Pls respect Canadian laws

am1958 wrote:
Let's take the emotion and politics out of this and think logically.

We were first told that in order to stop the hospitals from being overwhelmed we needed to "flatten the curve". That's both reasonable and logical. What happens when you "flatten a curve", (push down on the top)? Since it's X axis is time then the left side can't move but when you push down on the peak the right side gets pushed further to the right.

The area under the original graph may represent infections, hospitalizations or deaths, it really doesn't matter which. When you pushed down on the peak and the right end of the graph moved further right the two things that did not change are the start point on the left and the area under the graph.

The area under the graph not changing at all is very important because that tells us that whatever you are measuring won't change in total but only the duration of events will change. So, regardless of what we do the government has already admitted that we will have the same number of events short a vaccine.

Now, we already know that the hospitals were not overwhelmed as witnessed by hospital ships going unused and 1000 bed temporary hospitals were equally under-employed.

We can therefore surmise that no one has died through lack of or insufficient hospital care. If no one has died because of inadequate care then it seems likely that if you have certain determining factors and catch the disease then you are going to die, period.

Since it is likely that until either a reasonable herd immunity is generated or an effective vaccine is created the total number of eventual infections is not going to change then it would seem sensible to allow the virus to run it's course and the susceptible will die.

Yes, there is an argument that you can extend the infections over a longer period of time in order to await the vaccine thus saving those lives but vaccines are squirrely things that look promising right up until the last minute. It's a reasonable argument until you look at what this is doing to the economy. Saving a few lives now for the death of an entire country and the resulting deaths that would bring is a bad deal in anyone's book.

Finally, our "experts" have been wrong for so long now it's beginning to be a bit of a joke. Most of these people have got their foot onto the GS pay ladder and stayed there working their way up one of the most inefficient and often incompetent systems available. They are "advising" people like Gretchen Whitmer whose entire life experience consists of leaving Law School in 1998 and entering the Michigan House of Representatives in 2000.

Compare her life experience to mine. I have lived, worked in or visited 24 countries on four continents many of them third world countries. I served ten years in the military both jumping from and crewing aircraft. I was a survival instructor and Combat First Aid trained amongst many other things. I speak three languages sufficient to get by. I have also held senior administrative positions in business for over 25 years.

Somehow, I'm expected to follow the instructions of a woman who may have gone on vacation to Mexico and Canada and who is being advised by similar people to those who gave us the Flint Water Fiasco.

I think not!!!

As to what Canada wants. It's their train set and they can play with it any way they like but just remember they are being led by a bunch of Gretchen Whitmers too.

Your assumption the total amount of infections is a forgone conclusion is only of several falsehoods in your opinion.

The amount of infections in total is controlled by the actions of the people. Clearly several countries and states have managed to not only flatten the curve, but BEND it.