=>member kimmy, what conditions/requirements, if any, do you believe should be in place... before restrictions/shutdowns are eliminated?
Before I get to conditions/requirements, I want to talk about what restrictions and shutdowns might be eliminated.
To me the most exasperating thing about the shutdowns are the one-size-fits-all nature of the shutdown.
It seems ridiculous to me that a venue that seats 20 people is treated the same as a venue that seats 2000 people or 20,000 people. It seems ridiculous to me that a pottery class is treated the same as a gym or a yoga class. I don't think a sit-down restaurant poses the same risks as a shopping mall food court. I don't think a neighborhood pub poses the same risks as a packed nightclub with a dance floor full of sweaty people.
(Personal note: I think it's ridiculous that Kim City is treating the kayak club the same as city swimming pools and city fitness centers. Are they afraid the ducks and fish will catch COVID? I don't get it.)
I'm also skeptical that the same measures are necessary in Saskatchewan as in Ontario. And I'm skeptical that the same measures are necessary in Kenora Ontario as in downtown Toronto.
I trust your response will give consideration to the reality of asymptomatic carriers of the virus... as well as the more recent raised concerns over "some number" of released recovered patients who retest as positive while showing no symptoms (again, asymptomatic carriers).
name your conditions/requirements member kimmy - name them!
The BC government is now looking at ways of relaxing restrictions-- it's not just dumb-people and rednecks anymore. Dr Bonnie Henry says:
"I believe this summer, we will have the opportunity to have way more social opportunities … but we're not quite there yet. So I'm asking for patience."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/covid19-restrictions-bc-1.5535716Here's the modelling they've developed:
They are projecting the anticipated rate of patients in critical care on the level of social interaction going on. The graph shows that if we resume 100% or 80% of normal levels of social interaction, the number of cases goes through the roof. On the other hand, lower levels of interaction-- 60% of less, results in a rate of cases that doesn't snowball and remains low enough for the healthcare system to manage quite easily, as it is doing right now. They estimate our level of interaction is currently at the range of about 30%, so there's certainly room for some restrictions to be lifted. And restrictions can be put back in place as required to deal with "rebound outbreaks" that they anticipate will occur.
To me, the conditions/requirements for easing of restriction are that our healthcare system be able to handle the number of critical cases. That's it, that's my criterion. I don't base it on the existence of a vaccine, or a 100% accurate test, or whatever. When those things do appear, they will considerably improve the level of risk mitigation we're able to do, but it is and always will be a matter of risk mitigation. We won't be able to do 100% testing of the population, we won't be able to identify every asymptomatic carrier, we won't be able to guarantee nobody comes down with COVID in the future. But we can certainly keep things at a level where we can care for cases as they arise, as we do with other communicable diseases.
As we learn more about how this thing works, we will learn what kind of situations pose high risks of transmissions and what kind of situations can reopen without adding substantially to the level of risk.
-k