J5V

A plan to zero deaths and a healthy economy in Canada. Age 65 - + - The most vulnerable. Do everything possible to isolate and save these people with a goal of 0 covid deaths. Age 50-65 - The second most vulnerable group. If you work, collect EI instead and stay home. Isolate and save these people with a goal of 0 covid deaths. The above two groups total 1/3 of our population. These are the ones to be most concerned with. Everyone under 50 represents 2/3 of our population. If you are infected you will not die and 80% of those infected will experience no to very mild symptoms. If you're one of the 20% in this age bracket that might get sick, stay home, otherwise go about your business -- work, build your businesses, pay taxes, support your families, provide resources for the most vulnerable in our society, and maintain a healthy economy. This plan would protect the most vulnerable in our society, reduce isolation and lockdown by 66%, and would save our economy resulting in less suicide, depression, hunger, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. If this plan had been rolled out from the start I think most Canadians would have accepted and preferred it over a 100% lockdown and social isolation plan that is doing tremendous damage to our economy and causing undue financial hardship for millions of Canadians. Flame away.

Understood. You've opened my eyes to what may be happening behind the scenes. I don't have a lot of knowledge of U.S. politics (or any politics for that matter). Politicians are not my favorite people. I sincerely thought this was a grass roots protest from regular folks wanting to go back to work.

So what is so sinister about people wanting to go back to work to provide for their families and save their jobs and businesses? They're not in the high risk group.

Holy crap! Talk about rich, powerful, and influential.

Hard to guard against those people. Seeing them going into illegal nightclubs was just bizarre.

I have to admit I had to look up Koch Foundation as I didn't know who they were. A charitable foundation. I don't get it. Is there something bad about them?

This is just the start. “Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people,” Meshawn Maddock of the Michigan Conservative Coalition told the network. “Every person has learned a harsh lesson about social distancing. We don’t need a nanny state to tell people how to be careful.”

Good to hear rates are beginning to drop in New York though.

Buddy sent me this from up the street from where I live. Haven't seen this here in 30 years.

Please give this guy a listen and give what he is saying a chance.

The articles state that a major cause of death was suicide and that it did indeed go up. Yes, automobile deaths went down. I don't imagine too many people were out and about in their cars. Tons of missing data from those days make it really hard for me to believe some of the author's conclusions regarding mortality. It seems there is a bit of a propaganda war going on with the Russians claiming 7 million died of starvation in the U.S. during the GD so now there are these counter-studies to disprove that claim. However, they do acknowledge widespread "malnutrition". The population of the U.S. is much higher now so the effects of an economic collapse are going to be magnified greatly. "There's a clear, and fairly substantial increase in the rate of deaths in 1934, and then again in 1936. The conclusion of the other discussion seemed to be that the Great Depression did not lead to an increase in deaths from starvation, but at the same time as some medical advances appear to be reducing the deaths from certain diseases, deaths from illnesses you can attribute to 'weakness' and therefore malnutrition such as Heart disease and Pneumonia sharply increase, and actually continue to increase substantially for the remainder of the 1930s. Wouldn't these deaths be consistent with both the short term, and long term effects of malnutrition? Particularly among children whose development was stunted by calorie deficiencies?" No one is espousing the virtues of sacrificing the sick and infirm for the sake of the economy. That's just a straw man. It has been stated repeatedly that exactly that segment of our population needs to be isolated and protected. The argument is to relax the lockdown and let the young & strong continue running their businesses, working and paying taxes, and keeping the economy afloat while we battle this virus and keep people like you (and me) safe.

Geez. That's a form of research, after all. If it supported your argument you'd be all for it. Since it doesn't it sounds trumpish? C'mon. I did let go of the bone when it became clear the numbers were askew and the gentleman in the video was mistaken. I then apologized. I can't be any more honest. You asked where I got the number. I calmly explained it wasn't my number and told you where it came from. You've got this bone and you won’t let go. Sweden is experiencing a big spike in Covid-19 deaths right now and they've explained what they're doing and it makes sense to me. They're not in a lockdown and their Covid-19 death numbers are still way under their flu/pneumonia death numbers so that's probably contributed to their decision to not destroy their economy in an effort to save lives. Still they remain open to the possibility of tightening things up further. Makes sense to me too. I feel as bad as anyone else that people are dying from this thing but tough decisions are being made here and time will show who made the best ones.

You asked me where I got that number insinuating I made it up which wasn't true since it wasn't even my number. Now you say that wasn't your point when it clearly was. Nice try.

10483 was ARF'S number, that's why I used it. It wasn't my number. Therefore I trumped out nothing. Therefore it stands. ARF: "Death rate of Sweden=899/10483*100=8.6%" Feel free to run off on your tangent though. Haters gonna hate. Sad.

Just as an aside if anyone's interested. Influenza and pneumonia deaths, 2017, Sweden had 3,589. Covid-19 deaths, 2020, to-date - Sweden at 919 Influenza and pneumonia deaths, 2017, Canada had 6,391. Covid-19 deaths, 2020, to-date - Canada at 780 Sources: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/sweden-influenza-pneumonia https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/canada-influenza-pneumonia https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Ideally we save both the people and the economy. That's not going to happen and we're going to have to make tough choices. Losing some people to the virus AND losing the economy is just the worst case scenario I can imagine because even if you save people initially if the economy goes down you're going to lose people later anyway. A lot of people. I can't shake the idea that if you at least save the economy and as many people as you can it is the best approach. If the economy collapses the deaths from that and the toll it will take on our society may make the virus death numbers pale by comparison. I wish I could be more optimistic about the economy but I really do see it's collapse as the greater threat. As Floyd stated we already have a shitload of nasty problems waiting just down the road and I think people either don't see it or maybe they think someone is going to deal with it for us but I have no faith in our governments or the elites to do what is best for us. I suspect the vultures are already gathering and waiting patiently to encircle the carcass of our economy when the time is right so they can sweep in and pick off the flesh unencumbered by our once-virulent society.

It could be, but this better be good. 😉

I'm just saying it has been done before. "Adult Hero Saves Kid By Sacrificing Himself", "Details at 6:00".

If you had to make a choice between yourself and a younger person what choice would you make? I think I know the answer and why.

Yeah, I messed that up badly. My apologies. You're right. In my defense, in the video, the gentleman being interviewed said that Sweden and Denmark had roughly the same death rate. When I referred to that comment I prefaced it with "If that's true" (then what's the point of the lockdown). I didn't realise he was off as much as he was. Sweden is definitely taking it on the chin right now but they have managed it and haven't overwhelmed their health system. If x number of people are going to die regardless, what does it matter if they die in a short, tall curve or a longer, flattened curve provided your health system doesn't get overwhelmed? It remains to be seen what the final result is. Maybe they're looking at it like a battle. They'd rather charge and take the hill all at once rather than try to inch their way along and take it slowly. It could very well be the death toll is the same either way.

We can't just flush the economy. It's going to be a balancing act of priorities. 1. Save lives 2. Save the economy (small businesses, jobs) 3. Prepare for recovery

A logical Vulcan? 😉

Please tell me about my attitude and then I'll tell you about yours. I didn't know confining me to my home was socialism, or draining my EI account, or casting millions into unemployment, or bankrupting businesses, or collapsing the value of stocks, or collapsing the value of my RRSPs, or removing my rights. In your rainbow & unicorn world what percentage of tax do the wealthiest Canadians (the 1 percenters) pay? Remember, they don't work. Now compare that to the working middle class people of this country and tell me who bears the weight of taxes in this country. Do you seriously think that's going to improve things during this lockdown? What happens when there are no more tax revenues for our government to hand out because we aren't working? Do you think the big corporations that have been shipping our jobs to Mexico are suddenly going to step in and save us? Odd, I haven't heard from any of the big corporations in this country during this lockdown. Do you really think the govt (Mr. Trudeau) is going to make them pay for this lockdown?

I won't attempt the impossible as I can't prove opinions, I have cited sources in support of my opinions however. You say people are filing E.I. claims. 10 million in the U.S. in 2 weeks! When have we seen that before? Should you wish to speculate on the scenarios, I'll be happy to do so. For example, we could very well be heading into a mega-depression like we have never seen before. It's not hard to imagine many of the bankrupt small and medium size businesses and industries being bought up by huge monopolies like Google, Amazon, AliBaba, etc. and gigantic mergers take place. You mention 1987, 2001, 2008 but we have been steadily eroding as the good jobs have vanished and the ability to afford good health care and the basics have been slipping away from us steadily. This may precipitate the final grab of capital from the bottom of the pyramid to the top that our civilization has ever seen.

You have to admit, those numbers are damned close, give or take a few zeroes. LOL!