Quo Vadis GOP?

[DGuller]

AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?

To be fair, we aren't discussing a mathematical formula, where there is just one right answer, and whoever doesn't have the right answer probably wasn't as smart as the one with the right answer.  This is a problem with many value judgments and risk aversion preferences; two equally smart persons can come up with different decisions if they start with different but equally justifiable sets of values and attitudes toward risk, and both of those decisions would be correct within the context of their assumptions.

[alfred russel]

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

Because it is obfuscating that the authorities in Denmark and Canada are just handling the situation differently, and I'm comfortable that is self evident. Lots of countries are open to nonessential travel with some version of covid assurance from passengers (negative test results or vaccine records for example) while lots aren't. Denmark is in one category and Canada another. We can come up with reasons why they are implementing different policies, but ultimately they haven't been aligned on all sorts of covid stuff because these are political decisions that weigh an almost infinite array of factors and have a ton of uncertainty. People come up with different answers.

[Berkut]

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

Because it is obfuscating that the authorities in Denmark and Canada are just handling the situation differently, and I'm comfortable that is self evident. Lots of countries are open to nonessential travel with some version of covid assurance from passengers (negative test results or vaccine records for example) while lots aren't. Denmark is in one category and Canada another. We can come up with reasons why they are implementing different policies, but ultimately they haven't been aligned on all sorts of covid stuff because these are political decisions that weigh an almost infinite array of factors and have a ton of uncertainty. People come up with different answers.

The difference with you, however, is that you evaluate whether an answer is right or not based solely on whether it agrees with your absolute certainty that you know best under all circumstances, and that the only right answer is no restrictions.

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

What is curious is that you assume everyone else just operates the same way, but with different conclusions already arrived at, so you think bringing up two different results somehow puts people in an untenable position. It does not, because most people here are not starting with their conclusion and then evaluating the data based on whether it agrees with their faith.

[Sheilbh]

There were.

I was very opposed to border closures. The WHO came out against them. The most prominent advocate was Trump and I think it was perceived as a Trumpian policy - the way he implemented it was wrong, but in retrospect it's clear that border closures work and are actually quite important especially as variants have emerged.

But it was easier to do (and again not with Trump's discourse) if your country wasn't a huge transport hub - so New Zealand or Australia or Taiwan. I don't think any country with big hub airports has ever really got on top of how to respond to covid in relation to the border.

Personally I'm fairly cautious on this because I just don't think most countries are vaccinated enough to risk an outbreak - but for the richer bit of the Atlantic world we are getting there and I think good domestic vaccination programs, plus mutually recognised vaccine certificates. I suspect that last bit is going to be a challenge. We've already had confusion from India about why covidshield (their name for AZ) vaccines aren't recognised in Europe's vaccine certificate system while AZ is, but it's going to get more challenging with the ones that aren't widely authorised in the West like Sputnik or Sinopharm. I think the US still hasn't authorised AZ and I don't know if they accept someone (like me) with a vaccine certificate for double dose of an unauthorised vaccine.

It's something where I think countries should probably work together.

[alfred russel]

It's actually very similar to his proud "Gotcha!" of pointing out what a hypocrite I was because I got Covid at a game I was officiating (we can ignore for the moment his inability to actually recall what sport it was, that I was an official and not a player).

I did not recall what sport it was, I did recall you were an official.

I believe it is a very effective "gotcha" moment. I always argued that team sports would be a significant vector for infection. I argued it was worth the risk. Nothing magically changed from the fall to the winter that made team sports safer. What changed is that the political will to keep things shut down eroded. Effectively New York state came around to my way of thinking. I don't understand in what universe team sports, which involve lots of people from different households not being socially distanced (and in the case of basketball indoors), would not be a significant source of infection.

On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

[viper37]

I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Well, the Canadians coach got covid-19 after being fully vaccinated.  Than one of the players got it (again).  All following the Vegas gm who was positive when he came to Montreal.

Was it direct transmission?  Maybe not.  Or maybe it was.  We don't know.  That's why there is this thing we call communal transmission: we do not know the exact origins.

So far, scientists have determined there is still a risk until x% of the pop on our side of the border isfully vaccinated.  Then, we can start reopening.  I understand our stores wants tourists.  I don't, since hotel prices are insane atm and I want them to lower their prices

But, anyway.   We all want the border to reopen and all activities to resume normally.  We can't just yet.  Or we risk having another variant who may this time evade vaccination and antibodies and lead to a 4th wave in the fall.  It's better to make short terme sacrifices than adjust later on.  Less costly for everyone, even if the govt ends up footing the bill for many touristic traps attractions.

[viper37]

There were.

I was very opposed to border closures. The WHO came out against them. The most prominent advocate was Trump and I think it was perceived as a Trumpian policy - the way he implemented it was wrong, but in retrospect it's clear that border closures work and are actually quite important especially as variants have emerged.

'cause they don't talk of the same things.

Scientists usually advocates for closing borders, but that only means "civilian traffic", ie, people with no epidemic/pandemic business being there so supplies and scientists can still travel.  Whenever there is an ebola outbreak somewhere in Africa, the borders are always closed to travellers over there, only scientists, researchers and essential travelers are allowed.  that includes the people who want to return to their country.  In the case of the US, that meant keeping the dirty foreigners out. 

So, predictably, once the European border was announced to be shut, all Americans abroad rushed to get back to the US and brought the virus with them.  While his China "ban" was never really implemented, it appears the covid-19 didn't come from there after all.

[alfred russel]

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

[crazy canuck]

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

[viper37]

On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time.

Should be easy since it was so obvious.
I think what was obvious back then:- the disease wasn't airborne (false)- the disease couldn't be transmitted beyond 2m (false)- the disease was as contagious outside than inside (false)- ventilation was a minor issue (partly true, partly false, it's just there is no fixed criteria for what is "good" ventilation to prevent covid spreading- the disease was easily transmitted by contact (false).- the disease was easily transmitted by close contact over a very short period of time - Planet of the Apes style (and that was false, the risks below 15min of exposures were infinitesimal).

China had the virus and confined everyone in Wuhan inside their home, no outside circulation except by soldiers in hazmat.  Italy confined people inside their home too.  Than France did the same.  Than England.
It seems what was obvious to you wasn't to a lot of people.

In hindsight, it was certainly a mistake to prevent outdoor activities.  But we didn't know and got a lot of things wrong.  And since the different models we had were either total laissez-faire or strict lockdown, there was a difficulty in really comparing good, solid data to make the proper decisions.
I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess

[Sheilbh]

On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time.
Should be easy since it was so obvious.

There were studies in April that were indicating that - I also think there were studies at that point indicating that aerosol transmission was the main way this was spreading.

There are also lots of other studies in relation to other viruses that show that sun and open spaces reduce transmission significantly. I don't think there was ever a reason to think that this virus would behave differently. And the Japanese and other East Asian countries based their policies with the assumption that it was probably aerosol transmission - so Japan's three c's (close spaces, crowded places, close contact settings) with far better results.

I think the failure in the West to react quickly to the emerging data that the key risk was aerosol transmission is a huge policy failure - it's only this year that it seems to be a key message when it has been obvious since, at the very latest, summer 2020.

I think the Western response often went with the plan they had and only moved once there was a strong level of evidence about something. I think in the future it needs to be far more nimble and also work on assumptions based on what we know about other similar diseases rather than waiting for a definitive answer.

[alfred russel]

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

Was he vaccinated and did he present a negative covid test on arrival to Canada? I've been googling and can't find anything on that.

Google says the Uganda Olympic team is not an example because the coach was caught through a positive test with border controls and the team sent to isolation. It is an indication that the policy is working, not of it failing.

[alfred russel]

On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time.

Should be easy since it was so obvious.
I think what was obvious back then:- the disease wasn't airborne (false)- the disease couldn't be transmitted beyond 2m (false)- the disease was as contagious outside than inside (false)- ventilation was a minor issue (partly true, partly false, it's just there is no fixed criteria for what is "good" ventilation to prevent covid spreading- the disease was easily transmitted by contact (false).- the disease was easily transmitted by close contact over a very short period of time - Planet of the Apes style (and that was false, the risks below 15min of exposures were infinitesimal).

China had the virus and confined everyone in Wuhan inside their home, no outside circulation except by soldiers in hazmat.  Italy confined people inside their home too.  Than France did the same.  Than England.
It seems what was obvious to you wasn't to a lot of people.

In hindsight, it was certainly a mistake to prevent outdoor activities.  But we didn't know and got a lot of things wrong.  And since the different models we had were either total laissez-faire or strict lockdown, there was a difficulty in really comparing good, solid data to make the proper decisions.
I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess

That study I posted last time I think had an initial publication date of April 7.

[alfred russel]

I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess

Bullshit. I spend way way way more time indoor rock climbing than I do outdoor. I wasn't complaining about closing indoor gyms because they obviously have more risk.

As it happened, I was back in indoor gyms by the start of may but outside climbing areas (mostly on federal land, while our state governor went full leroy jenkins on opening everything he could much earlier) stayed closed for a while longer--and if you recall I was posting how incredibly stupid that was.

[crazy canuck]

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

Was he vaccinated and did he present a negative covid test on arrival to Canada? I've been googling and can't find anything on that.

Google says the Uganda Olympic team is not an example because the coach was caught through a positive test with border controls and the team sent to isolation. It is an indication that the policy is working, not of it failing.

The NHL example is of a fully vaccinated person who tested negative before travelling but became positive.

The exact same thing happened with the Uganda Team member - fully vaccinated and tested negative before travelling.

The only reason these cases were caught is because of the other measures put in place because of the special nature of the events they were participating in.  There will be no such special measures once we start letting foreigners into our country - and these two examples show that even with people who are trying to be careful, infections can occur.

I don't imagine such an attitude for people who are willing to take the risk to travel at the earliest opportunity.  You do not present a very compelling case that our public health officials have made an incorrect judgement.