Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think the issue is more HOW antibiotics are used. When I raised chickens, the recommended feed contained antibiotics. This was used as a standard course and not in response to the presence of any pathogen. I believe there have also been issues when animals are raised "antibiotic free" and they can often struggle with illnesses that could be treated to remain classified as antibiotic free.

Using antibiotics when required on livestock seems like a wise and humane thing to do. Using antibiotics routinely on healthy animals seems likely to lead to long term problems. Often antibiotics are used because of the tight confines livestock face.

Posted
2 hours ago, WildPath said:

I think the issue is more HOW antibiotics are used. When I raised chickens, the recommended feed contained antibiotics. This was used as a standard course and not in response to the presence of any pathogen. I believe there have also been issues when animals are raised "antibiotic free" and they can often struggle with illnesses that could be treated to remain classified as antibiotic free.

Using antibiotics when required on livestock seems like a wise and humane thing to do. Using antibiotics routinely on healthy animals seems likely to lead to long term problems. Often antibiotics are used because of the tight confines livestock face.

U made sense until that last paragraph.

Posted
On 2023-09-21 at 9:19 PM, Mark H. said:

A & W also says all their chickens are raised on a vegetarian diet. That's probably true, but it's true for vast majority of chickens.

Actually, chickens can be carnivores under the right circumstances, even callibalistic.

Posted
42 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Actually, chickens can be carnivores under the right circumstances, even callibalistic.

I knew that - but so what? My point is that chickens raised on most farms are fed a plant based diet.

Posted
10 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Seems like a dumb thing to promise. 1) Likely(hopefully) won't be necessary any longer, 2) Basically saying they would go against health professional advice in the unlikely event that restrictions would be recommended. We've gone down that road in the past and it has only led to stricter lockdowns and needless death.

I've been disappointed with both parties efforts to win votes by promoting bad policy. Seems like they've heard from some Manitobans that they didn't like the lockdowns (duh?) and they've made it a campaign promise.

Posted
4 hours ago, WildPath said:

Seems like a dumb thing to promise. 1) Likely(hopefully) won't be necessary any longer, 2) Basically saying they would go against health professional advice in the unlikely event that restrictions would be recommended. We've gone down that road in the past and it has only led to stricter lockdowns and needless death.

I've been disappointed with both parties efforts to win votes by promoting bad policy. Seems like they've heard from some Manitobans that they didn't like the lockdowns (duh?) and they've made it a campaign promise.

Also we never once had a lockdown.... so your promising to not do anything that was ever done before. The entire thing is ridiculous. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Rich said:

Really. I know you're just trying to be an ******* to contradict me, and that's fine...it's your house....

But you look at places like Italy, who had the army patrolling the streets to make sure nobody left their house....that's a lockdown.

Nobody in Canada was ever in a true lockdown. We had spoiled 1st world elites complaining that they weren't able to do exactly what they did prior to the pandemic.

 

Posted

It’s not to be a ****.  How many companies closed down.  How many people couldn’t work, lost their jobs that the government had to step in with that benefit.   The Canadian government even called it a lockdown benefit. 
 

I’m not saying it was the wrong decision, not even saying it shouldn’t happen again if a variant comes out that it was way more contagious and / or deadly.  
 

But to say everyone impacted by those closures wasn’t in a lockdown because of what happened in Italy is just trying to word smith this.  
 

When people say they don’t want lockdowns again, it is what they experienced here in Canada.    Not about something they didn’t experience. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Rich said:

It’s not to be a ****.  How many companies closed down.  How many people couldn’t work, lost their jobs that the government had to step in with that benefit.   The Canadian government even called it a lockdown benefit. 
 

I’m not saying it was the wrong decision, not even saying it shouldn’t happen again if a variant comes out that it was way more contagious and / or deadly.  
 

But to say everyone impacted by those closures wasn’t in a lockdown because of what happened in Italy is just trying to word smith this.  
 

When people say they don’t want lockdowns again, it is what they experienced here in Canada.    Not about something they didn’t experience. 

Yeah, I don't refer to Italy, China, Australia or New Zealand when I talk about lockdowns. Instead, what we experienced here in Canada. Even more specifically, Alberta. And I never called them lockdowns. I called them restrictions. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Rich said:

It’s not to be a ****.  How many companies closed down.  How many people couldn’t work, lost their jobs that the government had to step in with that benefit.   The Canadian government even called it a lockdown benefit. 
 

I’m not saying it was the wrong decision, not even saying it shouldn’t happen again if a variant comes out that it was way more contagious and / or deadly.  
 

But to say everyone impacted by those closures wasn’t in a lockdown because of what happened in Italy is just trying to word smith this.  
 

When people say they don’t want lockdowns again, it is what they experienced here in Canada.    Not about something they didn’t experience. 

Ahhhh so you're one of those... gotcha. 

Posted

Noeller being Noeller again.

He has an opinion ,  that opinion is represented by only a very small vocal minority of people.   When someone who represents the overwhelming majority of the public challenges what he says,  he then name calls and tries to denigrate the user.    

Definition of lockdown:  a state or period in which movement within or access to an area is restricted in the interests of public safety or health.

Restricted means limited access,  it does not mean being locked into your house with military walking the streets.  We were not restrained like in those countries.

And as I said so many pages ago in this thread that the idea of being locked down and people isolating with COVID is over.   People have moved on and are no longer scared about going out and dying,   If they were to have restrictions again the public would disobey and ignore it. 

Posted (edited)

Mb definitely experienced lockdowns for sure  not to the extent of military or police patrolling the streets tho. But they existed. Maybe 8 10 weeks in total Maybe more honestly (it's more) 

At other points our restrictions were pretty relaxed compared to elsewhere tho.... remember we opened her up again atleast once so... must mean she was closed down a bit. My kid did remote learning for parts of kindergarten and most of grade 1. She = Manitoba 

Edited by Goalie
Posted (edited)
On 2023-09-25 at 6:06 AM, SpeedFlex27 said:

We'll never have restrictions again. It just won't happen. 

I would hope they would if a highly transmissible and very deadly virus comes along... where there is no treatment for. 

 

On 2023-09-25 at 12:53 PM, Brandon said:

People have moved on and are no longer scared about going out and dying,   If they were to have restrictions again the public would disobey and ignore it. 

in the case above, I am sure that would be short lived. 

 

You get a virus with an R value of say... 4.7 and a fatality rate of 36%... there will be lockdowns and people will ******* abide by them (eventually).

Edited by Wanna-B-Fanboy
Posted

some people projecting their own personal beliefs on to the general public here.

Talked to the pharmacist yesterday and already looking forward to October 16th... should have both the seasonal flu shot and the brand spankin' new COVID booster in stock and ready to go. Looking forward to loading up the protection as we head into the always brutal Cold/Flu/COVID season...

Posted
28 minutes ago, Noeller said:

some people projecting their own personal beliefs on to the general public here.

Talked to the pharmacist yesterday and already looking forward to October 16th... should have both the seasonal flu shot and the brand spankin' new COVID booster in stock and ready to go. Looking forward to loading up the protection as we head into the always brutal Cold/Flu/COVID season...

What to do?

Access well educated highly trained highly experienced well respected medical professionals like pharmacists versus accessing second hand third hand fourth hand information from people like 'Dr.' Theo Fleury and 'Dr.' Jamie Sale? 

Posted
12 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

I would hope they would if a highly transmissible and very deadly virus comes along... where there is no treatment for. 

 

in the case above, I am sure that would be short lived. 

 

You get a virus with an R value of say... 4.7 and a fatality rate of 36%... there will be lockdowns and people will ******* abide by them (eventually).

I believe both comments were specifically about Covid.

Posted

One of my co-workers has spent the last few days in the hospital due to Covid (vaccinated and boosted).  Got it last week (tested negative until they tested him in the hospital) and lost almost 20 pounds over the weekend.  Doing better now though.

 

I will be getting every booster that comes out as soon as they are available.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...