Coronavirus outbreak

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Alflives said:

These posters just keep popping up, don’t they?  What does @JM_call them?  

academic gene splicers.

 

It was one of the fake jobs buddy claimed he had early on. Nearly made me pee I laughed so hard. 

[bishopshodan]

Seems like since JT's speech there is a 'basket of deplorables' reaction from supporters of the protests. .

They are doing the Eminem ...'I am whatever you say I am, if i wasn't, why would you say I am?'

 

I have heard it from both my anti-vaxx family members...goes, something like " oh, JT says I'm a racist misogynistic radical now!"

 

To one of them I replied..." well, you kinda are"....then I had a real good belly laugh, cause sadly it's true. 

[JM_]

22 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Seems like since JT's speech there is a 'basket of deplorables' reaction from supporters of the protests. .

They are doing the Eminem ...'I am whatever you say I am, if i wasn't, why would you say I am?'

 

I have heard it from both my anti-vaxx family members...goes, something like " oh, JT says I'm a racist misogynistic radical now!"

 

To one of them I replied..." well, you kinda are"....then I had a real good belly laugh, cause sadly it's true. 

US help organizing the protest. US and other foreign money helping to fuel it. How is that going to lead to anything good up here?

[-DLC-]

Seeing that the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has taken on the trucker's case. What a joke, the rep (lawyer?) stumbled to find an answer when asked about the funding (saying there were "glitches").

 

Colbert had fun with our convoy issue last night....lol, said "I'm sorry" to Canada for the fact that people from the US are involved in our protests. He had a good laugh about the fact that confederate flags are seen here...something to the effect of "you don't have confederate states". 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

US help organizing the protest. US and other foreign money helping to fuel it. How is that going to lead to anything good up here?

They have lost the plot in a massive way.

 

I supported the truckers right to protest the restrictions of their industry.

What it is now is a full on USAesq pile of steaming crap. 

 

Guess we knew it would happen with the addiction to the internet and the world getting smaller but I always hoped for better out of Canadians.

 

They are burning our flag, they have flown at least 5 types of racist flags, they have treated our capitol like a garbage can.

 

Well done Freedom fighters. /s

 

[-DLC-]

Idiots took over a vaccine centre in New West yesterday...going inside (?) and harassing the health care workers as they entered the building...calling them disgusting, etc.. North Van clinic also targeted this week with broken windows.

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

They have lost the plot in a massive way.

 

I supported the truckers right to protest the restrictions of their industry.

What it is now is a full on USAesq pile of steaming crap. 

 

Guess we knew it would happen with the addiction to the internet and the world getting smaller but I always hoped for better out of Canadians.

 

They are burning our flag, they have flown at least 5 types of racist flags, they have treated our capitol like a garbage can.

 

Well done Freedom fighters. /s

The longer this goes on, the more stories we hear about the "peaceful" protesters being nothing of the sort....even if it's only a small minority, perception is reality and the idiots have completely destroyed the message for those who honestly just wanted to make their concerns known.

[Gurn]

didn't take long for the latest study, by those economists from John Hopkins, to get  preliminary rebuttal; as it still isn't peer reviewed.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/scientists-criticize-flaws-in-study-that-found-lockdowns-do-little-to-reduce-covid-deaths/ar-AATsT9p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

"Following a Johns Hopkins University study showing that lockdowns only curbed COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, some scientists are criticizing the report as fundamentally flawed

 

Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home … decreases disease transmission. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed,” reads a critique by the University of Oxford’s Seth Flaxman, the lead author on a 2020 study which estimated that lockdowns had likely saved up to three million lives across Europe.

The Johns Hopkins paper in question is a pre-print meta-analysis of 34 prior studies examining the link between lockdowns and COVID mortality. Its authors ultimately conclude that lockdowns have “little to no public health effects” and should be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Flaxman was among four prominent public health researchers who criticized the study in a Thursday post published by the Science Media Centre, a U.K. non-profit that works as a conduit between scientists and the media.

One of the other critiques was drafted by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at the U.K.’s Imperial College London whose early modelling on COVID-19 was influential in driving the first major waves of pandemic lockdowns.

The U.K. had initially intended minor interventions on COVID-19, until persuaded otherwise by research from Ferguson’s COVID-19 Response Team, which claimed that a hands-off strategy could yield “hundreds of thousands of deaths.”

• Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%: study
• Despite flaws, COVID lockdowns work, science suggests

“Suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members,” said the March 2020 paper.

Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school.

But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

The economists — who were led by Denmark’s Jonas Herby — only sought data on COVID mortality, and ignored the effects of pandemic strictures on other factors such as hospitalizations or overall case rates. They also excluded any study whose accounting of lives saved was based on forecasts.

Most notably, this included the aforementioned Flaxman study which calculated that lockdowns saved three million European lives (that study also counted Ferguson as a co-author).

As the Johns Hopkins authors wrote, the Flaxman study assumed the “pandemic would follow an epidemiological curve unless countries locked down.” In doing so, they argue, the study took the view that “lockdowns are the only thing that matters” and ignored peripheral factors such as seasonal changes.

One of Ferguson’s primary criticisms of the Johns Hopkins study was that it painted the term “lockdown” with too broad a brush.

The Johns Hopkins study defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention.” Under this metric, a country whose only COVID stricture is a five-day mandatory quarantine is treated exactly the same as a country experiencing curfews and blanket closures on public venues.

A theme taken up by all the critics in the Science Media Centre post was that the Johns Hopkins meta-analysis failed to account for instances in which a lockdown may have arrested the growth rate of deaths, if not the raw number of deaths themselves. “Many countries locked down before seeing exponential growth and therefore saw no reduction in deaths,” wrote Samir Bhatt, an Imperial College London statistician who was directly involved with the COVID-19 response in New York State.

A report in Forbes wrote that all three authors of the Johns Hopkins paper are definitively of the “free market” bent. Herby works for the libertarian-leaning Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen.

Easily the most famous author is Steve Hanke, a renowned currency researcher who has certainly made no secret of his opinion on lockdowns. Just last week, he posted a cartoon to Twitter showing a semi-truck about to crush an effigy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dressed up as Adolf Hitler.

“Trudeau’s political overreach and endless lockdowns have pushed the Canadian public to the boiling point,” he wrote.

The Johns Hopkins paper has thus far received minimal mainstream media attention, and has been cited mostly by right-leaning outlets such as the Daily Mail, Fox News and the National Review.

On Wednesday, a Johns Hopkins professor of surgery, Martin Makary, was accusing his own employer of downplaying the study.

“Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study, and if you look at the media coverage, it’s one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it,” Makary told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, -DLC- said:

Idiots took over a vaccine centre in New West yesterday...going inside and harassing the health care workers. North Van clinic also targeted this week with broken windows.

Hopefully someone was taking video and the cops will track down and arrest every one of the clowns.

 

Think about it for a minute.....you have health care workers performing a potentially life saving service and gullible fools decide it's within their rights to intervene....how is this different than walking into an operating theater in the middle of a heart transplant?

[-DLC-]

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hopefully someone was taking video and the cops will track down and arrest every one of the clowns.

 

Think about it for a minute.....you have health care workers performing a potentially life saving service and gullible fools decide it's within their rights to intervene....how is this different than walking into an operating theater in the middle of a heart transplant?

I thought they said they entered the building (Anvil Centre) on Global but I'm not sure that was the case.  "As healthcare workers entered the building". Regardless, it's now illegal to protest outside health care centres/hospitals so hopefully they get arrested. Pretend they're logging protestors and give them the same treatment at the very least.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/8593962/new-westminster-vaccine-clinic-protest/

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

didn't take long for the latest study, by those economists from John Hopkins, to get  preliminary rebuttal; as it still isn't peer reviewed.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/scientists-criticize-flaws-in-study-that-found-lockdowns-do-little-to-reduce-covid-deaths/ar-AATsT9p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

"Following a Johns Hopkins University study showing that lockdowns only curbed COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, some scientists are criticizing the report as fundamentally flawed

 

Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home … decreases disease transmission. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed,” reads a critique by the University of Oxford’s Seth Flaxman, the lead author on a 2020 study which estimated that lockdowns had likely saved up to three million lives across Europe.

The Johns Hopkins paper in question is a pre-print meta-analysis of 34 prior studies examining the link between lockdowns and COVID mortality. Its authors ultimately conclude that lockdowns have “little to no public health effects” and should be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Flaxman was among four prominent public health researchers who criticized the study in a Thursday post published by the Science Media Centre, a U.K. non-profit that works as a conduit between scientists and the media.

One of the other critiques was drafted by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at the U.K.’s Imperial College London whose early modelling on COVID-19 was influential in driving the first major waves of pandemic lockdowns.

The U.K. had initially intended minor interventions on COVID-19, until persuaded otherwise by research from Ferguson’s COVID-19 Response Team, which claimed that a hands-off strategy could yield “hundreds of thousands of deaths.”

• Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%: study
• Despite flaws, COVID lockdowns work, science suggests

“Suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members,” said the March 2020 paper.

Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school.

But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

The economists — who were led by Denmark’s Jonas Herby — only sought data on COVID mortality, and ignored the effects of pandemic strictures on other factors such as hospitalizations or overall case rates. They also excluded any study whose accounting of lives saved was based on forecasts.

Most notably, this included the aforementioned Flaxman study which calculated that lockdowns saved three million European lives (that study also counted Ferguson as a co-author).

As the Johns Hopkins authors wrote, the Flaxman study assumed the “pandemic would follow an epidemiological curve unless countries locked down.” In doing so, they argue, the study took the view that “lockdowns are the only thing that matters” and ignored peripheral factors such as seasonal changes.

One of Ferguson’s primary criticisms of the Johns Hopkins study was that it painted the term “lockdown” with too broad a brush.

The Johns Hopkins study defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention.” Under this metric, a country whose only COVID stricture is a five-day mandatory quarantine is treated exactly the same as a country experiencing curfews and blanket closures on public venues.

A theme taken up by all the critics in the Science Media Centre post was that the Johns Hopkins meta-analysis failed to account for instances in which a lockdown may have arrested the growth rate of deaths, if not the raw number of deaths themselves. “Many countries locked down before seeing exponential growth and therefore saw no reduction in deaths,” wrote Samir Bhatt, an Imperial College London statistician who was directly involved with the COVID-19 response in New York State.

A report in Forbes wrote that all three authors of the Johns Hopkins paper are definitively of the “free market” bent. Herby works for the libertarian-leaning Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen.

Easily the most famous author is Steve Hanke, a renowned currency researcher who has certainly made no secret of his opinion on lockdowns. Just last week, he posted a cartoon to Twitter showing a semi-truck about to crush an effigy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dressed up as Adolf Hitler.

“Trudeau’s political overreach and endless lockdowns have pushed the Canadian public to the boiling point,” he wrote.

The Johns Hopkins paper has thus far received minimal mainstream media attention, and has been cited mostly by right-leaning outlets such as the Daily Mail, Fox News and the National Review.

On Wednesday, a Johns Hopkins professor of surgery, Martin Makary, was accusing his own employer of downplaying the study.

“Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study, and if you look at the media coverage, it’s one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it,” Makary told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yeah, I saw this headline this morning and my initial reaction without even reading the article was "Yep. I figured this was coming"....

 

One thing though, Johns Hopkins is a highly respected institution....IMHO, they've done massive damage to their reputation by allowing their name to be associated with this.

[Gurn]

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hopefully someone was taking video and the cops will track down and arrest every one of the clowns.

 

Think about it for a minute.....you have health care workers performing a potentially life saving service and gullible fools decide it's within their rights to intervene....how is this different than walking into an operating theater in the middle of a heart transplant?

This^^^^^^

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hopefully someone was taking video and the cops will track down and arrest every one of the clowns.

 

Think about it for a minute.....you have health care workers performing a potentially life saving service and gullible fools decide it's within their rights to intervene....how is this different than walking into an operating theater in the middle of a heart transplant?

^^^^^^^ This again^^^^

 

 

Criminal negligence, at the very, very least.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

12 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hopefully someone was taking video and the cops will track down and arrest every one of the clowns.

 

Think about it for a minute.....you have health care workers performing a potentially life saving service and gullible fools decide it's within their rights to intervene....how is this different than walking into an operating theater in the middle of a heart transplant?

If they were Indigenous people doing that, you can be sure the cops wouldn't be just having coffee & donuts at the local Timmies.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

 

It was a small study, using an early strain.  Challenge studies are fairly common, but ethically murky with viruses that don't have established treatments if the resulting illness becomes severe.  

 

I don't think I'd have the guts to do one of these.  Even if they paid more than £4,500 ($6,227) which is apparently what the volunteers got paid.  A vaccine trial, maybe.

 

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-deliberately-infected-people-coronavirus-here-s-what-happened?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook

Scientists deliberately infected people with coronavirus. Here’s what happened

In a first-of-its-kind human challenge study, volunteers developed symptoms only 2 days after exposure

Edited February 4, 2022 by thedestroyerofworlds

[Bure_Pavel]

15 hours ago, Alflives said:

GST and PST.  Depends on the type of junky food and what form it’s in and where it’s bought.  But we definitely pay more tax to eat crap food, like pop, chips, and fast food.  Proper groceries don’t get taxed though.  

GST is collected on most goods and services.

 

Exempt goods You can sell the following goods to everyone without collecting PST:

> food products for human consumption

> water and non-alcoholic beverages

> candies and confections

> vitamins and dietary supplements

 

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/404498/SmallBusinessGuide.pdf

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

Idiots took over a vaccine centre in New West yesterday...going inside (?) and harassing the health care workers as they entered the building...calling them disgusting, etc.. North Van clinic also targeted this week with broken windows.

 

 

The clinic is a voluntary by appointment only and only people exercising their rights are attending

 

This is demostic terrorism and they shouldn't not have allowed to target and attack health care workers. The Anvil center is litterly a 5 min walk from.the police station 

 

The police failed to enforce.the law now in place regarding harassment of health care workers and someone needs to be held accountable for not upholding the rule of law

 

I'm concerned that a counter protest movement is.building which Trump built to depen and keep.the divide  

 

The actions and demands to stop democratic rights of people we have seen the past week do not represent Canadian Values and its sad to see the conservative party of Canada become.the northern chapter of trumptonia 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Magicwords

[Bure_Pavel]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The longer this goes on, the more stories we hear about the "peaceful" protesters being nothing of the sort....even if it's only a small minority, perception is reality and the idiots have completely destroyed the message for those who honestly just wanted to make their concerns known.

Yeah there are good people involved in the protest as well, I saw of a video of truckers giving food and water to people in need, helping homeless people stay warm, and being kinda and embracing the general public. They you see the news about guys in clown masks destroying stuff, a report of stealing from a food shelter. So its definitely a double edged sword.  

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Yeah there are good people involved in the protest as well, I saw of a video of truckers giving food and water to people in need, helping homeless people stay warm, and being kinda and embracing the general public. They you see the news about guys in clown masks destroying stuff, a report of stealing from a food shelter. So its definitely a double edged sword.  

Problem for them is, the flag burners are always going to get the most press.....

[Bure_Pavel]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

didn't take long for the latest study, by those economists from John Hopkins, to get  preliminary rebuttal; as it still isn't peer reviewed.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/scientists-criticize-flaws-in-study-that-found-lockdowns-do-little-to-reduce-covid-deaths/ar-AATsT9p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

"Following a Johns Hopkins University study showing that lockdowns only curbed COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, some scientists are criticizing the report as fundamentally flawed

 

Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home … decreases disease transmission. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed,” reads a critique by the University of Oxford’s Seth Flaxman, the lead author on a 2020 study which estimated that lockdowns had likely saved up to three million lives across Europe.

The Johns Hopkins paper in question is a pre-print meta-analysis of 34 prior studies examining the link between lockdowns and COVID mortality. Its authors ultimately conclude that lockdowns have “little to no public health effects” and should be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Flaxman was among four prominent public health researchers who criticized the study in a Thursday post published by the Science Media Centre, a U.K. non-profit that works as a conduit between scientists and the media.

One of the other critiques was drafted by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at the U.K.’s Imperial College London whose early modelling on COVID-19 was influential in driving the first major waves of pandemic lockdowns.

The U.K. had initially intended minor interventions on COVID-19, until persuaded otherwise by research from Ferguson’s COVID-19 Response Team, which claimed that a hands-off strategy could yield “hundreds of thousands of deaths.”

• Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%: study
• Despite flaws, COVID lockdowns work, science suggests

“Suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members,” said the March 2020 paper.

Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school.

But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

The economists — who were led by Denmark’s Jonas Herby — only sought data on COVID mortality, and ignored the effects of pandemic strictures on other factors such as hospitalizations or overall case rates. They also excluded any study whose accounting of lives saved was based on forecasts.

Most notably, this included the aforementioned Flaxman study which calculated that lockdowns saved three million European lives (that study also counted Ferguson as a co-author).

As the Johns Hopkins authors wrote, the Flaxman study assumed the “pandemic would follow an epidemiological curve unless countries locked down.” In doing so, they argue, the study took the view that “lockdowns are the only thing that matters” and ignored peripheral factors such as seasonal changes.

One of Ferguson’s primary criticisms of the Johns Hopkins study was that it painted the term “lockdown” with too broad a brush.

The Johns Hopkins study defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention.” Under this metric, a country whose only COVID stricture is a five-day mandatory quarantine is treated exactly the same as a country experiencing curfews and blanket closures on public venues.

A theme taken up by all the critics in the Science Media Centre post was that the Johns Hopkins meta-analysis failed to account for instances in which a lockdown may have arrested the growth rate of deaths, if not the raw number of deaths themselves. “Many countries locked down before seeing exponential growth and therefore saw no reduction in deaths,” wrote Samir Bhatt, an Imperial College London statistician who was directly involved with the COVID-19 response in New York State.

A report in Forbes wrote that all three authors of the Johns Hopkins paper are definitively of the “free market” bent. Herby works for the libertarian-leaning Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen.

Easily the most famous author is Steve Hanke, a renowned currency researcher who has certainly made no secret of his opinion on lockdowns. Just last week, he posted a cartoon to Twitter showing a semi-truck about to crush an effigy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dressed up as Adolf Hitler.

“Trudeau’s political overreach and endless lockdowns have pushed the Canadian public to the boiling point,” he wrote.

The Johns Hopkins paper has thus far received minimal mainstream media attention, and has been cited mostly by right-leaning outlets such as the Daily Mail, Fox News and the National Review.

On Wednesday, a Johns Hopkins professor of surgery, Martin Makary, was accusing his own employer of downplaying the study.

“Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study, and if you look at the media coverage, it’s one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it,” Makary told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yeah John Hopkins isnt even that great of a school, I once smoked weed with Johnny Hopkins. It was me, Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Ketter and we were blazing that sh*t up everyday.