TrueBlue4ever

I think the insinuation was that the science for this virus is not the same science that rules all other viruses in terms of infection rates or mortality rates, but fair point that they were not ignoring science. But it used to be “science” that the earth was flat or leeches were the best medical treatment, so old science may not be the best science as we evolve.

I pulled up some articles based on a search “Sweden COVID health care strain” to see if the health care system has not been overwhelmed as you say. Here are 4 that I pulled from that don’t necessarily take that point of view. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.se/20200406/heres-what-healthcare-workers-in-sweden-are-saying-about-the-coronavirus/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-second-wave-sweden-lockdown-herd-immunity-covid-19-1500046%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20200419/How-are-the-interventions-against-COVID-19-working-in-Sweden.aspx https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-coronavirus-no-lockdown-model-proves-lethal-by-hans-bergstrom-2020-04 Also, two of the more favourable articles in that regard also say that Sweden’s goal absolutely WAS herd immunity as quoted by their own health experts. Beyond that, there are 2 other things in your post that I’d take strong issue with: 1) Saying “they’ve seen these viruses come and go many times before and that this one will be no different” is the root of the problem according to the science we have. The numbers of cases, mortality rates, and exponential spread for a virus there is no vaccine for all make it completely different than what has been seen before, so the same old same old approach may well not work. Italy’s crisis seemed to back that up. THAT is why many see Sweden’s approach as misguided. And I cannot speak to your personal circumstance, but could you elaborate on how our economy has been “trashed” and “destroyed”? Those words to me speak of something that cannot be recovered from. Do I mis-interpret your words, or do you exaggerate the extent of the damage, or are we somewhere in the middle? 2) Using words like “instill fear”, “panic”, “over react”, “big brother” and “hype machine” is pretty hyperbolic without establishing a basis for it beyond your own personal feeling, but that aside, saying sarcastically how “refreshing” it is that people get to make their own choices with their lives is quite disingenuous. Every democratic government allows for reasonable infringements on individual rights to keep peace, order, and good government for the betterment of society as a whole. You may feel is it your “right” to drive as fast as you want, but posted speed limits are not just suggestions, and penal sanctions are put in place for those who violate them. Is this the oppressive government restricting your rights, or is it putting safeguards in place because everyone’s right to public safety outweighs one person’s right to do what they want, how they want, when they want, not caring that their personal choice puts many others at risk on the road, even those who abide by the rules of government by not speeding? The risk those beach goers on spring break at Daytona, or those pastors and churchgoers across the southern US, or those protesters blocking hospitals demanding to open up restrictions is not just a risk for them, they potentially endanger every person they encounter. If I need to go shopping and have obeyed all the rules and stayed home and wear a mask, I don’t find it refreshing that someone is putting me at greater risk because the rules didn’t apply to them and they got infected because they didn’t social distance and are now increasing my risk when they enter the supermarket. And those armed protesters in Michigan were hardly refreshing to the legislators who now have to strap on bullet proof vests in fear for their lives simply by showing up at work.

One issue I would take with this article is when it was written. It was March 30 and the number of cases then was comparable to other Nordic countries. So the driving data from health authorities may well be outdated and inaccurate now given what has happened in the last month in Sweden compared to other countries.

I know it’s easy to be dismissive of J5V if you don’t agree with his position, but we shouldn’t be dismissive of these reports without actually listening to them. At the same time, one shouldn’t just read the headline and cherry-pick a single response and pretend that the article is supportive of their alternate viewpoint without engaging in the same critical examination of the information provided. This won’t be a short post, so if a quick sound bite that reinforces your side’s position is what you want, just stop reading now and don’t bother sending me a “TLDR” post. But understand my from my viewpoint that this just highlights the problems we have right now in engaging in this discussion, that we don’t bother digging into our arguments and just spout one-off comments. From listening to the full recorded interview, in my opinion the radio host seems to have a veiled bias towards supporting the Swedish approach to non-lockdown, saying the Dr.’s comments point out Sweden’s “positive approach”. I don’t think the comments go that far. What I hear the doctor saying is that in the future, countries may have to decide that a lockdown is no longer feasible to combat the virus, and if they want to live in a world without lockdown they could look at the Swedish model as a way to coexist with the virus, allowing schools and businesses to be open but being extra mindful of social distancing precautions, which is what the Swedish government says it has been advocating. The Dr. doesn’t take a position one way or another on the Swedish approach as positive or negative, but says lessons can be learned from it by other countries going forward. He does not, to my mind, advocate that this was the right strategy from the outset, or the wrong one, for that matter. It is also important to note that the original question asked was whether the “herd immunity” concept Sweden was going for means that this was the better approach, and in answering he cautioned that very few who had contracted COVID 19 had developed the antibodies to combat the virus as a result of exposure, meaning they were still very susceptible to the virus in the future. Herd immunity may well not result from Sweden’s approach. Hindsight will be 20/20 as to which approach will be better in the long run. If Sweden does not have a second wave, survives this wave without overwhelming its healthcare system, develops herd immunity, and kept its economy humming the whole time, then we can say they chose wisely. That’s a lot of “if’s”, mind you. Those same “if’s” could apply to Canada if the lockdown doesn’t reduce the number of overall deaths or cases in the end, still overwhelms the health care system and resources, and drags down the economy irrevocably in the process with no real net benefit. But if Sweden’s approach means unnecessary deaths to save an economy that would have rebounded anyway, and Canada’s approach saves a health care system from collapse and its economy does rebound with no lingering effects long term, then you could say Sweden chose poorly. No one can say what the best approach long term will be because we are nowhere near long term yet. What I can say confidently is that short-term, New Zealand and South Korea both took strong measures to lock down their countries quickly and have virtually eliminated cases in their countries for the time being. Italy was late in responding with devastating results for their population. Canada has taken strict measures but the numbers of new cases and deaths does not seem to be waning just yet (although there are some stark regional differences at play). Sweden has put its trust in its citizens to govern themselves accordingly without over-regulation. Their numbers of cases are lower than Canada’s, and although their total deaths are close with one third of the population, their numbers in terms of new cases and daily deaths seem to be going down now, while Canada’s hold level. And I’m not sure all Canadians would show the same self-restraint if merely “encouraged” to stay at home and avoid public gatherings which put them at risk. We’ve seen plenty of examples of lack of self-restraint south of the border, which puts everyone at risk, the reckless and the careful alike. Finally, what I see as telling are the results of the closed cases in select countries. All numbers courtesy of worldometers.com. Worldwide there are 3.5 million cases, and one third of them are now closed (meaning ended in recovery or death). 18% of those closed cases worldwide resulted in death. In South Korea, 85% of their cases are closed, and only 2.7% of those closed cases were deaths. In New Zealand, likewise 85% of their cases are closed with a 1.5% death rate. In Canada, just under 50% of our cases are closed, and 13% of those closed cases resulted in death. In the US, only 20.7% of cases are closed, with a death result of 28%. And in Sweden, only 16.5% of their cases are closed, and of those closed cases a staggering 73% have resulted in death. Interpret those numbers as you wish, but for me it’s hard to argue that Sweden’s approach has not put many more lives in jeopardy unnecessarily in the short term given that very high fatality rate.

You don’t know what the legal definition of entrapment is, do you?

This e-mail from the commish came to me yesterday. April 29, 2020 Dear Season Seat Holder, I hope this letter finds you and your loved ones safe and healthy. If you are one of the thousands of essential workers putting yourself at risk for the rest of us, thank you. If you are simply doing your part to fight this pandemic and following the rules as they come, thank you for that as well. Most of all, thank you for supporting the CFL, and your team, by purchasing season seats. You and fans like you are the lifeblood of the Canadian Football League. We are deeply grateful for your commitment to us. We want you to know we are committed to you and to the future of the CFL – and to building an even bigger and brighter future for Canadian football, together. Right now, like you, we’re trying to cope with the fact that Covid-19 has literally created a world of uncertainty. We are following the news, listening to public health experts, and monitoring the latest from our political leaders, for signs that life will start to return to normal and, when and if the time is right, we can safely get back to football and back to gathering together in our stadiums. Like you, we’re doing all we can to weather this storm. We’re optimistic and we’re looking forward. We remain hopeful we’ll have a great season in 2020. But this pandemic is forcing us to also consider all the other possibilities, including the ones we hate to consider, such as fewer games this year or even a cancelled season, if that is what we have to do to help keep Canada safe and healthy. You may have seen in the media that we have reached out to the federal government. We’ve told them we may need help, especially if these worst-case scenarios come to pass. We have stressed we want to be accountable to you and all taxpayers, and that we would want to repay them using all of the tools at our disposal, including advertising in our stadiums and online, programs in the community in support of a wide range of important causes, tourism promotion around our games and Grey Cup, and through content and digital partnerships. You’ve already helped us by investing in season seats. Your support, patience and understanding through this challenging time helps us even more. I can’t thank you enough. I wish I could return your loyalty by telling you how all of this will turn out, when our games will start and exactly what our season will look like. Unfortunately, all we can do right now is be as transparent as possible, to tell you we are working through all the possibilities, and to be as deeply grateful to you as you clearly deserve. Whatever you are going through, at work or home or in your family, I want you to know we consider you an important part of our CFL family. If you have lost a loved one, or you are coping with the effect this virus can have on anyone’s physical, mental or financial health, please know we are thinking of you. I know we’re going to get through this together. And when we do, it’s going to be a great day for Canada. We’ll celebrate football, friendship and our resilience. And more than anything else, when we see you again at the game, we’re going to celebrate you. Thank you so much, Randy Ambrosie Commissioner, Canadian Football League

But with less emotional range.

Which is why he may very well win. Stacking the courts with conservative judges who have voted against mail-in and absentee voting, a Senate that will comply with his every whim, and ignoring any checks and balances as imposed by Congressional oversight and enforced by Inspectors General whom he will fire if they conflict with his view of absolute power - he has gamed the system to his advantage so far, no reason to think he won’t openly cheat to win, and the Dems refuse to play as dirty as him thinking that virtue will win out.

Ice has not been a problem since they left the Winnipeg Arena and moved into MTS Centre, from everything I’ve heard.

The NHL had certain requirements for the neutral site games. 1) Arenas need a minimum of 4 NHL caliber dressing rooms because they wanted to have up to 3 games a day being played. Edmonton has 6 dressing rooms at Rogers Place. Not sure if the Jets have more than 3. 2) Suitable practice facilities for multiple NHL teams. With the IcePlex, Wayne Fleming and some major junior rinks, don’t think this was an issue in Winnipeg, but Edmonton’s practice rink is connected to the main arena. 3) NHLPA requirements specify a 4 or 5 star hotel for the players per the collective agreement. Not sure how Winnipeg stacks up there, but likely less than almost if not all other NHL cities. Again Edmonton has a 5 star connected to the arena by walkway. 4) city can’t be a COVID hotspot. No problem for Winnipeg or Edmonton (most of the Alberta cases are on Calgary) 5) preferably don’t share the arena with an NBA team As for the ice in Winnipeg, the NHL player’s poll this year said the Bell MTS Centre ice was top 3 in the league, behind only Edmonton and Vegas. Jets have been top 3 for a few years in ice quality (Montreal is also perennially high on the list), so poor ice is a non-issue on Winnipeg.

Update on the Stampede coming today. Many expect it will be cancelled outright. A friend of mine works in the food and drink industry and travels with the carnival circuit from the Red River Ex through the Stampede and spots in between. Says if he loses those 2 events alone, he will lose 75% of his annual income (and he is not some low-level ride operator making minimum wage, this is hundreds of thousands of dollars). On the flipside, my brother is in sales and marketing and 95% of his business was in the US, completely gone now, so he is re-focussing on eastern Canada to keep his income going. As he puts it. "Adapt or die" Saw a meme that was kind of telling. It said "If you have kids heading into college who are wondering what career path to take, tell them to look around right now and see who is still working"

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107905/number-of-coronavirus-cases-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107149/covid19-cases-age-distribution-canada/

For those who wrestle with isolation vs. less restrictions, COVID vs. economy, risk to millennials vs elderly, and "acceptable" levels of sacrifice, be it economic or health, here is the perspective from a COVID survivor. Just one viewpoint, would be happy to hear of others or if anyone refutes this person's opinion, having lived through it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/us/coronavirus-survivor-response-to-protesters/index.html

Next to your toilet paper tower no doubt.

Not sure what the best place to post this was, could go in Canadian politics or the environmental or random news threads, but it seemed like it would get the most eyeballs here and does impact Trump’s big economic push to salvage his election chances. Oil went below $0 a barrel today. Yep, oil suppliers are now paying buyers to take it off their hands, since they have too much surplus and can’t even give it away for free. Can’t wait to go to Shell where the sign says “Gas, $20” and go to fill up and have them say “Here’s your gas. And here’s your $20.”

Speed flex was going off about the military in the streets enforcing laws and restricting our civil liberties. Well, I’d welcome that a whole lot more than seeing civilians parading around with assault rifles prepared to enforce their personal rights over the rights of society at large.

Trump’s biggest card is not to rev up his base, it is to disenfranchise as many voters as possible and use to courts to gerrymander the voting his way as much as possible. Eliminate mail-in, absentee or advance polling? Check, check, and wait for it. Declare a suspension of the election due to a National emergency? Wouldn’t surprise me. Get the Supreme Court to ignore the results of the vote and elect him by Supreme Court decision? Hey, we already have a precedent for that one.

And some who have it are not being tested. My friend showed up for testing and was told they wouldn’t test even though all the symptoms were present, and the health care workers acknowledged it as well. My friend them said “I’m an essential worker” (they are, not lying) and they reversed their decision and tested. Results are pending, but it shows that they are still being selective in who they test.

Sweden now has 1,400 deaths and 13,216 total cases, for a fatality rate of 10.6%. Worldwide the rate has jumped to just under 6.8%, US is almost 5.2%, Canada is a shade under 4.1%

God, that is such a punchable face.

The great unknown is how many deaths can be prevented by spreading out the curve. I get the idea that IF the health system is not going to be overwhelmed AND the same number of people are going to die in the end, then why stall it and hurt the economy, but the concern was exactly that the system WOULD be overwhelmed and more deaths would occur if it happened all at once. And this outcome had already been seen in Italy, where decisions were made not to treat patients over a certain age for no reason other than the fact that there were not enough s ventilators to administer to everyone and hospitals were literally choosing who lived or died based on age. Had there been a slower curve, it is logical that there would have been enough machines for every patient and more would survive than simply being left to die. Is it worth the economic losses? Some will say no, some will say it isn’t even a question to be considered. I guess my view is that the economy has bounced back before from bad times, but no one bounces back from being dead, and I don’t have statistics to show that an economic downturn will cause more deaths than Coronavirus, but stats are showing that a delinquent or non-response to social isolation has been causing a higher per capita incidence of death.

When Sweden had 477 deaths, they didn’t the same 10,483 cases that they have now. Both the number of deaths and number of cases have risen in the last week. When Sweden had only 477 deaths they also had only 7200 cases, not 10483, so their rate was 6.6%, not 4.5%. The liar comment was heavy-handed, sorry Statistics matter when making a point on either side.

Putting aside your mis-information on numbers, could you please cite what proof you have that a non-lockdown will save the economy, and a long-term lockdown will "crater" it as you say? Yeah the stock market is down and people are filing unemployment claims, but who is to say that long-term we can re-open and handle a second wave better because of the drastic measures now, or that the economy won't bounce back (it did in 1987, 2001, 2008), or that biting the bullet now will actually keep the economy afloat anyway? I'd be curious to hear your argument as to what is happening today is somehow irreversible, and why it is a black and white "save lives, kill the economy vs. risk lives, save the economy" pre-ordained result. Sources to back up your argument, if you please.

Based on worldometers.info stats (compiled from Johns Hopkins and WHO data, and cited by Floyd in an earlier post), your statement that Denmark in a lockdown is doing as bad as Sweden in non-lockdown is wrong. Your next statement that Sweden a week ago had a 3.82% mortality rate is, well I won't say wrong, I prefer to say it's a lie. As of April 13 - Sweden: population 10.099 million (#91 in the world), 10,948 cases (19th), 919 deaths (14th), 91 deaths per million pop. (12th), and a mortality rate of 8.4% (deaths/total cases) Denmark: population 5.792 million (#115 in the world), 6,318 cases (31st), 285 deaths (26th), 41 deaths per million pop. (20th), and a mortality rate of 4.5% (deaths/total cases) Finland: population 5.540 million (#116 in the world), 3,064 cases (46th), 59 deaths (52nd), 11 deaths per million pop. (48th), and a mortality rate of 1.9% (deaths/total cases) Norway: population 5.421 million (#119 in the world), 6,551 cases (29th), 134 deaths (34th), 25 deaths per million pop. (27th), and a mortality rate of 2.0% (deaths/total cases) One week ago, Sweden had 477 deaths and 7,206 cases, for a mortality rate of 6.6% Helps your argument if you don't make stuff up to back your hypothesis.