 |
| Dr.Theresa Tam.. Responsible for Wuhan Virus Debacle |
With a pandemic raging in China, our national health agency (along with other western nations) were lulled into a false sense of security by the World Health Organization which worked overtime to downplay the epidemic at China's behest.
It was a fatal mistake that is responsible for the utter unpreparedness of Canada.
That general unpreparedness and the refusal to close borders sooner than later directly led to the increase in Wuhan virus-infected individuals coming into Canada, unchecked, unverified and un-quarantined.
The proof that Trudeau was clueless about the potential danger is highlighted by the fact that his wife Sophie and his daughter travelled to London, England where she promptly caught the virus.
I cannot imagine that had Trudeau an inkling of the danger in Europe, he'd agree to such a trip.
It underlines what type of advice he must have been given by his experts over at Health Canada who failed to sound an alarm.
The fact that Trudeau is a globalist didn't help matters at all, surrounding himself with like-minded officials who parrotted the United Nations view of one-world
Trudeau lectured us like school children that unlike President Trump who ordered the border closed to Europe, Canada was confident that the drastic measure was unnecessary.
Here is a video I put together to forever remind us of the idiots who actually run Canada.
As we all know now, China obfuscated and outright lied about the pandemic in order to cover up the severity, silencing critics and controlling the message through it's mouthpiece the World Health Organization.
In relying on poisoned advice from the WHO, our federal officials made one wrong decision after another, leading us to where we are now.
The WHO is a politically-controlled United Nations agency that as the deputy Prime-Minister of Japan said should be renamed as the China Health Organization because of its total domination and control exercised by the Chinese Communist Party.
How tightly does China control the WHO?
Watch the deputy Prime Minister of Japan lay into the corrupted WHO.
Watch the deputy Prime Minister of Japan lay into the corrupted WHO.
To all you globalists still unconvinced at the idea that China
really controls the World Health organization, watch this video by its deputy director Bruce Alyward, a Canadian who in an interview sang the praises of China. When faced with a pointed question about China he was so dumbfounded that he sat in stunned silence before hanging up on the interviewer. When the interviewer called back for clarification, he outright refused to give an answer.
And so let us get back to Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada.
How she qualified for the job is a mystery other than the fact that she checked all Justin Trudeau's boxes.
Female--- Minority--- Globalist.
Dr. Tam doesn't speak French at all and speaks English in a highly irritating accent. She speaks like a robotic automaton and is the antithesis of an official who should inspire confidence.
And no, her Chinese heritage is not an issue, it is her qualifications as a leader.
In news conferences, she defers questions asked in French to her deputy Dr. Howard Njoo, who speaks so poorly that it is nothing short of an embarrassment.
Although it is common practice to put a doctor in charge of health agencies, I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Doctors are generally one-dimensional with a narrow educational background and little patience for the hoi-polloi. The job of Chief Public Health Officer of Canada.is a political, not a medical position and should be filled by a good communicator and inspiring character, something that Doctor Tam is not.
Parroting the WHO globalist line of open borders and Chinese misinformation about the severity, Tam misled Canadians as to the danger of the Wuhan virus. She totally misjudged the situation largely because she trusted those who should never have been trusted and thus directly led to Canada's under-preparedness.
Read the idiotic pronouncements she made leading up and into the disaster.
January 20, 2020
“It is important to take this seriously and be vigilant and be prepared, but I don’t think there’s any reason for us to panic or be overly concerned,” Dr. Theresa Tam said Monday in a call with reporters.
January 26, 2020
Tam said the risk of human-to-human contamination is minimal, even for those who may have shared a flight or been in the airport alongside the Toronto patient.
“People transmit when they’re in close contact, particularly prolonged contact,” she said. “It’s really family members travelling with the patient who are at the highest risk.”
I won't bore you with the myriad of examples where over and over again, she blindly quotes the Chinese propaganda line, seemingly unable to to accept the false narrative she was fed.
January 31, 2020
Dr. Theresa Tam, chief public health officer, reiterated Thursday that the chances of an outbreak in Canada remain low.
January 26, 2020
Canada's Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam said despite the fact the number of cases in China is increasing, the export to other countries remains low and the risk remains low in Canada.
Tam said the reported case Saturday was "not unexpected."
"The health system is on alert to detect potential cases and to respond promptly when they are confirmed," Tam said. "It shows that our systems are working."
January 27, 2020
“Right now the World Health Organization actually advises against any specific travel restrictions,” said Dr. Theresa Tam, the federal chief medical officer.
January 28, 2020
Canada’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Teresa Tam, underlined the message that the general risk to Canadians remains low.
“Canadians should not be concerned they can pick up the virus through casual contact such as walking through the airport,” she said.
February 10, 2020
"Of course we will be evaluating all these measures on an ongoing basis, but right now we believe that is the right balance in protecting the health of Canadians," said Tam, noting that Canada's approach is in line with the World Health Organization's guidelines related to "inappropriate restrictions to travel and trade."
February 10, 2020
The risk to Canadians from coronavirus “continues to be low,” according to Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam.
February 11, 2020
Addressing reporters on Monday, Canada’s chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, reiterated there are no plans to adopt a U.S.-style travel ban from China.
“Of course we will be evaluating all these measures on an ongoing basis, but right now we believe (the existing measures have struck) the right balance in protecting the health of Canadians,” Tam said.
Feb 21,2020Now defenders are saying that her failure was repeated all over the western world in countries like Italy and Spain, but that's not exactly true with many countries, even those badly affected better-prepared because plans to fight the virus were made in anticipation. Germany is the finest example of a country well-prepared as well as Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong.
However, when asked about the border screening process, Canada's chief public health officer, Dr, Theresa Tam, told media Friday afternoon that public health’s “layered response” is working well.
“Right now. What we have in place has been working,” said Tam.
I read with interest an article in the Montreal Gazette about a Chinese Montrealer who went to China to visit family in January. When she saw the state of affairs she cut her visit short, returned to Canada and placed herself in isolation.
She was so alarmed by what she saw and so fearful for the future that she wrote a letter to Health Canada and the Prime Minister warning of the danger.
Read: Quebec unprepared for coronavirus outbreak, says Montrealer back from China
You'd think that if one non-medical person could accurately foresee the grim future, somewhere in Health Canada, professionals would raise the alarm, but alas they did not.
Our Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Dr. Theresa Tam must take responsibility for the utter and complete failure, a failure that is and will cost countless Canadians their lives.
We'd have been a lot better off with the above-mentioned Chinese Montrealer as head of the agency that is supposed to safeguard our health.
And so as the saying goes 'denial' is not a river in Egypt, it is a dangerous state of mind firmly implanted in Health Canada, much to the detriment of Canadians.
How many Canadians will die because of Dr. Theresa Tam's dangerously incompetent leadership remains to be seen, but there is more to this tragedy in that she hasn't been sacked and continues to offer her useless and dangerous advice.
Today Tam is telling us that wearing masks is useless, despite the fact that countries who have better faced down the virus all insist on masks in public.
She'll probably reverse herself on the subject in a matter of time.
My best advice and probably that of the Chinese Montrealer who wrote to her warning of the danger is to ignore anything this foolish and dangerous WHO apologist has to say.
With all due respect, Phil, would any of the other party leaders have done better, namely Andrew Sheer? He would have been PM but for our flawed electoral system. I can't help it if too many people (esp. in Quebec) voted for Trudope. All I hear from the French speaking reporters in his morning blah-blah is how our Crime Minister going to help Quebec...only Quebec...and nobody but Quebec.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it: We HAVE to rely on those in the medical profession to determine the degree of seriousness this whole to-do is going to take. Ontario had three spokesmen on today discussing the best- and worst-case scenarios for Ontario through the end of this month. Two of the three men were doctors. I don't know who better, so if you or any of our readers know of anyone with the foresight to have done better, please share.
Please realize I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate here, but it's easier to be an armchair critic than in the fight whether adequate preventative measures were taken or not. There has been lots 'n' lots of fumbling the ball, no surprise since nobody seemingly planned for a pandemic of this magnitude. I haven't even heard Russian statistics, so what's THEIR story?
Well I have to agree that we were slow to restrict travel. But to be fair many people including myself thought the whole thing was overblown a month ago..the consensus out there was for a minor spread and so on. Things changed very rapidly mid March. On the other hand government officials should have been privy to a lot more information on what was going on than the average citizen especially the health officials.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think we are going to kill and harm more people with the extreme measures taken now then if we just restricted people who are over a certain age..60 or 70 or whatever. The damage to the economy is colossal and each month things are shut down it amplifies. Governments around the world are bending over backwards trying to bail out everyone but the problem is that they are all effectively bankrupt after decades of adding debt. So in one year Canada will add 200 billion to the national debt..this is a frightening number..frankly its irresponsible for Trudeau to allow this to happen.
The debt going from 700 billion to a trillion in a year or so will kill more people in the longer run than we will save by spending 200 billion. Frankly many people and businesses are irresponsible as they have little savings and spend far beyond their means..governments are no better catering to an increasingly entitled society. So now we have governments literally dropping money from the skies..whats the going to to do the value of the currency..future interest rates..the debt bubble that has been going on for 30-40 years is coming to a final climax and the popping of this debt bubble will kill way more people than this virus yet no one talks about this.
The vast majority of the people dying are over 80 with health complications..many of these would have likely died within a year or so hence does it make any sense to spend the insane amounts of money we are. The vast vast vast majority of people who get this virus recover within 2-3 weeks..many with no worse symptoms than the regular flu. So I ask has the world gone mad..I think so. I think England had the right idea of letting the virus go amongst most people and let them become immune asap..and yes the hospitals would be overwhelmed for a few months but the cure that most countries are following will kill and harm a lot more people over the next few years.
So if I understand you correctly, comp, certain lives don't matter, or are less important than others. Interestingly, a story was told about a 93-year-old who survived, so it's not a fait accompli because you're old. This pandemic is a horrible lottery. There are 20 something year olds dying while novogenerians may survive.
DeleteThose expendable people as you see them are someone's spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt or uncle or just a good, good friend...maybe even a child!
Congrats, comp, you think like a Nazi. They too euthanized their own whom they deemed as expendable, including the old and the weak, the mentally challenged and others whom they judged to be unable to progress the cause the way Hitler and his henchmen saw fit. For shame, comp. For shame!
complicated wrote:
Delete"Personally I think we are going to kill and harm more people with the extreme measures taken now then if we just restricted people who are over a certain age..60 or 70 or whatever. The damage to the economy is colossal and each month things are shut down it amplifies."
...and...
"The vast majority of the people dying are over 80 with health complications..many of these would have likely died within a year or so hence does it make any sense to spend the insane amounts of money we are."
complicated nailed it. I agree with these sentiments.
How many people will die as a result of the crashing of the global economy? Certainly, not that many people in "rich" countries like Canada and the U.S. We are able to deficit-spend like crazy while we are all at home watching Netflix, hoarding our rolls of toilet paper, and comfortably hall-monitoring friends and family to keep their 2 meters distance from us.
Not so the poor of the many third world countries who do not have the luxury of waiting for a government cheque to tide them over. And in this globalized economy of interdependence of trade between nations big and small, rich and poor, there are a heck of a lot of poor people that will suffer.
Take Starbucks as just one example. Starbucks has 30,000 storefront outlets throughout the world. I assume that, like here in Vancouver, they are keeping them open but only for take-out; no in-cafe sitting and sipping while scrolling through your smart phone.
Well, I don't think it is a stretch to say that, at minimum, Starbucks revenue from coffee-purchasers is down at least 50%. That means that the coffee pickers in third world countries such as Ethiopia, Columbia, Jamaica, Sumatra, etc. are NOT going to be getting that 2 or 3 bucks a day that they usually get to subsist upon the way they were getting before because the demand has been cut. And I don't think their governments are cutting cheques for them the way ours is.
But that 2 or 3 bucks a day may have been the only means to actually feed these people...and their families.
So, the question is: how many of the poorest of the poor throughout the world will suffer and die because we have drastically cut down on the demand for the work they do? I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that there will be 10 or 25 or even 100 non-corona deaths globally that will occur as a result of the global shut-down for every one corona related death.
And what about the non-death effects? That coffee bean picker who isn't bringing home enough to buy rice and beans for his 4 kids means that the kids may still live but are, at a crucial time of growth, becoming malnourished. And this is an effect that will crop up as any number of problems in the ensuing 70 years of living for these kids. But where is the quantification of this effect when we look at the corona balance sheet?
So, is it worth it? complicated asks very pertinent questions in his post. Very politically incorrect questions but they must be asked at some point because this corona thing very well may be a dry run for other pandemics in the future.
I don't envy politicians like Trump or Trudeau. Virtually any option they choose -- keep the economy running, send people back to work, or any option in-between -- means that people will die. And they will be raked over the coals for any decision...particularly if the option is to reopen the economy.
Mr. Sauga writes:
Delete"Congrats, comp, you think like a Nazi. They too euthanized their own whom they deemed as expendable, including the old and the weak, the mentally challenged and others whom they judged to be unable to progress the cause the way Hitler and his henchmen saw fit. For shame, comp. For shame!"
You are being to hard on him, Mr. Sauga. There are no easy fixes or solutions for this thing and whatever option our leaders take is going to mean death for someone. complicated's questions are important and must be factored in to whatever solution is settled upon by policy makers.
These types of cost/benefit who dies who doesn't die decisions are made all the time by policy-makers...without anyone invoking Godwin's Law ("As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"). For example:
Example #1. A law requiring 8 airbags in every car sold will save more lives than a law requiring only 2. But requiring 8 airbags would mean that the price of a car is going to be cost-prohibitive for many people, resulting in less sales, and more car manufacturing workers out of jobs. Guess what, Mr. Sauga, 8 airbags is NOT required. Some one somewhere made a decision that we go for only 2 airbags per car (or maybe 4, you get my point) and, as a result, people have died.
Example #2. A law requiring a maximum of X part per million of mercury in our drinking water will save Y number of people per year. But a law requiring a maximum of .5X will save (Y+.001Y) people...but the technology for creating the latter policy is 200% more expensive to implement, even though it will save a few more lives. Well, I got news for ya, Mr. Sauga, there are municipalities that don't have the money for the better technology and go for the former policy even though people will die. This is not Nazi-ism but everyday policy decisions that, yes, result in people dying. Cost/benefit analysis by policy makers involve people dying all the time.
Hi Tony
DeleteYou are definitely right about the impact on the poorest people in the world. But I would argue that there will be more deaths than we think just from adding 200-300 billion dollars to our debt in one year. One way or another this additional debt which is mind boggling will cause reductions in services in the near future, higher taxes which will impact on peoples lives and health in a negative way.
However even with the 200-300 billion dollar in deficit we will see many businesses close, people lose their jobs which will impact people's health on a grand scale. We cannot bail out everyone even with the massive deficit..it wont be enough and neither will the USA be able too. During the great depression a lot of people dies because of poor economic conditions and we are rapidly heading in that direction.
We cant deficit spend forever and we have been doing so for 40 years and this years number is the ultimate insanity which may mark the start of the final collapse.
I suggest many of you also listen to experts like Dr.Ionnadis from Stanford who states very calmly and scientifically why many of the numbers thrown out at us are likely grossly exaggerated. In the end this flu could very well be no worse than the Swine flu or any other flu and yet we are effectively about to blow our brains out to kill a mosquito on our forehead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6MZy-2fcBw&feature=emb_logo
complicated, you're preaching to the choir. You won't get any arguments from me when it comes to the deficit and deficit-spending.
DeleteBut I will tweak your comments by saying the following: it isn't so much Canada's deficit and national debt that Canada has to worry about; it is the United States' deficit and national debt.
We here in Canada can be good little bookkeepers a la Paul Martin and not only balance our federal budget and even create surpluses to spend down the accumulated debt...but it will all be for naught if the United States doesn't do the same.
Why?
Because so much of our economy is dependent upon the U.S. If we were to balance our budget and curtail our deficit spending but the U.S. doesn't do the same, at some point the shit will hit the fan...and the resulting fiscal situation will result in a much stronger Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar.
And that would be horrible.
Why? Because so much of our economy is dependent upon trade with the U.S. Yes, our stronger dollar will enable us to buy their products cheaper but they won't be able to buy as many products of ours...and 75% of all our exports go to the States. 2 million Canadian jobs are dependent upon trade with the U.S.
So, yes, I agree with everything you wrote...but we can be the best possible soldiers in the deficit war but we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We lose either way...so maybe it's best to just wantonly deficit spend so that our dollar stays in the same ball park as the U.S. dollar.
Oh brother. I dont think you understood what I was saying. My main point is that the measures we are taking will kill more people in the end then those we are going to save. Just the staggering amount of money this is going to cost will kill more people over the next few years then the number we will save. And many of those who are dying now would have likely died soon anyways.
ReplyDeleteI think we should keep older people and people with health complications locked in until its safe. But everyone else should go on with some sort of normalcy. Hence we should not shut down businesses but ask people to take precautions. In the end frankly it would be better for most Canadians to develp a herd immunity as quickly as possible instea of dragging this on for months..if this also comes back in the fall and very few people have immunity then even more will die.
Mr.Sauga most western nations are effectively bankrupt and the ludicrous amount of money added to the debt is totally irresponsible and will result in countless more deaths. The problem is most people are too focused on the very short term..are panicking and are not thinking rationally about this.
By the way, I have asthma and every cold/flu I got over the past 5 years has gone into my lungs so its a pretty big threat for me. My mother is almost 88 and locked away in a small residence where I likely wont see her for 2-3 months..I wonder what kind of impact that will have on her and many others who arent getting fresh air..arent seeing any family..if this drags on for several months this alone is going to kill a lot of the elderly.
I think you are shameful for using the word Nazi against me..really disgusting..I am interested in saving the most people and the actions of the goverment will do the opposite if you have a time frame longer than 3-6 months.
"I think you are shameful for using the word Nazi against me..really disgusting".
Deletecomp, I make absolutely no apologies. You're entitled to opine and so am I. You want to play G-d à la Hitler and those nearest and dearest to him, your call.
"The problem is most people are too focused on the very short term..are panicking and are not thinking rationally about this."
Ah, so if I understand you correctly, most people are stupid and you are wise. Ooooooookay!
"In the end frankly it would be better for most Canadians to develop a herd immunity as quickly as possible instead of dragging this on for months"
My response: LOL, L, L! Am I responding sarcastically? Based on your statement, figure it out. If you can't, I've left a moron in suspense.
"I wonder what kind of impact that will have on her and many others who aren't getting fresh air..aren't seeing any family..if this drags on for several months this alone is going to kill a lot of the elderly.
Really? Are you sure? Why not just poison all the old folks in the old folks home and beat the virus to the kill?
"Hence we should not shut down businesses but ask people to take precautions."
Isn't that how things started off from the get-go? The government at first was doing its darnedest to promote prudence through honour and sensible discretion and prevent businesses from shutting down and look what subsequently happened. In the States, crowds gathered in bars like canned sardines around St. Patrick's Day despite warnings and look at what's happening there. In Toronto, at last, people were locked out of leash-free areas set up for dog owners and kiddy play areas, yet there were those who cut the locks and broke down the barriers. I'll bet that happened in Montreal as well Unfortunately, there are always going to be a minority of miscreants and imbeciles who ruin it for everybody else who is compliant. I don't know if you were around during the October Crisis in 1970 when right in my neighbourhood (living in Laval at the time) many parents cancelled Hallowe'en in fear of the dozen or two miscreants who managed to put the Quebec and Montreal governments under siege. The old cliché is one bad apple can spoil the bushel.
I take back my earlier response. You need not try and figure out if you are a moron. You've unequivocally proved it with that last sentence you wrote that I conveniently put in italicized quotations.
Now would be the perfect time for anyone who has not read Mr. Berlach's last editorial dated March 30th to read or even re-read it. This Godlike complex Messrs. Kondacks and complicated are displaying in this commentary is in sharp contrast to comments in the March 30th commentary.
DeletePhil, did the mood/point of view of your followers "do a 180" in the course of less than a week? Indubitably there will be socioeconomic pain to follow once the pandemic works its course, and perhaps I'm naïve to believe all that is happening now is based on past experiences, i.e., the Spanish influenza pandemic that killed millions and the Great Depression that followed ten years later.
Unlike the events of a century or so ago, I like to think we have progressively educated ourselves with each passing generation, plus we have moved out from the Industrial Age to the Information Age where having studied those earth moving events of the past, we have learned a thing or two.
In its infancy (think 1950s), computers and high technology took years to regenerate and render past technologies obsolete where now it takes only 90 days or so to regenerate. A.I. is developing at a break-neck pace. This may be the beginning of the end of many jobs as these mass layoffs will be the perfect time to implement A.I. to take the place of many jobs that will need not exist anymore.
I've written many times before there are only three socioeconomic classes left: Super rich, rich, or f**ked. The disparity between the first two classes and the last is only growing, not equalizing, and so we can end up with the same Dark Ages that were displayed in the recent annual telecast of the Ten Commandments. As Cecil B. de Mille stated as narrator in that film "the conquerors hold dominion over the conquered, the strong rule the weak", etc. Since it's now, according to Oxfam, a mere eight people who control more wealth than the poorest 50% of the entire world, this can be the final blow to enable them to now dominate 70%, 80%, 90% of the world's wealth.
Think about it. With the turn of the month now mere days behind us, many people cannot pay their bills or have to choose which will have the lesser impact my non or partial payment. Forbes magazine sometime ago stated 78% of Americans live paycheque-to-paycheque. On a U.S. talk show the figure I heard was 59% very recently. Either way, it's the majority of people who live this way so one way or another, economic prosperity for most is a delicate myth. By the way, in Canada that number is between 46-53% depending what you read, a lesser blow than in the U.S., but still a majority or a near majority. The fallout from this pandemic has already tipped the scales into majority figures and who knows what is going to happen in the aftermath to follow. Any way you slice it, it's going to be, to state the least, bad.
Mr. Sauga, there is no March 30th editirial. If you mean the March 26th editorial -- which I've reread at your suggestion -- I fail to see how it is imcompatible with anything complicated or myself has written.
DeleteMr.Sauga
ReplyDeleteHow am I playing God..please explain that. I am saying we lockdown the vulnerable in society such as the elderly and others who have health issues. But everyone else goes about more or less their normal business as the risk to them is no worse than a regular flu..just look at the numbers. People under 50 have no worse outcomes than the regular flu so why would we adopt such draconian measures on everyone.
We need herd immunity and we are going to delay this by months especially by keeping the children out of school. The young people have less serious outcomes with COVID than the regular flu. If we dont build up this herd immunity at least in the young then this virus will linger and come back even worse in the fall. We cant lock up people for 3, 6, 9 months for a virus that frankly has not been proven to be worse than the regular flu.
I suggest you listen to an expert like Dr.Iodannis and others who are basically saying our politicians have gone mad. They have gone mad..they are going to bankrupt the country in one year and likely prolong the virus by inhibiting herd immunity..its total stupidity and for a virus that likely in the end is no worse than the swine flu. But if you prefer to not think and panic well you are among the sheeple out there who believe everything our government says.
Listen to this..
https://youtu.be/3P3ehWjiuH4
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6MZy-2fcBw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGC5sGdz4kg
"...everyone else goes about more or less their normal business as the risk to them is no worse than a regular flu..just look at the numbers...why would we adopt such draconian measures on everyone."
Delete[Place snort of derision here] Now I think I'm being trolled so, I'll restate this virus is an ugly lottery that kills the young as well as the old, albeit to a lesser extent for the former. You're right insofar as there will always be contrarians, but they are in the minority or are just opportunists trying to self-promote. There is no shortage of conspiracy theorists, with the two biggest of the bunch being former professional athletes, one a British footballer and the other a former pro wrestler, navy seal and governor, i.e., colossal but successful self-promoters.
Oh, yes, and beaches in Georgia have reopened so we'll see if your theory holds true. If you have a cable on demand service watch last night's Daily Show, I coincidentally watched last night. No doubt it's très anti-Trump, but he showed flashbacks of a month to five weeks ago when many Americans laughed off this virus as akin to just another flu. Ooooooooookay...Seven states still haven't called for lockdowns and I imagine beaches reopening along with some crowded bars will just make this situation worse. If I and the majority are wrong, you get the last laugh, but I think you'll be laughing out of the other side of your face.
Mr. Sauga, you seem to be portraying complicated as some sort of uncaring cowboy intent upon declaring from the rooftops that one and all should shed their face masks, leave their homes, gather in large crowds, and start coughing on everyone they come into contact with.
DeleteI see his comments completely differently. To me, he is asking the sort of pertinent questions that need to be asked...if not for this particular panic then for the inevitable next one.
On one side of the spectrum of possible solutions is the precautionary school of thought that says that we must self-isolate at all costs, the world economy be damned (your alma mater); on the other side, those that say that the more normalcy, the better and that there may very well be more deaths and suffering as a result of a crashing of the world economy than the "cure". And I won't even say that complicated represents this latter extreme of the spectrum because I think he is just asking the questions. Indeed, if he is anything like me (and I agree with pretty much everything he has said), I am still being cautious (I am 65 with not one but several of the underlying risky health conditions) and following the self-isolation guidelines our lords and masters have given us.
Your reaction, Mr. Sauga, seems too knee-jerk for my liking. Just asking the questions does not a monster make. It reminds me of a quote from the economist Bastiat who was against government interference in the marketplace and, in particular, agriculture and state subsidies: "It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." Just because complicated has another take on this situation that disagrees with you doesn't mean he wants people to die. Indeed, it may turn out that his way of dealing with the situation will result in LESS deaths and sufferings than the policy you support. And then who is it that should be the object of Godwin's Law?
After all, there is the case of Singapore, an island-nation of almost 6 million people crammed together like a free concert at Jarry Park. Total deaths so far? About 5 or 6. And they did it by measures that didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater because their economy is performing pretty much the same as it did before. So they are doing something right, they were properly prepared, and it seems to me that they are closer on the spectrum of solutions advocated by complicated than you are.
Mr. Sauga:
ReplyDeletePrior to this COVID-19 "pandemic," 25,000-50,000 people died in the U.S. every year from the seasonal flu.
And what does every year's seasonal flu have in common with COVID-19? The seasonal flu disproportionately affects/kills the aged, particularly those with underlying conditions such as cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, smokers, and coronary disease. So this is nothing new as it pertains to COVID-19 which is also disproportionately killing off this demographic.
Yet -- and this could be me but I ask it of all of you reading this -- I never, EVER remember reading in previous years when someone died that so and so "died of the flu." Do you? Usually it's something like so and so "died after a long battle with cancer." Yet how many of those with underlying conditions died because they caught the seasonal flu which weakened their systems and, together with the underlying cause, killed them?
Yet, currently, whenever someone who is aged and has an underlying condition and has COVID-19, the message is not "he died of cancer" or "he died due to the heart disease he has had for the last 10 years" but "he died from COVID-19." And, apparently, this demographic comprises the VAST majority of COVID-19 deaths.
But COVID-19 is the flu; it is just another mutation of the coronavirus which, apparently, we have had many versions of over the years and, with a few noted exceptions, was always called "the flu." Granted, this may be a horrible strain of it (although I heard one expert say it is not as bad as SARS was, which was also a strain of coronavirus) but it is still the flu.
So why the change in how we are reporting deaths? Why the change in emphasis from previous years? Certainly, this has had an effect on the public vis a vis self-isolating as well as what policy makers and our leaders are advising (whether good or bad, the jury is still out).
Can you imagine the difference there would be if instead of the daily scoreboard we are all being subjected such as "16 new deaths from coronavirus yesterday in Quebec" the report was " yesterday in Quebec 8 people over the age of 70 died of cancer, 7 of diabetes, and 1 from heart disease in which there were complications associated with coronavirus."
When asked what the difference between COVID-19 and previous years' seasonal flu is, one expert I heard said: "this one is a flu with public relations."
Agree totally with you Tony. The most honest thing any of the scientists can say is that they don't know at this point instead of all the doom and gloom and 1-3 percent death rate based on infections we know is grossly underestimated.
DeleteWe know that there are far more infections than are being reported as there are tons of asymptomatic cases. Most scientists say we need a representative sample of the population to be tested for antibodies.
Here is another scientist who is more worried about the "cure" we are employing than the actual risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0
Just finished watching your linked-to Bhattacharya video, complicated.
DeleteExcellent.
Mr. Sauga is strongly urged to see it.
Here's an example of how the media gets it wrong, takes good news and spins it into bad news:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/only-6-coronavirus-cases-actually-21837041
The report says that reported COVID-19 cases may be only 6% of the actual total. This news is reported as "chilling." But, of course, it is the exact opposite.
If only 6% of actual cases are being reported, that means that there are 16 times MORE cases out there. And that is good because -- as per the video complicated linked to previously -- that vastly increases the denominator but not the numerator (i.e., Number of Deaths from Coronoavirus/Number of infected or recovered people). That is, the morbidity rate of this thing may be vastly overstated. The take-away from this article is that the real morbidity rate may very well be "only" 2 or 3 times the usual morbidity rate of the seasonal flu, not the 40 or 60 times figure that we hear day in and day out. If true, this means that COVID-19 is a particularly nasty strain of coronavirus but hardly a pandemic.
Let's hope the 6% figure is correct!
Well here is another number to chew on. Iceland has done by far the most tests per capita which amounts to 10 percent of its population. Canada has tested 1 percent of its population.
ReplyDeleteIceland has 6 deaths out of 1600 cases..which is a fatality rate of 0.375 percent and keep in mind that there likely are even many many more cases than 1600 as they still have only tested 10 percent yet its still by far the highest number. UAE also has tested very high and they have a similar death rate of 0.5 percent. You can see that its not much of a stretch to knock these fatality rates down by another factor of 10 or more as you test more people.
I suspect we are going to find out that Italy didnt have 170,000 cases but more like 2-5 million cases of which many were asymptomatic. Keep in mind in Italy that they have a higher number of smokers and elderly than many other countries..air quality in northern Italy is horrible hence a lot of people with bad lungs as it is. They also made many mistakes in Italy such as hospitalizing mild to moderate cases which spread the virus all over the health care facilities and took up badly needed beds for the eventual more serious cases. They did not isolate COVID patients initially either so I think Italy and Spain are the perfect storm example of what not to do with this type of situation. And how many of these deaths would have been people dying 2,3 or 6 months later anyways..likely a significant percentage as the average age was 81. There are more and more reports of many of the people dying having diabetes, obesity and other serious health complications. So how many people died only because of the virus and how many just had their deaths accelerated a bit..a lot I suspect. We see this happening in heat waves where many older people with health issues die then the death rates drop dramatically from normal values 6-12 months later since the heat killed many at once that would have died somewhat later.
complicated writes:
Delete"Iceland has 6 deaths out of 1600 cases..which is a fatality rate of 0.375 percent and keep in mind that there likely are even many many more cases than 1600 as they still have only tested 10 percent yet its still by far the highest number."
And do we know whether Iceland did both tests? Because according to the Bhattacharya video you link to, above, it is NOT enough to know who currently has the virus because equally important to know who has the anti-bodies, i.e. had the virus, recovered, and have the anti-bodies to indicate that they had it. And that is important to know because only with a number giving us ALL people who contracted the disease can we know the most accurate mortality rate (I erroneously used the term morbidity rate in other posts, mixing up the similar terms).
If Iceland did only the one test (that determines whether the subject CURRENTLY has the virus), then that 0.375% figure goes down further.
Only by knowing the mortality rate can we fairly and accurately compare the current virus with the effects of past viruses. And if the mortality rate is close to the 0.1% mortality rate of previous seasonal flu's, then it means that we really have to reassess our policies on this thing (ie. never have shut down the world economy in the first place).