Quo Vadis GOP?

[Grey Fox]

Comparing Canada to the US is not useful.

Keeping things opened was not politically feasible. Our provincial governments #1 spending category is healthcare. In Quebec's, it's 50% of the provincial budget. Our governments are healthcare managers that have to run for office.

Even GOP-lite Jason Kenney's UCP shut things down when it became untenable in the HC system.

GOP-like Drug dealing Ford in Ontario did the same.

[Sheilbh]

I think in terms of deaths - if that's your metric and it's clearly not for AR - that the US basically is in the group of rich countries that had a bad pandemic like the UK, Italy etc:


Canada's around the level of Austria, Israel France. Not great, not terrible.

I am happy taking a 1 in 800 risk personally - but that wasn't the risk socially to everyone I interact with. The risk wasn't equal and - for me - I've personally never had any particular concerns about covid. For someone in my age group it's a pretty low risk, but it was not about me personally in my view.

[Barrister]

I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

I thought the population difference between our countries was pretty obvious, and even per capita Canada faired much better than the US.

Where do you get your 1 in 800 figure from?  Taking the number of dead divided by the total US population shows about 1 in 500 people died from Covid.

As you have whined about even parts of the US that were more open still had Covid restrictions.  And it's not like we've been locked in our houses either in Canada.  Biggest thing for me was no hockey for a year.  Would I trade hockey for a year in exchange for a 1 in 500 chance of dieing?  No I would not.

[alfred russel]

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

10 times the population doesn't really justify 24 times the death rate.

10 times the population means that 24 times the death means just 2.4 times the death rate / capita.

And here's the thing - it's about the health of the population and the country as whole - not your individual "I'd take those odds."

Society is just the aggregation of individuals. I unquestionably want to take that risk and I actually think it is the only rational response.

I honestly think Canada (and a lot of other places) are being ridiculously restrictive. I still can't visit Canada -- that isn't based on science--it is political--I got my second dose of Pfizer in April.

[alfred russel]

Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened?

It's not just about you.

So on this forum, a majority seem to agree with you. But what about in places where the majority doesn't? In those places, why is the response "It's not just about you" to the dude saying, "I don't want to bear the risk of open bars", not equally effective? maybe moreso because no one is forcing him to go to the bars?

[Jacob]

10 times the population means that 24 times the death means just 2.4 times the death rate / capita.

Yes. More than double.

Society is just the aggregation of individuals. I unquestionably want to take that risk and I actually think it is the only rational response.

It's not just about you. Your selfishness is a danger to society.

I honestly think Canada (and a lot of other places) are being ridiculously restrictive. I still can't visit Canada -- that isn't based on science--it is political--I got my second dose of Pfizer in April.

I'm glad.

We are not managing our borders in accordance with your individual risk appetite, but in accordance with the needs of our population. And we prioritize having fewer Canadians die over the convenience of people like you.

[alfred russel]

Where do you get your 1 in 800 figure from?  Taking the number of dead divided by the total US population shows about 1 in 500 people died from Covid.

It is the incremental death the US had over Canada.

[DGuller]

Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.

[alfred russel]

We are not managing our borders in accordance with your individual risk appetite, but in accordance with the needs of our population. And we prioritize having fewer Canadians die over the convenience of people like you.

Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?

[Valmy]

Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.

I mean I am still not clear what diabetes did to my Covid risk. It was hard to get good medical information.

But yeah the main thing was to make sure those who were obese and/or elderly did not get it since their risk of death was very high and it is not like such people are that rare in first world countries.

I think if we made all of our restrictions based on medical and scientific data we know now we could have made better less socially and economically damaging restrictions that might have saved more lives as well. But we didn't as the facts were not clear yet. However, It also got really culture war and political here in the United States and once the narrative and the cultural tribe becomes a thing things like scientific facts cease to matter much to people.

[Sheilbh]

So on this forum, a majority seem to agree with you. But what about in places where the majority doesn't? In those places, why is the response "It's not just about you" to the dude saying, "I don't want to bear the risk of open bars", not equally effective? maybe moreso because no one is forcing him to go to the bars?

But again I don't think that individual/personal argument was ever the one that was made.

I've never heard someone phrasing their support for lockdown as a personal risk/choice because, as you say, it is easy to avoid the risk. The way it's always been discussed in the UK is it will increase transmission and prevalence in general which will increase the risks for people who aren't making a choice - people in care homes, the elderly, the clinically vulnerable etc.

If it was framed as about avoiding individual risk then I'd agree. But this is why I have sympathy with the argument about the wider social costs of lockdown rather than the individual accepting risk argument.

[Jacob]

Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?

Our ability to distinguish between you and your equivalent who's also an anti-vaxxer is limited.

[alfred russel]

Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.

That is madness. The risk was not that high. 1 in 800 is an extremely high number for the risk in a day but certainly not over a 14 year period where most of us won't live more than ~40 years and the costs are so extensive in terms of quality of life.

The flip side of this is being ignored. What about those that valued life their life in lockdown at a very low level and were being forced to surrender their limited time on this planet so others could avoid a negligible risk?

[alfred russel]

Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?

Our ability to distinguish between you and your equivalent who's also an anti-vaxxer is limited.

No it isn't. I have a vaccine card from a federal vaccine site. When I was traveling internationally in May that was checked. Canada can do so as well.

[DGuller]

That is madness. The risk was not that high. 1 in 800 is an extremely high number for the risk in a day but certainly not over a 14 year period where most of us won't live more than ~40 years and the costs are so extensive in terms of quality of life.

The flip side of this is being ignored. What about those that valued life their life in lockdown at a very low level and were being forced to surrender their limited time on this planet so others could avoid a negligible risk?

Why should we regulate commercial airlines?  In the US, two people died in commercial aviation accidents in the last 10 years.  Obviously the risk is extremely low, just two people in ten years, it's beyond idiotic to not just let commercial airlines do as they please.