a bridge if you overload it it will collapse and it can't be repaired as easily as it was broken. We can't afford to be wrong.

Take that up with your Premier. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else who wants to live their lives normally.

Pondering wrote:
It is completely unfair to ask health care workers to sacrifice themselves. I don't blame them for leaving.

There is a great deal to unpack there. First of all, the idea that all front-line health care workers are in favour of massive restrictions is a media myth and social media manufactured hype. The other problem is that when it is framed as pitting the needs of health care workers against the needs of the general population, that is divisive and is going to generate resentment. It's very difficult to get people to comply with orders from people they resent.

Pondering wrote:
You know what happens when the system collapses and staff simply can't meet the needs of patients?

Welcome to health care in Winnipeg for the last few years. That also describes what is about to happen to our police, fire, and EMS responses as they become overwhelmed with people freezing to death, drug overdoses, violence, crime and open social unrest that is about to take place in Winnipeg next year as a direct result of the social distancing measures. You think hospitals are overrun in Winnipeg now? Make sure to not need hospital care for at least the next year because the kind of social unrest we saw in Minneapolis is coming to Winnipeg, and the system will crack.

Pondering wrote:
The army can't be everywhere.

They don't need to be. This current pandemic wave is clearly subsiding in Saskatchewan and Alberta. BC is also making progress, and Manitoba is also quite stable for new cases, despite jumps in the last couple of days. They would be able to focus on the GTA, southwestern Ontario. Montreal, and communities along the St. Lawrence River.

Pondering wrote:
Yes, there is negative fall-out on the most vulnerable in society. More burden on top of unbearable burden.

But any sacrifice and imposing of misery is acceptable to make the flatten-the-curve crowd feel better. Even sacrificing human lives in the service of this endeavour should be done.

Fri, 2020-12-25 01:30

(Reply to #26) #27

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Take that up with your Premier. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else who wants to live their lives normally.

Dealing with Covid-19 requires the cooperation of almost everyone in society. I think this is what you seem to ignore in regard to Covid-19.

Fri, 2020-12-25 01:51

(Reply to #27) #28

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Take that up with your Premier. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else who wants to live their lives normally.

Dealing with Covid-19 requires the cooperation of almost everyone in society. I think this is what you seem to ignore in regard to Covid-19.

What's been happening is that we have been asked to stay home, don't go to church, don't meet our friends, etc, this has gone on all year, and yet the pandemic still continues to rage. We're essentially doing everything we can, but the government is letting us down on the big structural things. The government is there to serve the people, but instead of stepping up in a moment of crisis, the government is essentially asking us to sacrifice everything we find worthwhile until some unknown time in the future. The first red flag should have gone up when the shutdowns continued in the spring after they first told us, "3 weeks to flatten the curve."

Fri, 2020-12-25 02:16

#29

JKR

What do you think governments should be doing?

Fri, 2020-12-25 02:41

#30

Aristotleded24

I've been asked this question before:

Quote:

Balanced community economic development so people don't feel their only survival option is to cram together in large, densely-packed cities

Encourage outside activity and exercise for better overall health, even in winter

Rebalance agricultural and food security policies so that eating healthy doesn't cost more than fast food. That can be an issue in remote communities or First Nations

Restoration of natural ecosystems and biodiversity (including handing back land we have developed to the natural world) to reduce our risk of exposure to new-to-us pathogens against which we have no immunity

Rethink our elder care model so that they are not stuck in care facilities where infection spreads like wildfire. This will be especially important as more people who don't have children age so they are looked after

Stronger union and labour rights, so that workers in meat packing plants can be safe in the event of a disease outbreak and so that restaurant and bar staff don't have to work sick and cough over everything either because they can't afford to take time off or their employers would find someone else. "Stay home when you are sick," they say. Can you afford to stay home from work for one week with flu-like symptoms and no replacement income over this time period? By the way, many workplaces also require sick notes, including for things like flu and cold symptoms which the doctor can't realistically objectively diagnose anyways. Why force people who are coughing into crowded waiting rooms where they can spread their germs to somebody more vulnerable?

Scrap the Temporary Foreign Worker program. Migrant worker camps worldwide are a source of covid, because these people are often poor and live in crowded working conditions. Anybody who comes to work and pay taxes in this country should have the full benefits and priviledges of citizenship (including the freedom to search for employment where they please) and our immigration system should be adjusted to reflect this

Support for supervision and rehabilitation of criminals so that our prison population is small and only those most dangerous to society are kept locked away as a last resort. Abolish the migrant detention centres we hear about so much in the US.

Start treating chronic illnesses with at least the same level of urgency that we are treating covid. For example, diabetes is a major problem in Manitoba, has tremendous impacts on the health care system, and is also a co-morbidity for covid. Let's have an agressive strategy that not only prevents it from happening in the first place, but that treats it and prevents more serious complications down the road.

Affordable housing so that people don't have to risk spreading the illnesses around in shelters. That is going to be a big problem in the coming winter

Properly staffing child care centres and schools with enough educators so that their needs are more likely to be met

Re-emphasising that casual sex carries risks of disease transmission, and that it is a good idea to take you time and get to know someone before being physically intimate

Should that fail and if a pandemic hits, maybe some social distancing (i.e. tables spread far apart and limited capacity in restaurants) testing and quarantine of international travelers, and having people wear masks indoors for a time is necessary.

Quote:
The abolition of animal factory farms. The conditions in factory farms are deplorable for animals and humans alike, and this is a very scary place for people to come into contact with animal pathogens. Not only was the last global pandemic named swine flu because of a possible connection to large-scale hog farming, but there were several scary headlines about avian influenca in the 2000s, avian influenza which spread precisely because of factory farming conditions. Go back to small farms across the land supplying meat over a larger distance. That will also address the point about balancing economic development that I outlined in my list.

Fri, 2020-12-25 03:11

(Reply to #30) #31

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Should that fail and if a pandemic hits, maybe some social distancing (i.e. tables spread far apart and limited capacity in restaurants) testing and quarantine of international travelers, and having people wear masks indoors for a time is necessary.

A pandemic has hit. We are having to deal with Covid-19 in the present. We can't avoid dealing with Covid-19 because it inconveniences our lives to do so.

Fri, 2020-12-25 03:33

(Reply to #31) #32

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Should that fail and if a pandemic hits, maybe some social distancing (i.e. tables spread far apart and limited capacity in restaurants) testing and quarantine of international travelers, and having people wear masks indoors for a time is necessary.

A pandemic has hit. We are having to deal with Covid-19 in the present. We can't avoid dealing with Covid-19 because it inconveniences our lives to do so.

For some people the pandemic restrictions are merely an inconvenience. For some they severely threaten emotional, social, and mental well-being, especially among younger generations. For other people the pandemic restrictions are downright life threatening.

Covid really isn't something we can "deal with" anyways. At this point, our mitigation efforts are only going to drag the pandemic out longer. The virus is here, it is going to move through the population, and even countries that looked like they succeeded initially are now struggling. The virus will move through the population, the only question is how long will this take. The sooner we accept that fact and let the virus run its course while keeping it away from the more vulnerable segements of the population, the sooner this pandemic will be over and the better off we will all be in the long run.

Fri, 2020-12-25 04:01

(Reply to #32) #33

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Should that fail and if a pandemic hits, maybe some social distancing (i.e. tables spread far apart and limited capacity in restaurants) testing and quarantine of international travelers, and having people wear masks indoors for a time is necessary.

A pandemic has hit. We are having to deal with Covid-19 in the present. We can't avoid dealing with Covid-19 because it inconveniences our lives to do so.

For some people the pandemic restrictions are merely an inconvenience. For some they severely threaten emotional, social, and mental well-being, especially among younger generations. For other people the pandemic restrictions are downright life threatening.

Covid really isn't something we can "deal with" anyways. At this point, our mitigation efforts are only going to drag the pandemic out longer. The virus is here, it is going to move through the population, and even countries that looked like they succeeded initially are now struggling. The virus will move through the population, the only question is how long will this take. The sooner we accept that fact and let the virus run its course while keeping it away from the more vulnerable segements of the population, the sooner this pandemic will be over and the better off we will all be in the long run.

How do you propose we separate the vulnerable parts of the population from the rest of the population?

It sounds to me like you just want to personally continue on as it was before Covid-19 to avoid any inconvenience for yourself.

Tue, 2020-12-29 01:36

(Reply to #33) #34

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
How do you propose we separate the vulnerable parts of the population from the rest of the population?

The vast majority of deaths from covid in Canada have been connected to senior care homes. The worst death wave in Manitoba happened this past fall when we were in our second lockdown. You want an easy starting place to deal with more vulnerable populations? Start with the senior care homes. You want to know the next big issue to resolve? Poverty. The virus loves environments where people are crammed together, which should highlight the need for more affordable housing.

Tue, 2020-12-29 01:59

#35

JKR

Dealing with Covid requires a lot more than just focusing on senior care homes and affordable housing:

Increase in coronavirus admissions prompts a Los Angeles hospital to use chapel, gift shop for new patients

Quote:

Batchlor said the hospital will not turn patients away but may have to employ techniques that have been used during war.

"We use what in the battlefield is called triage techniques, which is doing an assessment of each person's needs and prognosis and using scarce resources with patients that are most likely to benefit from them," she said.

L.A. County Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said some hospitals are seeing patients who are still on ambulances.

"Those patients are being cared for and treated in the ambulance as if it's part of the emergency room bay," Ghaly said.

Tue, 2020-12-29 02:13

(Reply to #35) #36

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Dealing with Covid requires a lot more than just focusing on senior care homes and affordable housing:

Increase in coronavirus admissions prompts a Los Angeles hospital to use chapel, gift shop for new patients

Quote:

Batchlor said the hospital will not turn patients away but may have to employ techniques that have been used during war.

"We use what in the battlefield is called triage techniques, which is doing an assessment of each person's needs and prognosis and using scarce resources with patients that are most likely to benefit from them," she said.

L.A. County Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said some hospitals are seeing patients who are still on ambulances.

"Those patients are being cared for and treated in the ambulance as if it's part of the emergency room bay," Ghaly said.

That's far from a first in that part of the country:

Quote:

Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients.

“Those are all creative things we wouldn’t typically do, but in a crisis like this, we’re looking at,” said Michelle Gunnett, a nurse who oversees emergency services for a Southern California hospital system.

Staff members at Torrance Memorial Medical Center have been working long hours to care for a swell in sick patients that began in late December, said Dr. James McKinnell, infectious disease specialist. Some patients are incredibly ill with multiple strains of the flu, or the flu and pneumonia.

“There’s a little bit of a feeling of being in the trenches. We’re really battling these infections to try to get them under control,” McKinnell said. “We’re still not sure if this is going to continue … but it certainly is an inauspicious start.”

...

When Candysse Miller took her 88-year-old father, who lives in Redlands, to a nearby emergency room on Jan. 6, it was standing-room only. Many people crammed in the small space were sneezing and violently coughing, she said.

“It was like a flu war zone,” said Miller, a writer. “I’m not a germophobe or anything, but that will quickly make you one.”