David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
Methinks I should thank Premier Doug Ford for at least acknowledging that he has been receiving my emails since he got elected. However I bet he has not read even one of them yet N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-pandemic-numbers-out-of-ontario-are.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pandemic-covid-coronavirus-ontario-doug-ford-1.5521639#vf-all_threads-3130000020135
The pandemic numbers out of Ontario are horrifying — and we needed to hear them
The story here isn't just how many people could die. It's how many lives could be saved.
· CBC News · Posted: Apr 04, 2020 4:00 AM ET
Ontario Premier Doug Ford holds a media briefing on COVID-19 following the release of provincial modelling in Toronto, Friday, April 3, 2020. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)
A half-hour into his presentation, Dr. Peter Donnelly reached slide 13.
"I want to turn now to perhaps what might be the most disturbing slide in this deck," the president of Public Health Ontario said, speaking evenly. "I think it's important that we all are robustly realistic about the scale of the challenge that we face."
Slide 13 was a simple bar graph indicating that between 3,000 and 15,000 Ontarians might die as a result of the novel coronavirus pandemic over the next 18 to 24 months — a death toll and a time frame that had not previously been publicized.
In the short term, 1,600 Ontarians could be dead by the end of this month. Eighty thousand people may have contracted COVID-19 by then.
Everyone knew (or should have known) before Friday that lives are at stake and that this could be a long, hard struggle. But Canada's most populous province has now provided an official projection of just how tragic and difficult this could be.
Knowledge is safer than ignorance
These numbers are undeniably grim. But knowledge is supposed to be power. And it's possible for Ontarians — and all Canadians — to come away feeling empowered by what Premier Doug Ford's government laid out for them on Friday.
There may be some haggling now over the specifics of the model that Ontario has used, the assumptions that underpin it and the accuracy of the projections it produced. Those projections also will fluctuate as the days go on and new data are added, and special attention will be paid to a projection of how many ICU beds might be needed.
Other provinces are likely to release their own projections in the days ahead. Those projections might show significantly different situations from one province to the next.
There have been demands in recent days for these projections, but there is a case for at least some caution on the part of governments. There is, for instance, already a dispute over the accuracy of the data released by President Donald Trump's administration in the United States.
Keeping trust alive in a climate of fear
The public might lose trust in their elected officials if governments seem not to be transparent. But deeply flawed or confusing projections run the risk of diminishing trust in governments, health officials and experts to an even greater degree — at a moment when maintaining that trust is more important than ever.As Zeynep Tufekci, the Turkish writer and academic, wrote recently for the Atlantic, there is also a risk of getting bogged down in a debate over whether any given model is "right."
More important is what these projections might tell us about the impact of our own actions.
"The most important function of epidemiological models is as a simulation," Tufekci wrote, "a way to see our potential futures ahead of time, and how that interacts with the choices we make today."
In that respect, the most significant numbers released by Ontario were not the currently projected mortality or infection rates. Beyond those possible outcomes, the Ontario projection looked at two alternative scenarios.
Taking our neighbours' lives in our hands
In one scenario, no measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 were taken. In that case, Ontario's model projects that 300,000 people would be infected by the end of April and 6,000 people would die.
In other words, by taking action and continuing those actions through the next four weeks — closing schools and businesses, telling people to stay home and practise physical distancing — 4,400 lives might be saved and 220,000 fewer people might be infected.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford pauses during a press briefing at the Ontario Legislature on the pandemic. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)
If anyone was tempted to believe that the events of the last few weeks were an overreaction to a small threat, they should be thoroughly chastened by such numbers.
Ontario's model also projects what could happen if further measures — stricter closures, more testing — are implemented. In that scenario, the death toll might be reduced to 200 people, saving the lives of another 1,400.
"These numbers tell a story of Ontario's fight against COVID-19," Premier Ford said shortly after the presentation by the province's top medical experts. "But what matters is the ending of our story is still up to us."
What's a life worth? What about 4,000 lives?
The actions of individuals and governments, Ford said, can change these forecasts.
"Over 1,600 people could be dead by the end of April," Ford continued. "Each one could be your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your grandparents or your friend …
"And we all have to ask ourselves, what is the cost of a life? Is a life worth a picnic in the park? Is a life worth going to the beach? Is a life worth having a few cold ones with your buddies in the basement? The answer is no. None of those things is worth as much as a life. So to everyone in Ontario, we need to listen — we need to listen to what the data tells us."
The greatest value in any set of numbers is in the story they can tell. And the story told on Friday was one of how lives are being saved and how even more lives might be saved in the weeks ahead — and that every resident of Ontario has a part to play in that.
"There are 1,600 people out there who need us to do everything we can in the next 30 days to help save them," Ford said.
We hear a lot of war imagery when people talk about the pandemic. But rarely, if ever, have wars come with a clear sense of the number of lives that might be lost, the number of people who might be harmed, or by how much we — citizens, civilians — might lessen that loss and that hurt.
If numbers can reinforce the seriousness of this crisis and persuade us to take action to limit its damage, they will have served their purpose.
About the Author
2386 Comments after staying open for 3 days and much editing
Commenting is now closed for this story.
David Amos
Methinks I should thank Premier Doug Ford for at least acknowledging that he has been receiving my emails since he got elected. However I bet he has not read even one of them yet N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Methinks it appears that Mr Ford may regret wanting to be the Premier N'esy Pas?
Larry Porter
Reply to @David Amos: He is more up for it than JT ever could be! N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Larry Porter: Dream on
David Amos
Methinks its very interesting that desperate Conservative Spindoctors get special dispensation if they slander me N'esy Pas?
Larry Porter
Reply to @David Amos: Personally I don't think you are the legend you think you are! N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Larry Porter: Methinks the photo you offer the world says a lot about you N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Methinks much to Conservative Spindoctor's chagrin some folks may enjoy checking out the thread with the most replies N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos: I must Say I am rather impressed at CBC's sudden fit of Integrity to allow most of my posts to stand the test of time for a few hours at least. (: Rest assured that I have been saving digital snapshots just in case they delete and block me as usual :)
In return here is an old scoop about CTV that CBC and everybody else and his dog has been ignoring for 16 very long years after I ran in the election of the 38th Parliament against the aptly named lawyer Rob Moore.
----- Original Message -----
From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: I am curious
Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
will then provide you with a reply.
Martine Turcotte
Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
Tel: (514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877
email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
Tel: (514) 870-4638
email: diane.valade@bell.ca
Colin Johnston
3,000-15,000 people out of 13 million over two years. Hmm well cigarettes and Mc doubles are still more dangerous.
stefan caunter
Reply to @Colin Johnston over 200,000 people will go in two years.
Beatrice Darlene
Reply to @Colin Johnston :
Except it could be 100,000 or more if we do nothing.
Except it could be 100,000 or more if we do nothing.
William Hughes
Reply to @Colin Johnston : A lot more dangerous.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Colin Johnston :
If you take 15,000 deaths,
in Ontario,
then cancer and heart disease
kill more in one year
If you take 15,000 deaths,
in Ontario,
then cancer and heart disease
kill more in one year
Terry Granger
Reply to @Colin Johnston : you really don't get how this works.
you think its gonna be 15K over 2 years...
:D
you are in for some surprises I suppose.
you think its gonna be 15K over 2 years...
:D
you are in for some surprises I suppose.
Terry Granger
Reply to @Lou Parks: ya and upwards of 30K die annually due to medical malpractice...not the point looey
Lou Parks
Reply to @Terry Granger:
It *is* the point ... for Colin.
It's an adjustment of *his*
commnet
It *is* the point ... for Colin.
It's an adjustment of *his*
commnet
Lou Parks
Reply to @Terry Granger:
> ... upwards of 30K die annually due to medical malpractice ...
Where did you get
*that* belief from?
> ... upwards of 30K die annually due to medical malpractice ...
Where did you get
*that* belief from?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: "Hi'y'amigo Amos !! Que pasa?
What's this story of false arrest "on both sides of the 49th"?"
Methinks days after your question made my thread go "Poof" you must have figured out why I was falsely arrested by now N'esy Pas?
What's this story of false arrest "on both sides of the 49th"?"
Methinks days after your question made my thread go "Poof" you must have figured out why I was falsely arrested by now N'esy Pas?
Terry Granger
Reply to @Lou Parks: belief...
I think you should read the CMJ a bit more frequently and look back at CBCs own reporting.
In the US its also the 3rd leading cause of death.
Funny thing I know you didn't research this before you replied to my comment.
I let you sort out your own mind on that eh
William Hughes
Reply to @Beatrice Darlene: highly unlikely
William Hughes
Reply to @Terry Granger: yep, its far more likely to be 1000 over two years
Terry Granger
Reply to @William Hughes: nope...
you don't understand what the intent is of all of this eh?
Gary Cormier
Reply to @Colin Johnston : If you eating a McDouble can affect my health, I'd call for Mcdistancing then, too.
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks the cat must have your tongue again N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Heyyy'amigo Amos !!
Que pasa? What happened?
I tried to read your response,
but it was no longer there!
> Methinks days after your question made my thread go "Poof" ...
My question did that?
> ... you must have figured out why I was falsely arrested by now N'esy Pas?
Not really. I didn't.
But also, what's with that "N'esy Pas" stuff again?
Heyyy'amigo Amos !!
Que pasa? What happened?
I tried to read your response,
but it was no longer there!
> Methinks days after your question made my thread go "Poof" ...
My question did that?
> ... you must have figured out why I was falsely arrested by now N'esy Pas?
Not really. I didn't.
But also, what's with that "N'esy Pas" stuff again?
Lou Parks
Reply to @William Hughes:
> ... its far more likely to be 1000 over two years
No waaay!
No chance of that!
That's an *impossibly low* number.
There will be
1000 deaths in Ontario
in one to two months
> ... its far more likely to be 1000 over two years
No waaay!
No chance of that!
That's an *impossibly low* number.
There will be
1000 deaths in Ontario
in one to two months
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks the cat must have your tongue again N'esy Pas?
Never.
Usually, it's either
work hours or
my intermittently busted laptop
— forcing me to browse and respond
with a cell phone
> Methinks the cat must have your tongue again N'esy Pas?
Never.
Usually, it's either
work hours or
my intermittently busted laptop
— forcing me to browse and respond
with a cell phone
BobbyTaylor
Reply to @Colin
Johnston : - but you don;t catch obesity or cancer sitting next to a
smoker or a Big Mac addict. You get a virus from sitting next to an
infected person.
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks you knew how to Google David Amos Federal Court and simply read N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @Terry Granger:
Reply to @Terry Granger:
> I think you should read the CMJ a bit more frequently and look back at CBCs own reporting.
Oh, I get it.
You're not referring to
what we normally mean by
"medical errors".
Your figure is very high because
it's from an advocacy group and
it includes other causes of death such as
infections acquired in the hospital.
> In the US its also the 3rd leading cause of death.
Well, that's the U.S.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Terry Granger:
Reply to @Terry Granger:
> I think you should read the CMJ a bit more frequently and look back at CBCs own reporting.
Oh, I get it.
You're not referring to
what we normally mean by
"medical errors".
Your figure is very high because
it's from an advocacy group and
it includes other causes of death such as
infections acquired in the hospital.
> In the US its also the 3rd leading cause of death.
Well, that's the U.S.
> Funny thing I know you didn't research this before you replied ...
Oh, I didn't need to.
I already knew the numbers from
*medical errors*.
It's *very much* lower.
I thought you were referring to
*medical errors*
Reply to @Terry Granger:
> I think you should read the CMJ a bit more frequently and look back at CBCs own reporting.
Oh, I get it.
You're not referring to
what we normally mean by
"medical errors".
Your figure is very high because
it's from an advocacy group and
it includes other causes of death such as
infections acquired in the hospital.
> In the US its also the 3rd leading cause of death.
Well, that's the U.S.
> Funny thing I know you didn't research this before you replied ...
Oh, I didn't need to.
I already knew the numbers from
*medical errors*.
It's *very much* lower.
I thought you were referring to
*medical errors*
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you knew how to Google David Amos Federal Court and simply read N'esy Pas?
I only vaguely remembered
some kind of story
about your member of
parliament.
I'll look again
when I have a chance.
But what's with that
"N'esy Pas" nonsense again?
> Methinks you knew how to Google David Amos Federal Court and simply read N'esy Pas?
I only vaguely remembered
some kind of story
about your member of
parliament.
I'll look again
when I have a chance.
But what's with that
"N'esy Pas" nonsense again?
Lou Parks
Reply to @Terry Granger:
> Funny thing I know you didn't research this before you replied ...
Oh, I didn't need to.
I already knew the numbers from
*medical errors*.
It's *very much* lower.
I thought you were referring to
*medical errors*
> Funny thing I know you didn't research this before you replied ...
Oh, I didn't need to.
I already knew the numbers from
*medical errors*.
It's *very much* lower.
I thought you were referring to
*medical errors*
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Yea Right Why play dumb?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Why play dumb?
About what?
Your "N'esy Pas" nonsense?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Bank Fraud, Tax Fraud, Securities Fraud and Murder
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks you should not be surprised that my reply went "Poof" just like the other night N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: However methinks you do know I blog and tweet about everything N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you should not be surprised that my reply went "Poof" just like the other night ...
Oh, it's
*your reply*
that went "poof"
I thought it would be possible
to word it in a way to get through.
I didn't expect any problems.
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> However methinks you do know I blog and tweet about everything N'esy Pas?
Nope.
I don't know about your blog,
and I'm not on Twitter
So, what's with that
"N'esy Pas" nonsense again?
> However methinks you do know I blog and tweet about everything N'esy Pas?
Nope.
I don't know about your blog,
and I'm not on Twitter
So, what's with that
"N'esy Pas" nonsense again?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks:
You know as well as I that the thread was deleted. Do tell what sort of
Conservative dude plays politics on CBC on Saturday night unless he is
paid to do so? Whereas you are oh so knowledgeable how many times did I
run for public office against whom and why?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks:
Methinks everybody knows that they can read Tweets without joining in
just like in here. If you truly don't know of my blog you should Google
your name and mine sometime soon N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Go Figure
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks after waiting for 10 hours or so for a reply from you the crickets have proven my point about you for me N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> You know as well as I that the thread was deleted.
I didn't know for sure. I was using a cell phone.
That makes it harder to figure things out.
> Do tell what sort of Conservative dude plays politics on CBC on Saturday night unless he is paid to do so?
I'm not a Conservative dude, and I don't play politics.
I typically just bust faulty statements, beliefs,
and attitudes.
> Whereas you are oh so knowledgeable ...
In the public interest
> ... how many times did I run for public office ...
Definitely too often
> ... against whom and why?
Don't know.
I'll check later.
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Does your blog explain
what your "N'esy Pas" nonsense
is all about?
David Amos
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks its too bad so sad that the wannabe politcal pundit in you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it since your hero Trump made it the place to be N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you know the answer as well as I N'esy Pas?
Firstly, youthinks wrongly.
I can't remember the answer you gave.
Secondly, the public reading this
doesn't know the answer,
so in *its* interest,
you could always explain it again
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: "you could always explain it again"
Yea Right Methinks you hope I will go for your bait and this thread will go "Poof" too and save you some embarrassment N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks that should lay odds betting on the fact that you have Googled your name and mine by now N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> You cannot deny that it was you who pounced on me a couple days ago teasing me and calling me your amigo.
Correct. Your name is two letters short of "amigos",
and that makes it irresistible to me, amigo Amos
> You acted like you knew everything ...
I don't see how you got *that* idea
> ... and evaporated as soon as the thread went "Poof" CORRECT?
I have no idea. Wasn't it late in the evening?
I had to get up early the next day.
And I had no idea your thread would go poof.
Was it really *your* thread? You wrote
to the *main* thread
and a branch developed from there?
I agree that it's upsetting when that happens.
If someone else wrote to the main thread,
then the erasing of the thread could be due to
*their* text
> Hence I figured that turnabout is fair game with a Conservative Spindoctor ...
I don't see how you figure
I would be a "Conservative Spindoctor",
according to you
> ... before I sue the Crown again ...
Good luck. I typically support the little guy
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Two more just went "Poof"
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Sorry to hear that
We *are*
wildly off-topic
Mine should've
gone poof too
It looks like you have
an angry follower
flagging your texts
— and that I've luckily
been spared so far
David Amos
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you know who is doing it and why as well as I ...
Youthinks again wrongly
— as I've come to expect from you
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks the RCMP knows why I have no doubt whatsoever N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Your text to me *previous* to
your text to me just above ...
is one that I didn't get to read.
The notification showed up in my "feed"
but when I tried to access that text,
it had gone poof — it seems
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: William Whittingham (The Phantom) has gone "Poof"
Lou Parks:
Reply to @David Amos:
Not surprised.
He wrote a lot of insults.
My ac count too went "poof" several times
— over the past few years
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks after waiting for 10 hours or so for a reply from you the crickets have proven my point about you for me N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> You know as well as I that the thread was deleted.
I didn't know for sure. I was using a cell phone.
That makes it harder to figure things out.
> Do tell what sort of Conservative dude plays politics on CBC on Saturday night unless he is paid to do so?
I'm not a Conservative dude, and I don't play politics.
I typically just bust faulty statements, beliefs,
and attitudes.
> Whereas you are oh so knowledgeable ...
In the public interest
> ... how many times did I run for public office ...
Definitely too often
> ... against whom and why?
Don't know.
I'll check later.
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks everybody knows that they can read Tweets without joining in just like in here.
It seems to me we can't read *all* of the tweets.
> If you truly don't know of my blog ...
I don't
> ... you should Google your name and mine sometime soon N'esy Pas?
Alrighty then.
Oh! You have an earlier picture of me!
When I was younger and cuter!
> Methinks everybody knows that they can read Tweets without joining in just like in here.
It seems to me we can't read *all* of the tweets.
> If you truly don't know of my blog ...
I don't
> ... you should Google your name and mine sometime soon N'esy Pas?
Alrighty then.
Oh! You have an earlier picture of me!
When I was younger and cuter!
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks desperate Conservative Spindoctors do write desperate things N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Does your blog explain
what your "N'esy Pas" nonsense
is all about?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks you know the answer as well as I N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks its too bad so sad that the wannabe politcal pundit in you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it since your hero Trump made it the place to be N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you know the answer as well as I N'esy Pas?
Firstly, youthinks wrongly.
I can't remember the answer you gave.
Secondly, the public reading this
doesn't know the answer,
so in *its* interest,
you could always explain it again
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks its too bad so sad that the wannabe politcal pundit in you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it since your hero Trump made it the place to be N'esy Pas?
> ... you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works ...
It's not pretending. You assume falsely a lot of things, I see.
I can see how that would eventually get you in trouble.
> ... in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it ...
Doesn't matter. I don't read what politicians say
unless it's the odd statement here and there in the mass media
> ... your hero Trump made it the place to be ...
Trump's not my hero,
but the mass media isn't my hero either
so when they attack him I look at
whether they have a valid argument.
For a very long time,
most of that time,
they didn't
> Methinks its too bad so sad that the wannabe politcal pundit in you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it since your hero Trump made it the place to be N'esy Pas?
> ... you wishes to pretend that you don't understand how Twitter works ...
It's not pretending. You assume falsely a lot of things, I see.
I can see how that would eventually get you in trouble.
> ... in light of the irrefutable fact that nearly every politician on the planet uses it ...
Doesn't matter. I don't read what politicians say
unless it's the odd statement here and there in the mass media
> ... your hero Trump made it the place to be ...
Trump's not my hero,
but the mass media isn't my hero either
so when they attack him I look at
whether they have a valid argument.
For a very long time,
most of that time,
they didn't
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks:
Methinks who can twist things and play dumb all you wish.You cannot deny
that it was you who pounced on me a couple days ago teasing me and
calling me your amigo.You acted like you knew everything and evaporated
as soon as the thread went "Poof" CORRECT? Hence I figured that
turnabout is fair game with a Conservative Spindoctor particularly
before I sue the Crown again N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: "you could always explain it again"
Yea Right Methinks you hope I will go for your bait and this thread will go "Poof" too and save you some embarrassment N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks that should lay odds betting on the fact that you have Googled your name and mine by now N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> You cannot deny that it was you who pounced on me a couple days ago teasing me and calling me your amigo.
Correct. Your name is two letters short of "amigos",
and that makes it irresistible to me, amigo Amos
> You acted like you knew everything ...
I don't see how you got *that* idea
> ... and evaporated as soon as the thread went "Poof" CORRECT?
I have no idea. Wasn't it late in the evening?
I had to get up early the next day.
And I had no idea your thread would go poof.
Was it really *your* thread? You wrote
to the *main* thread
and a branch developed from there?
I agree that it's upsetting when that happens.
If someone else wrote to the main thread,
then the erasing of the thread could be due to
*their* text
> Hence I figured that turnabout is fair game with a Conservative Spindoctor ...
I don't see how you figure
I would be a "Conservative Spindoctor",
according to you
> ... before I sue the Crown again ...
Good luck. I typically support the little guy
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you hope I will go for your bait and this thread will go "Poof" too ...
Well *this* thread
is a branch under Colin's text
so it's unlikely to be entirely erased
along with Colin's text.
His text is fine.
> Methinks you hope I will go for your bait and this thread will go "Poof" too ...
Well *this* thread
is a branch under Colin's text
so it's unlikely to be entirely erased
along with Colin's text.
His text is fine.
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks:
FYI Two of my replies within this thread have gone "Poof" Methinks I am
wasting my precious time to continue dicing with a desperate
conservative spindoctor after having proven my point about you N'esy
Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> FYI Two of my replies within this thread have gone "Poof"
Oh. Sorry to hear that.
> Methinks I am wasting my precious time ...
Not necessarily. I got the chance to read them.
> ... continue dicing with a desperate conservative spindoctor ...
What makes you think
I'd be a "conservative spindoctor",
according to you?
> ... after having proven my point about you N'esy Pas?
Nope! You didn't prove any such thing.
> FYI Two of my replies within this thread have gone "Poof"
Oh. Sorry to hear that.
> Methinks I am wasting my precious time ...
Not necessarily. I got the chance to read them.
> ... continue dicing with a desperate conservative spindoctor ...
What makes you think
I'd be a "conservative spindoctor",
according to you?
> ... after having proven my point about you N'esy Pas?
Nope! You didn't prove any such thing.
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks:
BS Methinks nobody can be a dumb as you pretend to be You know exactly
who I am and why I sued the Crown in 2015 (Federal Court File No.
T-1557-15) You can't deny that simple fact That info was in the comment
section of the CBC article I posted a link to found above N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Two more just went "Poof"
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Sorry to hear that
We *are*
wildly off-topic
Mine should've
gone poof too
It looks like you have
an angry follower
flagging your texts
— and that I've luckily
been spared so far
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: NOPE Methinks you know who is doing it and why as well as I N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: BTW 2 more about you went the way of the Dodo Bird
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> Methinks you know who is doing it and why as well as I ...
Youthinks again wrongly
— as I've come to expect from you
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> BTW 2 more about you went the way of the Dodo Bird
Did I get to read them?
Or were they captured straight off
by the system?
> BTW 2 more about you went the way of the Dodo Bird
Did I get to read them?
Or were they captured straight off
by the system?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
You know, amigo Amos,
you need to differentiate between
your texts that trigger the AI right away
and those that
become visible for some time
before going poof.
In the second case,
it's either someone flagging,
or perhaps the "controllers"
come back to your texts at a later time
— but I doubt that
You know, amigo Amos,
you need to differentiate between
your texts that trigger the AI right away
and those that
become visible for some time
before going poof.
In the second case,
it's either someone flagging,
or perhaps the "controllers"
come back to your texts at a later time
— but I doubt that
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks the RCMP knows why I have no doubt whatsoever N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Your text to me *previous* to
your text to me just above ...
is one that I didn't get to read.
The notification showed up in my "feed"
but when I tried to access that text,
it had gone poof — it seems
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: William Whittingham (The Phantom) has gone "Poof"
Lou Parks:
Reply to @David Amos:
Not surprised.
He wrote a lot of insults.
My ac count too went "poof" several times
— over the past few years
William Whittingham (The Phantom)
Content disabled
In some of the progressive forums I've been on, people are openly talking about "biowarfare"...
Well, CBC forum, any responses, hmmm?
Steve Bottrell
Content disabled
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom): You aren't seeing that on progressive forums.
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom): You aren't seeing that on progressive forums.
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
War tactics don't usually include
activating a grenade
in your own house
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
War tactics don't usually include
activating a grenade
in your own house
Sally Casswell
Content disabled
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
" progressive forums"? Seriously?
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
" progressive forums"? Seriously?
Jack Smoles
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Unless you are a New York realtor...
Reply to @Lou Parks: Unless you are a New York realtor...
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain N'esy Pas?
Nighty Night
Reply to @Lou Parks: Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain N'esy Pas?
Nighty Night
Ron Morrison
Content disabled
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
What are 'progressive' forums? I know that there's Reformer forums & tv shows like Breetbart & Fox but I've never heard of a 'progressive' forum.
What are progressives anyways? Progressive conservatives? Tell us more.
Steve Blast
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: 2 words: "plausible deniability", not to mention beta testing...
David Amos
Larry Porter
Content disabled
Better to have an idea of what's going on! Then hearing propaghanda fluff everyday from liberal spin doctors!!
David Amos
----- Original Message -----
From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: I am curious
Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
will then provide you with a reply.
Martine Turcotte
Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
Tel: (514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877
email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
Tel: (514) 870-4638
email: diane.valade@bell.ca
Andrzej Kanczuga
All this math models are soooo useless. We do not how many people are infected and where they are. Period. Data of infections is 3-5 days old!!!. We do not test asymptomatic people which in fact are the unintentional culprits here. It is clearly scaring tactic.
Have everyone wear masks, test all people, tell how many you test a day and when are the results available, are hospitals overwhelmed with critical cases ?. I think we have "flattened the curve" pretty well Mr. Ford wasn't this our intension at fist place.
Philip Carson
Oh please, save the editorials for the editorial section... let the readers decide if it is “horrifying” to predict 15,000 premature deaths over a period of time when 300,000 people will die of other causes (assuming none of the 15,000 would have died during those 2 years). Or is it more horrifying that our economy is dead?
Bartholomew Palmer
David Amos
Reply to @David Amos: Another one goes "Poof" Methinks I should take the hint and quit for the night N'esy Pas?
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks: we'll see when it's over what the outcome really is. There's far too much speculation for my liking. I k ow I'll be back when the mandatory vaccines discussion ramps up....
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
Sweden is in the news today,
and the news is not good.
Sweden saw a spike in deaths.
Sweden might lock down more strongly
in the foreseeable future
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @David Amos: why?
Bartholomew Palmer
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: incidentally, as this is a novel virus, with NO ONE immune, are you not concerned that by instituting strict measures now, we spare the health system overload, but ALSO delay the natural herd immunity that would have developed, thereby kicking the can down the road, and risking another outbreak during the fall?
David Amos
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> I had my last 3 replies and posts red banded.
Sorry to hear that.
You could try to re send piece by piece.
That would show which piece is the problem
> Gets pretty frustrating.
Been there very, very often.
> I had high hopes for Sweden, so that is discouraging.
I understand
> Again, I don't want deaths, but I would be infinitely more irritated if I found out I was in lockdown needlessly...
You won't find *that*, because
it definitely hasn't been needless so far.
Had we not done this,
the number of cases
would overwhelm our health care system
and ruin proper treatment
for *everyone*
— including young people needing health care
for *other* emergencies
> ... to be fair, I am essential services so I'm not completely locked down ...
Same here
> Upside is my drive to work is faster...
Same here
Lou Parks
Bartholomew Palmer
Given the fact that there is research pointing to the flu vaccine increasing the risk of coronavirus infection, I'd like to see the data after this outbreak and cross reference the worst cases with flu shot status... might hurt the flu shot campaign next season.
Greg Gesner
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @David Amos: I don't think so. I'm not expecting to change minds. I enjoy healthy respectful discourse, and you can't have that without understanding all facets of an issue, then applying your personal paradigm. I've agreed with Lou on other issues, but that doesn't mean he thinks like me on everything. Heck, I can even get my kids to agree with me, so I have no such delusions here...
Jack Smoles
The 5-15,000 range over two assumes that "current measures" are enforced, i.e. total lock-down. It is not credible to believe that Ontario could stay in lock-down for such a long period, meaning that the realistic number is between 15-100,000 depending on how long the lock-down could be tangibly enforced.
Jack Smoles
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
I have an intermittently busted laptop.
When it crashes, I switch to my phone.
Recharge laptop, go back to laptop.
Stuff like that
David Amos
wayne rendell
stay home peoples! Its not worth taking the chance of killing yourself or risking someones life
Nick Foley
Is Wherry still telling stories?
Reply to @William Whittingham (The Phantom):
What are 'progressive' forums? I know that there's Reformer forums & tv shows like Breetbart & Fox but I've never heard of a 'progressive' forum.
What are progressives anyways? Progressive conservatives? Tell us more.
Steve Blast
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: 2 words: "plausible deniability", not to mention beta testing...
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Steve Blast: Trust that little Louie don't care about such things
Reply to @Steve Blast: Trust that little Louie don't care about such things
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @Steve Blast:
Plausible deniability
doesn't include sinking your own economy,
nor nuking your own cities,
nor getting the world mad at you
Reply to @Steve Blast:
Plausible deniability
doesn't include sinking your own economy,
nor nuking your own cities,
nor getting the world mad at you
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos:
Big Lou *does* care about such things,
and checked it out,
and found only evidence of
a natural origin for this virus
Reply to @David Amos:
Big Lou *does* care about such things,
and checked it out,
and found only evidence of
a natural origin for this virus
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: BS
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos:
Well, what's
your ridiculous evidence
of bio-warfare?
I have evidence of
a natural origin
for this virus
David Amos
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos:
Well, what's
your ridiculous evidence
of bio-warfare?
I have evidence of
a natural origin
for this virus
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: As the risk of being redundant Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain who I am and what I do N'esy Pas?
Nighty Night
Reply to @Lou Parks: As the risk of being redundant Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain who I am and what I do N'esy Pas?
Nighty Night
Lou Parks
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos:
> ... Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain who I am and what I do ...
Never met Rob Moore. Never contacted or dealt with him,
don't live anywhere close, so I don't see why you think
I'd say "hey" to him
Reply to @David Amos:
> ... Say Hey to Rob Moore for me will ya? Methinks he can explain who I am and what I do ...
Never met Rob Moore. Never contacted or dealt with him,
don't live anywhere close, so I don't see why you think
I'd say "hey" to him
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks its not my fault that you wish to play dumb Trust that I can't fix stupid Nobody can N'esy Pas?
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks its not my fault that you wish to play dumb Trust that I can't fix stupid Nobody can N'esy Pas?
Larry Porter
Content disabled
Better to have an idea of what's going on! Then hearing propaghanda fluff everyday from liberal spin doctors!!
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Larry Porter: Methinks you are no better than any other spindoctor N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Larry Porter: Here is a scoop for CBC ----- Original Message -----
From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: I am curious
Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
will then provide you with a reply.
Martine Turcotte
Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
Tel: (514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877
email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
Tel: (514) 870-4638
email: diane.valade@bell.ca
Andrzej Kanczuga
All this math models are soooo useless. We do not how many people are infected and where they are. Period. Data of infections is 3-5 days old!!!. We do not test asymptomatic people which in fact are the unintentional culprits here. It is clearly scaring tactic.
Have everyone wear masks, test all people, tell how many you test a day and when are the results available, are hospitals overwhelmed with critical cases ?. I think we have "flattened the curve" pretty well Mr. Ford wasn't this our intension at fist place.
Larry Porter
Reply to @Andrzej
Kanczuga: At least we got a look at reality and what could happen! All
we get from the feds is our government is going to do this and that! We
need to see numbers to be clear on how this could affect everyone!!
Thank you MR Ford.
Thank you MR Ford.
David Amos
Reply to @Larry Porter: Say Hey to Dougy for me will ya?
Philip Carson
Oh please, save the editorials for the editorial section... let the readers decide if it is “horrifying” to predict 15,000 premature deaths over a period of time when 300,000 people will die of other causes (assuming none of the 15,000 would have died during those 2 years). Or is it more horrifying that our economy is dead?
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Philip
Carson: ask yourself if what we have SEEN so far is out of line with any
other flu season (not what the fortune tellers are PREDICTING, I mean
the 277 deaths so far), and also keep in mind that of those 277, some of
them died WITH COVID, not FROM COVID. That's an important distinction
to make.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Philip Carson:
> ... let the readers decide if it is “horrifying” ...
Correct
> ... to predict 15,000 premature deaths over a period of time when 300,000 people will die of other causes ...
Your "300,000 people will die of other causes"
is incorrect.
Over two years, in Ontario,
it's 224, 000 people who will die
from all causes combined.
> Or is it more horrifying that our economy is dead?
It's not "dead".
If we had tried to maintain it as much as possible,
we'd be getting way more than
15,000 premature deaths over two years
from COVID-19,
and we'd be overloading our health care system
> ... let the readers decide if it is “horrifying” ...
Correct
> ... to predict 15,000 premature deaths over a period of time when 300,000 people will die of other causes ...
Your "300,000 people will die of other causes"
is incorrect.
Over two years, in Ontario,
it's 224, 000 people who will die
from all causes combined.
> Or is it more horrifying that our economy is dead?
It's not "dead".
If we had tried to maintain it as much as possible,
we'd be getting way more than
15,000 premature deaths over two years
from COVID-19,
and we'd be overloading our health care system
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> ... ask yourself if what we have SEEN so far is out of line with any other flu season ...
It is.
We're seeing a fatality rate many times greater
than for a typical flu virus.
We have measures in place
to keep infection numbers low
and *still* our health care system is threatened.
That doesn't happen
during any other flu season.
> ... ask yourself if what we have SEEN so far is out of line with any other flu season ...
It is.
We're seeing a fatality rate many times greater
than for a typical flu virus.
We have measures in place
to keep infection numbers low
and *still* our health care system is threatened.
That doesn't happen
during any other flu season.
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks you know the comment below is about you N'esy Pas? David Amos
Reply to @David Amos: Another one goes "Poof" Methinks I should take the hint and quit for the night N'esy Pas?
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks: "It is.
We're seeing a fatality rate many times greater
than for a typical flu virus"
So...280 is many times greater than a typical flu season? Bear in mind, those are National numbers, not just Ontario.
Surely our health care system can manage the current 12,300 cases (426 critical)? Where is the overload we keep hearing about?
We're seeing a fatality rate many times greater
than for a typical flu virus"
So...280 is many times greater than a typical flu season? Bear in mind, those are National numbers, not just Ontario.
Surely our health care system can manage the current 12,300 cases (426 critical)? Where is the overload we keep hearing about?
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> So...280 is many times greater than a typical flu season?
It *is* when you look at
the relatively small number of detected cases.
> Bear in mind, those are National numbers, not just Ontario.
I know
> Surely our health care system can manage the current 12,300 cases (426 critical)? Where is the overload we keep hearing about?
We have *averted it* so far
with our social distancing measures.
> So...280 is many times greater than a typical flu season?
It *is* when you look at
the relatively small number of detected cases.
> Bear in mind, those are National numbers, not just Ontario.
I know
> Surely our health care system can manage the current 12,300 cases (426 critical)? Where is the overload we keep hearing about?
We have *averted it* so far
with our social distancing measures.
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks: have we though? Or is this just the natural course of a virus with a similar 0.1% profile as influenza?
You are assuming that because we have small detected cases, that 280 is higher, but what if the vast majority of undetected cases are mild, subclinical or asymptomatic? Now we are right in line with the flu, yes?
We don't know if social distancing is working or not. So far, the health system is not overloaded. A virus will kill who it kills. What we are trying to do with this experiment is save more people by having more health resources available, which I get, and is noble, but I'm not convinced with what I've read, and what I've seen, that it's necessary, and I'm not convinced that every stat we've seen is attributable to covid. If all this same scenario was playing out, and we'd never heard of COVID-19, it would be no different than any other year.
You are assuming that because we have small detected cases, that 280 is higher, but what if the vast majority of undetected cases are mild, subclinical or asymptomatic? Now we are right in line with the flu, yes?
We don't know if social distancing is working or not. So far, the health system is not overloaded. A virus will kill who it kills. What we are trying to do with this experiment is save more people by having more health resources available, which I get, and is noble, but I'm not convinced with what I've read, and what I've seen, that it's necessary, and I'm not convinced that every stat we've seen is attributable to covid. If all this same scenario was playing out, and we'd never heard of COVID-19, it would be no different than any other year.
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Bartholomew
Palmer: Sweden up until very recently wasn't doing any significant
measures. They have about 100 more deaths than Canada. Now, obviously,
more deaths is bad. My point is...they don't have 15,000.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> They have about 100 more deaths than Canada. Now, obviously, more deaths is bad.
Yes, for a smaller population
> My point is...they don't have 15,000.
They're locking down now?
They may avert 15,000
> They have about 100 more deaths than Canada. Now, obviously, more deaths is bad.
Yes, for a smaller population
> My point is...they don't have 15,000.
They're locking down now?
They may avert 15,000
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> ... is this just the natural course of a virus with a similar 0.1% profile as influenza?
No.
Researchers found a higher fatality rate, and there's no natural mitigation due to some people being immune or vaccinated.
> You are assuming that because we have small detected cases, that 280 is higher ...
No. I *know* it's higher
from recently published research
> ... what if the vast majority of undetected cases are mild, subclinical or asymptomatic?
That's possible but
researchers took that into account
and we know that in Canada
the number of undetected cases
is not large
> Now we are right in line with the flu, yes?
No, because you must use the same methods to calculate flu fatality. When you do,
its rate drops by
a factor of ten as well.
And there is much existing immunity against the flu,
contrary to this virus
> We don't know if social distancing is working or not.
We know it worked in BC,
and in Italy, and elsewhere
such as China, South Korea, etc.
> So far, the health system is not overloaded.
In my region it's nearing capacity.
> A virus will kill who it kills.
It will kill more
when it's more lethal and
fewer people are immune and
the health care system has crashed
> I'm not convinced with what I've read, and what I've seen, that it's necessary, and I'm not convinced that every stat we've seen is attributable to covid.
You're not accessing the proper stats,
and apparently you aren't looking for them either
> If all this same scenario was playing out, and we'd never heard of COVID-19, it would be no different than any other year.
You must pay more attention.
I've already told you.
NO OTHER YEAR
is NO ONE IMMUNE!
*Try* to hang on to *that* a bit,
okay?
Add that this virus is more lethal.
There you go.
> ... is this just the natural course of a virus with a similar 0.1% profile as influenza?
No.
Researchers found a higher fatality rate, and there's no natural mitigation due to some people being immune or vaccinated.
> You are assuming that because we have small detected cases, that 280 is higher ...
No. I *know* it's higher
from recently published research
> ... what if the vast majority of undetected cases are mild, subclinical or asymptomatic?
That's possible but
researchers took that into account
and we know that in Canada
the number of undetected cases
is not large
> Now we are right in line with the flu, yes?
No, because you must use the same methods to calculate flu fatality. When you do,
its rate drops by
a factor of ten as well.
And there is much existing immunity against the flu,
contrary to this virus
> We don't know if social distancing is working or not.
We know it worked in BC,
and in Italy, and elsewhere
such as China, South Korea, etc.
> So far, the health system is not overloaded.
In my region it's nearing capacity.
> A virus will kill who it kills.
It will kill more
when it's more lethal and
fewer people are immune and
the health care system has crashed
> I'm not convinced with what I've read, and what I've seen, that it's necessary, and I'm not convinced that every stat we've seen is attributable to covid.
You're not accessing the proper stats,
and apparently you aren't looking for them either
> If all this same scenario was playing out, and we'd never heard of COVID-19, it would be no different than any other year.
You must pay more attention.
I've already told you.
NO OTHER YEAR
is NO ONE IMMUNE!
*Try* to hang on to *that* a bit,
okay?
Add that this virus is more lethal.
There you go.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
Picture two planet Earths.
Earth-01 has a typical flu virus appear in Wuhan
Earth-02 has this coronavirus appear in Wuhan.
On Earth-01, the typical flu virus
gets projected from one person onto other people
*but*
many of those people are *already immune*
— from vaccination or from natural immunity.
The virus spreads more slowly,
and causes a slower rate
of people needing hospitalisation,
and a slower rate of people
getting mild cases.
On Earth-02, the coronavirus
gets projected from one person onto other people
*and*
NO ONE is *already immune*! NO ONE!
The virus spreads more quickly (scientific finding),
and causes a faster rate
of people needing hospitalisation,
and a faster rate of people
getting mild cases.
Add to that the scientific finding
that the coronavirus
is more lethal than the typical flu virus.
On Earth-02, without mitigation measures,
health care systems get overloaded *and*
*everyone* needing urgent health care
gets worse treatment.
The lethality of the coronvirus rises
(from lack of resources)
and more people die of strokes and heart attacks
because of fewer resources and workers.
Mitigation measures become essential
Picture two planet Earths.
Earth-01 has a typical flu virus appear in Wuhan
Earth-02 has this coronavirus appear in Wuhan.
On Earth-01, the typical flu virus
gets projected from one person onto other people
*but*
many of those people are *already immune*
— from vaccination or from natural immunity.
The virus spreads more slowly,
and causes a slower rate
of people needing hospitalisation,
and a slower rate of people
getting mild cases.
On Earth-02, the coronavirus
gets projected from one person onto other people
*and*
NO ONE is *already immune*! NO ONE!
The virus spreads more quickly (scientific finding),
and causes a faster rate
of people needing hospitalisation,
and a faster rate of people
getting mild cases.
Add to that the scientific finding
that the coronavirus
is more lethal than the typical flu virus.
On Earth-02, without mitigation measures,
health care systems get overloaded *and*
*everyone* needing urgent health care
gets worse treatment.
The lethality of the coronvirus rises
(from lack of resources)
and more people die of strokes and heart attacks
because of fewer resources and workers.
Mitigation measures become essential
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks:
we have no idea of the undetected cases in Canada as we have only gone
about testing the obviously symptomatic, worst cases. No random cross
sectional population samples to determine how prevalent this is. I still
question the stats. Do you think every person who's died WITH covid can
be classified as a death BY covid? Is it fair to say that elderly
nursing home residents, with a laundry list of health conditions, who
contracted this virus were killed BY this virus? When ANY respiratory
ailment would have done the same thing? Yet, they become a statistic. Of
which, 280 is still not out of line with flu season. You have said
repeatedly that this virus is "more lethal". Where? Name 1 country that
has seen a higher death toll so far than any moderate flu season. Which,
I realize, aren't all "flu", so let's say all influenza like illness
related deaths. Again, prove that social distancing is responsible for
any of the observed trends. Sweden is a good 2-3 weeks behind any
distancing measures, but they are not exponentially ahead in
mortalities. So I suppose we'll wait another 2 weeks and see what their
numbers are. I realize this is "novel", so there's no inherent
immunity, but that doesn't make it more deadly necessarily, just more
communicable. Ultimately, I see no evidence that the extreme lockdown
measures have changed anything. We could have accomplished the same
thing with less severe interventions, protecting the vulnerable
populations, and letting young, healthy, low risk populations keep the
economy going. My great grandchildren will be paying for this mess...
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> we have no idea of the undetected cases in Canada as we have only gone about testing the obviously symptomatic, worst cases.
> No random cross sectional population samples to determine how prevalent this is.
We have *a good idea*.
Researchers have looked at
situations elsewhere in the world
such as cruise ships and Iceland
(Iceland tested a big proportion of their population)
We have our own numbers here based on
an overwhelming number of *negative* test results.
These together help provide an estimate of
the number of Canadians who
caught the virus but
did *not* seek out health care.
That number is about the same, or the double,
of the number that *did* seek out health care
and were subsequently tested positive.
> I still question the stats. Do you think every person who's died WITH covid can be classified as a death BY covid?
No, *but*
the same applies to flu statistics.
As a result, when both are
*calculated the same way*,
COVID-19 ends up showing
a greater death rate by a factor of
about 4 to 10.
> we have no idea of the undetected cases in Canada as we have only gone about testing the obviously symptomatic, worst cases.
> No random cross sectional population samples to determine how prevalent this is.
We have *a good idea*.
Researchers have looked at
situations elsewhere in the world
such as cruise ships and Iceland
(Iceland tested a big proportion of their population)
We have our own numbers here based on
an overwhelming number of *negative* test results.
These together help provide an estimate of
the number of Canadians who
caught the virus but
did *not* seek out health care.
That number is about the same, or the double,
of the number that *did* seek out health care
and were subsequently tested positive.
> I still question the stats. Do you think every person who's died WITH covid can be classified as a death BY covid?
No, *but*
the same applies to flu statistics.
As a result, when both are
*calculated the same way*,
COVID-19 ends up showing
a greater death rate by a factor of
about 4 to 10.
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> Is it fair to say that elderly nursing home residents, with a laundry list of health conditions, who contracted this virus were killed BY this virus?
Again, the same happens with the flu.
Often the death is attributed to the flu,
so flu death statistics get inflated as well.
What matters is ... calculating them the same way
for both viruses.
Some researchers have accounted for
exactly that. Result: COVID-19 more lethal.
> ... 280 is still not out of line with flu season.
It took a *nationwide lockdown*
to limit it at that so far.
> You have said repeatedly that this virus is "more lethal". Where?
Everywhere
> Name 1 country that has seen a higher death toll so far than any moderate flu season.
Incorrect comparison ... because
the current death tolls come from
*way fewer* cases of COVID-19
than occur during any moderate flu season.
These fewer cases
are the result of lockdowns.
> Again, prove that social distancing is responsible for any of the observed trends.
By deduction.
Daily case counts have declined,
in the expected time frame,
after social distancing was mandated
in *every country* that has applied them
for a long enough time.
There is no other explanation
acceptable so far.
> Is it fair to say that elderly nursing home residents, with a laundry list of health conditions, who contracted this virus were killed BY this virus?
Again, the same happens with the flu.
Often the death is attributed to the flu,
so flu death statistics get inflated as well.
What matters is ... calculating them the same way
for both viruses.
Some researchers have accounted for
exactly that. Result: COVID-19 more lethal.
> ... 280 is still not out of line with flu season.
It took a *nationwide lockdown*
to limit it at that so far.
> You have said repeatedly that this virus is "more lethal". Where?
Everywhere
> Name 1 country that has seen a higher death toll so far than any moderate flu season.
Incorrect comparison ... because
the current death tolls come from
*way fewer* cases of COVID-19
than occur during any moderate flu season.
These fewer cases
are the result of lockdowns.
> Again, prove that social distancing is responsible for any of the observed trends.
By deduction.
Daily case counts have declined,
in the expected time frame,
after social distancing was mandated
in *every country* that has applied them
for a long enough time.
There is no other explanation
acceptable so far.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> Sweden is a good 2-3 weeks behind any distancing measures, but they are not exponentially ahead in mortalities.
Mortalities come a week later.
A spike in mortality generally follows
a spike in new case counts by about a week.
What matters are the daily case numbers.
To see those, you can
Google: worldometers daily new cases Sweden
> I realize this is "novel", so there's no inherent immunity, but that doesn't make it more deadly necessarily, just more communicable.
It increases by a lot
the number of cases possible,
the transmission rate,
and the speed of propagation
> Ultimately, I see no evidence that the extreme lockdown measures have changed anything.
That's because you aren't comparing
the current statistics
with what they would be
*without* these measures
> We could have accomplished the same thing with less severe interventions ...
Not at this early stage
> ... protecting the vulnerable populations, and letting young, healthy, low risk populations keep the economy going.
There are 6.6 million Canadians
who are 65 years old and over.
That's about 18% of
the population of Canada.
Below that age are still
many people vulnerable.
I see no way
to shield that many from the coronavirus
by letting everyone else run around.
And since no one has immunity,
a significant number of working Canadians
would become too sick to work
— all in the same month or so.
> ... letting young, healthy, low risk populations keep the economy going.
The economy *is* being kept going.
I still have to get to my job in a few hours.
> My great grandchildren will be paying for this mess...
The *size* of "this mess"
will probably be much less than
you seem to think
> Sweden is a good 2-3 weeks behind any distancing measures, but they are not exponentially ahead in mortalities.
Mortalities come a week later.
A spike in mortality generally follows
a spike in new case counts by about a week.
What matters are the daily case numbers.
To see those, you can
Google: worldometers daily new cases Sweden
> I realize this is "novel", so there's no inherent immunity, but that doesn't make it more deadly necessarily, just more communicable.
It increases by a lot
the number of cases possible,
the transmission rate,
and the speed of propagation
> Ultimately, I see no evidence that the extreme lockdown measures have changed anything.
That's because you aren't comparing
the current statistics
with what they would be
*without* these measures
> We could have accomplished the same thing with less severe interventions ...
Not at this early stage
> ... protecting the vulnerable populations, and letting young, healthy, low risk populations keep the economy going.
There are 6.6 million Canadians
who are 65 years old and over.
That's about 18% of
the population of Canada.
Below that age are still
many people vulnerable.
I see no way
to shield that many from the coronavirus
by letting everyone else run around.
And since no one has immunity,
a significant number of working Canadians
would become too sick to work
— all in the same month or so.
> ... letting young, healthy, low risk populations keep the economy going.
The economy *is* being kept going.
I still have to get to my job in a few hours.
> My great grandchildren will be paying for this mess...
The *size* of "this mess"
will probably be much less than
you seem to think
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks: we'll see when it's over what the outcome really is. There's far too much speculation for my liking. I k ow I'll be back when the mandatory vaccines discussion ramps up....
David Amos
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: Methinks in the "mean" time you should Google my name and yours N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
Sweden is in the news today,
and the news is not good.
Sweden saw a spike in deaths.
Sweden might lock down more strongly
in the foreseeable future
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @David Amos: why?
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks: I
had my last 3 replies and posts red banded. Gets pretty frustrating. I
had high hopes for Sweden, so that is discouraging. Again, I don't want
deaths, but I would be infinitely more irritated if I found out I was in
lockdown needlessly...well, to be fair, I am essential services so I'm
not completely locked down, but am restricted. Plus people are afraid to
leave the house. Upside is my drive to work is faster...
David Amos
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: I just witnessed entire threads go "Poof"
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: incidentally, as this is a novel virus, with NO ONE immune, are you not concerned that by instituting strict measures now, we spare the health system overload, but ALSO delay the natural herd immunity that would have developed, thereby kicking the can down the road, and risking another outbreak during the fall?
David Amos
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: "why?"
Because I already blogged every word
Because I already blogged every word
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> I had my last 3 replies and posts red banded.
Sorry to hear that.
You could try to re send piece by piece.
That would show which piece is the problem
> Gets pretty frustrating.
Been there very, very often.
> I had high hopes for Sweden, so that is discouraging.
I understand
> Again, I don't want deaths, but I would be infinitely more irritated if I found out I was in lockdown needlessly...
You won't find *that*, because
it definitely hasn't been needless so far.
Had we not done this,
the number of cases
would overwhelm our health care system
and ruin proper treatment
for *everyone*
— including young people needing health care
for *other* emergencies
> ... to be fair, I am essential services so I'm not completely locked down ...
Same here
> Upside is my drive to work is faster...
Same here
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
> I just witnessed entire threads go "Poof"
Who wrote the text
that the thread formed under?
When main-thread text
is deemed poof-worthy
by controllers,
it is made to go poof
and that
takes the entire thread along with it
> I just witnessed entire threads go "Poof"
Who wrote the text
that the thread formed under?
When main-thread text
is deemed poof-worthy
by controllers,
it is made to go poof
and that
takes the entire thread along with it
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> incidentally, as this is a novel virus, with NO ONE immune, are you not concerned that by instituting strict measures now, we ... delay the natural herd immunity that would have developed, thereby kicking the can down the road, and risking another outbreak during the fall?
Correct.
It kicks *most of the can* down the road,
but not *all* of it.
Before we walk up to
what's left of the can,
we could try a new strategy
— provided new daily cases have gone .
> incidentally, as this is a novel virus, with NO ONE immune, are you not concerned that by instituting strict measures now, we ... delay the natural herd immunity that would have developed, thereby kicking the can down the road, and risking another outbreak during the fall?
Correct.
It kicks *most of the can* down the road,
but not *all* of it.
Before we walk up to
what's left of the can,
we could try a new strategy
— provided new daily cases have gone .
Bartholomew Palmer
Given the fact that there is research pointing to the flu vaccine increasing the risk of coronavirus infection, I'd like to see the data after this outbreak and cross reference the worst cases with flu shot status... might hurt the flu shot campaign next season.
Greg Gesner
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: That is interesting. Where did that info come from. I have not heard that yet.
Evan
Mulligan
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
Credible source please.
Credible source please.
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Evan
Mulligan: From the Journal "Vaccine", a peer reviewed medical journal, a
paper titled "Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference
among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza
season"
Vaccine 38 (2020) 350-354.
There are others that support the same conclusions, but you can go find them on your own.
Vaccine 38 (2020) 350-354.
There are others that support the same conclusions, but you can go find them on your own.
Evan
Mulligan
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
Thanks for the source! You're on of the very, very few that actually has source material to back up your conclusion.
Haven't read it yet but will do so this evening. Thanks again!
Thanks for the source! You're on of the very, very few that actually has source material to back up your conclusion.
Haven't read it yet but will do so this evening. Thanks again!
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Evan
Mulligan: there's alot of experts in disagreement with the official
narrative, and with the current transmission mitigation measures, if you
care to investigate further. Corbett Report(a blogger, so don't take
his word for it, right?) made a video called "What's up with the Italian
Mortality Rate." Make of it what you will, BUT, on the page, under the
video, is a heading called SHOW NOTES, where he REFERENCES the 22
experts, and their opinions on this fiasco. Happy reading.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
*None* of those experts
account for the overloading of the health care system
that would occur if
the measures currently in place
were not applied.
All that those experts consider
are death rates ...
which still other experts
have pegged at several times greater than
what's caused by the typical flu virus
*None* of those experts
account for the overloading of the health care system
that would occur if
the measures currently in place
were not applied.
All that those experts consider
are death rates ...
which still other experts
have pegged at several times greater than
what's caused by the typical flu virus
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @Lou Parks:
so, theres room for disagreement. On that we can agree. The problem, as I
see it, is so far, we've adopted the opinion of the doomsday scenario
predictors, but we aren't seeing the doomsday scenario. I don't want
people to die needlessly, but I also worry that the irreversible
collateral damage will be just as bad, or worse. The cure should not be
worse than the cause.
That, and I'm tired of being cooped up...
That, and I'm tired of being cooped up...
Lou Parks
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer:
> ... The problem, as I see it, is so far, we've adopted the opinion of the doomsday scenario predictors, but we aren't seeing the doomsday scenario.
That's due to the social distancing so far.
> I don't want people to die needlessly, but I also worry that the irreversible collateral damage will be just as bad, or worse.
You need to compare that "irreversible collateral damage"
with the alternative — an overloaded health care system
which would create higher fatality rates for *all kinds* of causes,
not just COVID-19
> The cure should not be worse than the cause.
So far it has not come *anywhere close* to the alternative
> That, and I'm tired of being cooped up....
I understand.
In my case I still must go to my job,
so I do get out.
> ... The problem, as I see it, is so far, we've adopted the opinion of the doomsday scenario predictors, but we aren't seeing the doomsday scenario.
That's due to the social distancing so far.
> I don't want people to die needlessly, but I also worry that the irreversible collateral damage will be just as bad, or worse.
You need to compare that "irreversible collateral damage"
with the alternative — an overloaded health care system
which would create higher fatality rates for *all kinds* of causes,
not just COVID-19
> The cure should not be worse than the cause.
So far it has not come *anywhere close* to the alternative
> That, and I'm tired of being cooped up....
I understand.
In my case I still must go to my job,
so I do get out.
David Amos
Reply to @Bartholomew Palmer: Methinks many would agree that you are wasting you precious time with little Louie N'esy Pas?
Bartholomew Palmer
Reply to @David Amos: I don't think so. I'm not expecting to change minds. I enjoy healthy respectful discourse, and you can't have that without understanding all facets of an issue, then applying your personal paradigm. I've agreed with Lou on other issues, but that doesn't mean he thinks like me on everything. Heck, I can even get my kids to agree with me, so I have no such delusions here...
Jack Smoles
The 5-15,000 range over two assumes that "current measures" are enforced, i.e. total lock-down. It is not credible to believe that Ontario could stay in lock-down for such a long period, meaning that the realistic number is between 15-100,000 depending on how long the lock-down could be tangibly enforced.
Jack Smoles
Reply to @Jack Smoles: That's two years
Lou Parks
Reply to @Jack Smoles:
> assumes that "current measures" are enforced
Not for the full two years.
They will probably switch approaches
in the summer
> assumes that "current measures" are enforced
Not for the full two years.
They will probably switch approaches
in the summer
Jack Smoles
Reply to @Lou Parks:
That is not what was indicated, "current measures" are mentioned both in
the graph itself and was stated several times by presenters.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Jack Smoles:
> "current measures" are mentioned both in the graph itself and was stated several times by presenters.
Yes but other
outcome-equivalent measures
will no doubt replace the current ones
> "current measures" are mentioned both in the graph itself and was stated several times by presenters.
Yes but other
outcome-equivalent measures
will no doubt replace the current ones
Jack Smoles
Reply to @Lou Parks:
Exactly, meaning, breaking the model or essentially making useless as a
predictive tool. The very reason Tam doesn't want to release anything.
Lou Parks
Reply to @Jack Smoles:
> ... meaning, breaking the model or essentially making useless as a predictive tool.
Not during the coming months.
But when the measures get changed,
in the summer,
new projections will be made
whose outcome will still
fall inside the current range
> The very reason Tam doesn't want to release anything.
One reason they don't
is they don't want to discuss
the eventual changes in measures
at this stage.
Ford would not want to either.
> ... meaning, breaking the model or essentially making useless as a predictive tool.
Not during the coming months.
But when the measures get changed,
in the summer,
new projections will be made
whose outcome will still
fall inside the current range
> The very reason Tam doesn't want to release anything.
One reason they don't
is they don't want to discuss
the eventual changes in measures
at this stage.
Ford would not want to either.
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks I should not be surprised that the cat has your tongue again N'esy Pas?
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
Wrong again!
I've been here the whole time,
but slowed down by using a cell phone
Wrong again!
I've been here the whole time,
but slowed down by using a cell phone
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Yea Right you claimed that hours ago
Lou Parks
Reply to @David Amos:
I have an intermittently busted laptop.
When it crashes, I switch to my phone.
Recharge laptop, go back to laptop.
Stuff like that
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks:
Methinks that feeble excuse does not fly anymore because you made a pile
of comments AFTER you challenged me 10 hours ago N'esy pas Mr
Conservative Spindoctor?
wayne rendell
stay home peoples! Its not worth taking the chance of killing yourself or risking someones life
Lou Parks
Reply to @wayne rendell:
We need more peoples
to understand that
We need more peoples
to understand that
David Amos
Reply to @Lou Parks: Methinks Trudeau can teach peoplekind to understand what Conservatives need N'esy Pas?
Nick Foley
Is Wherry still telling stories?
Lou Parks
Reply to @Nick Foley:
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
David Amos
Reply to @Nick Foley: Methinks its just one of those things he does many fail to appreciate N'esy Pas?
No comments:
Post a Comment