https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/stuff-you-need-to-know/news/?message=50612
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Only a complete and utter retard would deny what every medical expert in a pretty much every country is saying.
Nobody is denying a pandemic. But you’re sure denying scientific facts, as well as other facts. Keep denying the increase in poverty, depression, anxiety, suicide, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence. It’s probably easier to enforce your hysteria based opinions that way. Btw, did you get your censorship ideas from the Chinese regime? They’d be very proud.
What is every medical expert saying? Medical experts are behind the phased in guidelines. They were literally constructed with the input of medical leaders.
HahahaNow you were always for a phase-in.... no one anywhere has argued against a phased approach to reopening. Now you’re going full-troll....
I was for opening up but with mitigation and social distancing. Phased in is the next best thing. It’s happening whether you like it or not. Even in Canada.
No, spoken like somebody paying attention to science, and not panic and hysteria.
Toronto announces ActiveTO plan to get people outdoors and active during the pandemic!No doubt the waldo and his crack team of researchers will be on the phone with John Tory to explain the dangers of AZZHOLE JOGGERS who be out there killing everybody! Oh the humanity. -k
I bet you own shares in a local funeral home?
how does this photo... seem... to you? (from yesterday's Mass State House 'Open Now' protest in Boston)
I asked you in my original reply (as quoted in its entirety above) to name who is maintaining "nothing can be done/changed" until a vaccine is developed. Instead of actually answering that, in your typical disingenuous way, you ignored the request and doubled-down further suggesting/implying I've said as much! Quit making shyte up!
I gave you a list of 6 conditionals (put forward by the WHO) required before restrictions/shutdowns can be eliminated. You ignored the list completely. Of course, one of those conditionals is to have adequate testing in place to respond to "outbreak flair-ups" that may result from removing restrictions... testing and tracing. For all these Republican Governors and Conservative Premiers so hot-to-trot in "opening up", what's the state of adequate/required supporting testing & tracing?
Including SCIENCY LOOKING GRAPHS for the waldo in regards to modelling. The waldo and his crack researchers can evaluate that section; I'm just a former waitress and wouldn't understand any of that guy-stuff anyway. tee-hee.
you really need to get over your phobia of graphs... you keep referring to them as "sciency looking". In the cases you've objected to, they've simply been presentation avenues to impact some semblance of data relationship! In any case, science is your friend member kimmy - don't be afraid it! no - not MY {Reports} graphs; those are Google graphs... you know, the company in partnership with B.C. (Centre for Disease Control) to provide collected data to, through analysis and processing, arrive at that stated 30% interaction figure. As by name, the Reports 'Mobility Reduction' represents % change in visits to places (as segmented into 5 overall 'place categories'). The waldo never made your grandiose leap to assume an interaction estimate was based solely upon mobility reduction... that's your idiocy at play; as I stated, "the waldo trusts the data and analysis is there", to support the stated 30% estimate figure. Of course it is - it just doesn't appear to have been publicly released... yet - a release that would allow, of course, independent critical assessment of the data and analysis involved. oh my, member kimmy - oh my! You've imparted such "who knew" knowledge yet you can't provide any information to answer the original waldo statement/questioning as to the methodology behind the stated 30% interaction figure... a figure which (relative to an upper-bounds 60% figure), so emboldened you as to talk of there being "room to lift restrictions". One would think such emboldenment on your part would be matched with the supporting "how" the estimate was arrived at. So, basically, other than your plaintiveWail... you gots nuthin to suggest how the 30% interaction figure was realized - to understand the methodology that determined the current estimated contact level between British Columbians is at around 30 per cent of normal. Of course, that interaction estimate is based, in part, on the Google sourced mobility reduction data I referenced. stating the all to obvious (even to you member kimmy, even to you), public confidence in removing current restrictions is key - how safe will the public feel in terms of accepting the removal of certain restrictions? The key starts with full transparency in how levels of interaction estimates are arrived at; including transparency that can be imparted to a layperson level.