Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV/COVID-19)

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's pretty funny, all of the wokies hated Trump and desperately wanted Biden in the seat. Now they get to watch a globalist favour the elites and the 1%ers...jokes on them?

Probably will turn out to be true, but arguably the bigger joke is on Trump. He spent 3 years in a trade war with China only for them to send a virus over that ultimately proved his incompetence in governing and led to getting beat badly by a very weak opponent as an incumbent. The irony is incredible but sad that in the end, everyone loses.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it was cold lake who decided not to mandate masks because they were worried their population would go to the next town over and do all their shopping since that other town didn’t have a mandate

That means they’re more worried about their financial base line than actually trying to keep people safe

Cold lake doesn’t have a next town over lol. Unless you mean Bonnyville but all they have is a Sobeys. Lloyd is 2 hours away and isn’t logical for grocery shopping just because of a mask.

[adam c]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cold lake doesn’t have a next town over lol. Unless you mean Bonnyville but all they have is a Sobeys. Lloyd is 2 hours away and isn’t logical for grocery shopping just because of a mask.

Found the article
https://www.coldlakesun.com/news/loc...w-defeated-4-3

"Bob Buckle, who opposed the bylaw, worried it would cause Cold Lakers to shop in Bonnyville instead of locally, as that town does not have any mandatory mask rules."


That's all I know about it or care to research

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cut home social gatherings to 0 for 2 weeks, only family / household members. Sucks but gotta do something.

So here is one option that would actually slow things down based on what we know about contact tracing. Now here is the problem, how do you enforce this? And that is the point, you can't. Everyone who is acting all Chicken Little about this seems to forget the main important factor when calling for controls. They forget the human psychology factor. You can call for all the lockdowns, masks, reduced hours and capacities, etc, etc that you want. But if people refuse to follow these guidelines, then the guidelines are useless. If you're not considering the human factor when making up controls you think will help, then you're going backwards.

If we want to pretend for a second that masks actually work, then that is a useful control to put in place. Because people actually buy into it, or are at least willing to deal with it whether they agree or not. So that is an example of a useful control. But the more controls they try to put in place that A) Serve no purpose(like shutting down alcohol sales @10) or B) Are totally unenforceable. The more the general public disdain for the government grows, and the less likely they are to listen to ANY of the recommendations.

Your ideas you just listed are a perfect example of this. This virus doesn't seem to be spreading from restaurants, so putting in controls at restaurants to ruin the experience just makes people say "Fuck it, let's just meet at my house" Then they go to a friends house where hygiene practices are severely diminished compared to a restaurant and they spread covid to eachother.

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So here is one option that would actually slow things down based on what we know about contact tracing. Now here is the problem, how do you enforce this? And that is the point, you can't. Everyone who is acting all Chicken Little about this seems to forget the main important factor when calling for controls. They forget the human psychology factor. You can call for all the lockdowns, masks, reduced hours and capacities, etc, etc that you want. But if people refuse to follow these guidelines, then the guidelines are useless. If you're not considering the human factor when making up controls you think will help, then you're going backwards.

If we want to pretend for a second that masks actually work, then that is a useful control to put in place. Because people actually buy into it, or are at least willing to deal with it whether they agree or not. So that is an example of a useful control. But the more controls they try to put in place that A) Serve no purpose(like shutting down alcohol sales @10) or B) Are totally unenforceable. The more the general public disdain for the government grows, and the less likely they are to listen to ANY of the recommendations.

Your ideas you just listed are a perfect example of this. This virus doesn't seem to be spreading from restaurants, so putting in controls at restaurants to ruin the experience just makes people say "Fuck it, let's just meet at my house" Then they go to a friends house where hygiene practices are severely diminished compared to a restaurant and they spread covid to eachother.

To be honest you will never get 100% compliance but thats not what should be the goal. The goal is to slow the spread. Look at the mask mandate that went into effect in Calgary. Before August 1st mask usage was sparse even though it was 'strongly recommended' but once it became law then the majority of people began using them. Even though there are anti-maskers it still improved usage. Cutting social gatherings to 0 would also have a similair effect. Even if it only reduces the actual number of parties by half that may be enough to slow the spread of the virus enough to not have to do further shutdowns.

The alcohol sales by 10 makes sense tbh, there's been a number of 'restaurants' that have been operating as mini night clubs. Fire and Ice comes to mind. Millstreet Brewery also got shutdown for packing people over capacity acting like a regular bar.

[ExtraSlow]

Making in-home gatherings fully illegal would catch the attention of a significant portion of the population. Probably cut half of the remaining social gatherings.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So here is one option that would actually slow things down based on what we know about contact tracing. Now here is the problem, how do you enforce this? And that is the point, you can't. Everyone who is acting all Chicken Little about this seems to forget the main important factor when calling for controls. They forget the human psychology factor. You can call for all the lockdowns, masks, reduced hours and capacities, etc, etc that you want. But if people refuse to follow these guidelines, then the guidelines are useless. If you're not considering the human factor when making up controls you think will help, then you're going backwards.

If we want to pretend for a second that masks actually work, then that is a useful control to put in place. Because people actually buy into it, or are at least willing to deal with it whether they agree or not. So that is an example of a useful control. But the more controls they try to put in place that A) Serve no purpose(like shutting down alcohol sales @10) or B) Are totally unenforceable. The more the general public disdain for the government grows, and the less likely they are to listen to ANY of the recommendations.

Your ideas you just listed are a perfect example of this. This virus doesn't seem to be spreading from restaurants, so putting in controls at restaurants to ruin the experience just makes people say "Fuck it, let's just meet at my house" Then they go to a friends house where hygiene practices are severely diminished compared to a restaurant and they spread covid to eachother.

You need to judge each intervention on its absolute value not its relative value. People's activities in their homes is significant but difficult or impossible to control.

Incremental benefits from other policies is still useful.

[ExtraSlow]

Where is @GrammarSS when you need them?

[ThePenIsMightier]

I'm not a single person, but if I was, I'd maybe start getting frustrated that I couldn't go fuck someone after 7 months. Make that 7 weeks... on the outside...
That Cromagnon Doctor telling me to use a glory hole would also not suffice.
So, what are we doing to address the throngs of InCel's that this whole scenario has theoretically created? Is that the key demographic of spreaders, now? Surely they have started fucking each other again, by now.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Everytime I go out, there's always at least 1 person not wearing a mask, could that person have covid and not know it? there's a possibility of yes

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? no. With an active infection rate of 0.1% it's already unlikely, then do the math to figure what the likelihood of that 0.1% being applied to the one person in the store who isn't wearing a mask, and you have a better likelihood of winning the lottery than catching covid from that one guy not wearing a mask.

This is why it is so pointless of an exercise for people to get all Karen about mask compliance. Masks offer such a tiny amount of potential protections in the first place, and we have well over 90% compliance with masks. It is literally a waste of energy to worry about the one person who doesn't wear them.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you're not going to consider a different perspective, then ok - however think of it this way, how hard is it to wear a mask in a world wide pandemic that has killed millions? putting on shoes and socks is a lot harder for people than putting on a mask, if wearing a mask prevents a death 6 degrees away from you, isn't that worth it? sure you may not know that person however think of the butter fly effect

Take your own advice. Consider a different perspective. Can you control other people wearing masks, yes or no? Obviously no. I think the issue is you're getting hung up on the fact that you have wildly over exaggerated the risk of one person not wearing a mask. Like I said, if you believe there is that much risk in the odd non masker, then start buying lotto tickets.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Looks like we are maxed out at 19k tests. We're doomed. Brb after I hoard some keychains.

Speaking of testing. How is it that Ontario is supposedly testing 150,000 people in a day?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not a single person, but if I was, I'd maybe start getting frustrated that I couldn't go fuck someone after 7 months. Make that 7 weeks... on the outside...
That Cromagnon Doctor telling me to use a glory hole would also not suffice.
So, what are we doing to address the throngs of InCel's that this whole scenario has theoretically created? Is that the key demographic of spreaders, now? Surely they have started fucking each other again, by now.

The non-sex is probably mostly affecting millenials...and they are all busy trying to be gay.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You need to judge each intervention on its absolute value not its relative value. People's activities in their homes is significant but difficult or impossible to control.

Incremental benefits from other policies is still useful.

Yes. That's essentially what I just said. A lot of you aren't considering the absolute value. You're not considering the offset of the incremental value of a policy, that happens when you piss people off enough that they purposely violate said policies. We are literally watching this in action as we speak. Is there incremental value in a mask mandate? Perhaps. But how much of that value is offset by people deciding they will just meet somewhere that masks aren't enforced because they don't want to wear one?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes. That's essentially what I just said. A lot of you aren't considering the absolute value. You're not considering the offset of the incremental value of a policy, that happens when you piss people off enough that they purposely violate said policies. We are literally watching this in action as we speak. Is there incremental value in a mask mandate? Perhaps. But how much of that value is offset by people deciding they will just meet somewhere that masks aren't enforced because they don't want to wear one?

Your hypothesis seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is that gov't policies will not just re-enforce existing contrarians, but it will actually create contrarians. Or at least it will create enough contrarians to offset the benefits of the presumably large portion of the population that gets it. While this is a possibility, I don't see any reason to think it is likely. The contrarians are a vocal minority, and that can always skew your impression of their numbers.

I think the majority of the population takes this thing seriously, as they should, and do as well as they can to follow the current guidance as it changes according to the conditions.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your hypothesis seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is that gov't policies will not just re-enforce existing contrarians, but it will actually create contrarians. Or at least it will create enough contrarians to offset the benefits of the presumably large portion of the population that gets it. While this is a possibility, I don't see any reason to think it is likely. The contrarians are a vocal minority, and that can always skew your impression of their numbers.

I think the majority of the population takes this thing seriously, as they should, and do as well as they can to follow the current guidance as it changes according to the conditions.

It CAN create contrarians, which we are seeing right now. People aren't as stupid as they appear most of the time, so the government cannot keep lying to us and expect compliance. The risks and statistics of this virus and how it spreads have been very apparent for months now. The government needs to be very concise when putting controls in place. If they are not controls that actively have great value in decreasing the risks and spread of covid, and they seem fairly willy nilly, then people will actively revolt against all the controls. This is basic human psychology.

I think you grossly underestimate the potential contrarians that exist. The people gathering in a group to march down the street at an anti mask rally are definitely the minority. But the quiet majority is the worry, who is already fuming and annoyed about this debacle, and are no more than a few annoyances away from saying "fuck it".

Like I said, this isn't a what if. This is already happening. People all have covid exhaustion, and they're not allowing the government to tell them they can't see their friends and family for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. This is why the government needs to get off it's own hands and start approving and distributing these rapid tests. You can't stop people from meeting with their friends and family, we are social species by nature. So at the very least they could provide the tools to allow a family to still meet and just exclude the one member that tests positive.

You have to remember that very few people are actively in support of these draconian measures. Most people are only following mandates due to societal pressures.

[Buster]

We'll see, but I think you are mistaking the vocal minority for a larger group than it is.

And people are as stupid as they seem.

[kobe tai]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And people are as stupid as they seem.

Sad truth...

[killramos]

I lol’d

[speedog]

Huntington Hills Superstore toilet paper and paper towel aisle last night, govern yourself accordingly.

[killramos]

I’ll be concerned when Amazon doesn’t have dozens of types with 2 day delivery.

[ExtraSlow]

I thought I was being funny when I bought some last weekend.