Coronavirus

[bustaheims]

I suspect we'll see a number of businesses still enforcing mandatory masks and proof of vaccination. It'll just be added to their "no shirt, no shoes, no service" type policies. Some have already indicated that's their plan.

I wonder how long that would really last given the hassle of having to deal with the anti-mask folk.

Depends on how well they do serving the remaining 80-90%+ of the population.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I suspect we'll see a number of businesses still enforcing mandatory masks and proof of vaccination. It'll just be added to their "no shirt, no shoes, no service" type policies. Some have already indicated that's their plan.

I wonder how long that would really last given the hassle of having to deal with the anti-mask folk.

Depends on how well they do serving the remaining 80-90%+ of the population.

I think even a big portion of that population will quickly stop carrying their mask around with them everywhere they go once the mandate drops though. I'm sure some will try to keep it up but for the vast, vast majority of businesses it just won't be worth the effort. Especially if they try to enforce it hardcore as opposed to just recommending mask usage.

 

[Kin]

This is just inviting the next variant to materialize and push us into another vaccination dose + lockdown, except with more fatigue and completely wiped healthcare systems. Returning to 'normal' means forcing the elderly, families with infants, immunocompromised people to continue choose between isolation or risk whatever COVID thrashes them with. A lot of people are assuming endemicity, but the virus is neither mild enough, nor localized enough to really qualify.

Yeah. A lot of the people who are citing, like, the UK and various countries ending mandates and relaxing restrictions as evidence that it's a "Good" decision should really look a little closer at what those policies are actually being based on.

It's like I said earlier, it's viewing a fair chunk of the population as effectively expendable and while there's a certain grim reality behind that(people do die, the flu kills people, you need to weigh pros and cons) there's no denying that it's a calculation that can mean very different things to you if you're one of the not so lucky folk with more to fear from Covid than the average.

 

[Bullfrog]

I suspect we'll see a number of businesses still enforcing mandatory masks and proof of vaccination. It'll just be added to their "no shirt, no shoes, no service" type policies. Some have already indicated that's their plan.

I wonder how long that would really last given the hassle of having to deal with the anti-mask folk.

Depends on how well they do serving the remaining 80-90%+ of the population.

I wish I could say you're right, but every restaurant owner I've spoken to (not a lot admittedly) is dropping all restrictions immediately.

 

[Peter D.]

I'm all for making it a personal choice when the individual is really the only person affected (see seatbelts for a similar safety measure that is somewhat hard to enforce), but in this case, with a communicable respiratory disease that still has long-term debilitating effects on many people even when the initial symptoms are very mild or none at all, our personal choice to operate normally is going to adversely affect others, unknowingly because our governments have also abandoned all contact tracing measures, especially without the cursory vaccine check-in.

This is just inviting the next variant to materialize and push us into another vaccination dose + lockdown, except with more fatigue and completely wiped healthcare systems. Returning to 'normal' means forcing the elderly, families with infants, immunocompromised people to continue choose between isolation or risk whatever COVID thrashes them with. A lot of people are assuming endemicity, but the virus is neither mild enough, nor localized enough to really qualify.

How or when do we proceed then?

I imagine the elderly, families with infants and immunocompromised would (will) continue to isolate regardless of things opening up. In the same way many vaccinated will continue to adhere to the strictest of COVID protocols.

I do agree that I expect future variants to crop up. I fully expect cases to go up now that things are opening. By no means is COVID "over" in the way many think it is now that things are pretty much opening up with minimal rules in place (not to mention what's happening in Ukraine to completely deflect from the overbearing coverage of COVID).

But I truly believe we have to move on and learn to live with COVID. The vaccinated did their part. The unvaccinated are not going to budge. In the same way the governments have been quick to reenact lockdown measures, I have absolutely no problem with them finally opening things up. I won't say it's time to move on as if COVID is a thing of the past, but we can't continue living in fear over it either.

 

[Kin]

How or when do we proceed then?

I imagine the elderly, families with infants and immunocompromised would (will) continue to isolate regardless of things opening up. In the same way many vaccinated will continue to adhere to the strictest of COVID protocols.

I do agree that I expect future variants to crop up. I fully expect cases to go up now that things are opening. By no means is COVID "over" in the way many think it is now that things are pretty much opening up with minimal rules in place (not to mention what's happening in Ukraine to completely deflect from the overbearing coverage of COVID).

But I truly believe we have to move on and learn to live with COVID. The vaccinated did their part. The unvaccinated are not going to budge. In the same way the governments have been quick to reenact lockdown measures, I have absolutely no problem with them finally opening things up. I won't say it's time to move on as if COVID is a thing of the past, but we can't continue living in fear over it either.

I think the issue is to what extent "learning to live with" Covid looks like pretending Covid doesn't exist. Things like Masks and Vaccine Passports are part of the learning to live with Covid we've done. By opening things up to capacity at the same time as reducing the protective measures we have it looks less like living with a pandemic and more like government by wishful thinking.

The reality is that people who live with elderly relatives or who are immunocompromised themselves can't isolate indefinitely anymore than anyone else can. They need to work, they need to use transit, they need to shop. But at the same time we're lifting capacity restrictions we're also eliminating all precautionary measures? Admittedly those people are always going to be at some risk but shouldn't we have some measures in place to minimize that risk?

It's not a question of getting the unvaccinated to budge, it's the matter of recognizing that with the pandemic still going on the measures we took to protect ourselves and others is what "living with Covid" means.

I buy the argument for things like letting venues open, I buy the argument for bringing back restaurant dining and so on but doing that in conjuncture with getting rid of mask mandates and vaccine requirements doesn't read like bravely fighting on, it reads like surrendering. Only with people seemingly being fine with sacrificing the lives of the especially vulnerable instead of experiencing any inconvenience themselves.

 

[Bender]

I'm all for making it a personal choice when the individual is really the only person affected (see seatbelts for a similar safety measure that is somewhat hard to enforce), but in this case, with a communicable respiratory disease that still has long-term debilitating effects on many people even when the initial symptoms are very mild or none at all, our personal choice to operate normally is going to adversely affect others, unknowingly because our governments have also abandoned all contact tracing measures, especially without the cursory vaccine check-in.

This is just inviting the next variant to materialize and push us into another vaccination dose + lockdown, except with more fatigue and completely wiped healthcare systems. Returning to 'normal' means forcing the elderly, families with infants, immunocompromised people to continue choose between isolation or risk whatever COVID thrashes them with. A lot of people are assuming endemicity, but the virus is neither mild enough, nor localized enough to really qualify.

How or when do we proceed then?

I imagine the elderly, families with infants and immunocompromised would (will) continue to isolate regardless of things opening up. In the same way many vaccinated will continue to adhere to the strictest of COVID protocols.

I do agree that I expect future variants to crop up. I fully expect cases to go up now that things are opening. By no means is COVID "over" in the way many think it is now that things are pretty much opening up with minimal rules in place (not to mention what's happening in Ukraine to completely deflect from the overbearing coverage of COVID).

But I truly believe we have to move on and learn to live with COVID. The vaccinated did their part. The unvaccinated are not going to budge. In the same way the governments have been quick to reenact lockdown measures, I have absolutely no problem with them finally opening things up. I won't say it's time to move on as if COVID is a thing of the past, but we can't continue living in fear over it either.

I really dislike the term "living in fear" of covid. It's become such a loaded term and I don't think it's completely accurate. I think more people aren't fearful for themselves but are highly compassionate for others, so to me its not the same kind of "fear" that I think that term generally connotes.

But as you say, this virus truly isn't going anywhere and as of this moment our vaccines are doing a decent job and our hospitals do seem to be in pretty good shape (LK?). I would understand walking a line in terms of safety if properly implemented but it seems moot to me when people can congregate indoors in social settings at capacity.

My main issue now is will people be willing to tighten up if a new variant causes things to get out of hand again. 

 

[Peter D.]

I think the issue is to what extent "learning to live with" Covid looks like pretending Covid doesn't exist. Things like Masks and Vaccine Passports are part of the learning to live with Covid we've done. By opening things up to capacity at the same time as reducing the protective measures we have it looks less like living with a pandemic and more like government by wishful thinking.

The reality is that people who live with elderly relatives or who are immunocompromised themselves can't isolate indefinitely anymore than anyone else can. They need to work, they need to use transit, they need to shop. But at the same time we're lifting capacity restrictions we're also eliminating all precautionary measures? Admittedly those people are always going to be at some risk but shouldn't we have some measures in place to minimize that risk?

It's not a question of getting the unvaccinated to budge, it's the matter of recognizing that with the pandemic still going on the measures we took to protect ourselves and others is what "living with Covid" means.

I buy the argument for things like letting venues open, I buy the argument for bringing back restaurant dining and so on but doing that in conjuncture with getting rid of mask mandates and vaccine requirements doesn't read like bravely fighting on, it reads like surrendering. Only with people seemingly being fine with sacrificing the lives of the especially vulnerable instead of experiencing any inconvenience themselves.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full agreement that vaccine passports should have remained in place for quite a while longer. The government completely erred on that one. Essentially, that yes, the unvaccinated held out long enough to let this pass, and in a way they did indeed "win". No argument whatsoever on that one.

The mask mandate however seems rather silly to me, and has been for a while. Want to continue enforcing it in higher risk settings like long-term care homes and hospitals, by all means. Recommending grocery store workers continue to do so. Sure. But to tell people they must wear it into indoor settings and can immediately take it off (restaurants, bars, hockey arena, school lunch) reeks of contradiction.

 

[Peter D.]

I really dislike the term "living in fear" of covid. It's become such a loaded term and I don't think it's completely accurate. I think more people aren't fearful for themselves but are highly compassionate for others, so to me its not the same kind of "fear" that I think that term generally connotes.

But as you say, this virus truly isn't going anywhere and as of this moment our vaccines are doing a decent job and our hospitals do seem to be in pretty good shape (LK?). I would understand walking a line in terms of safety if properly implemented but it seems moot to me when people can congregate indoors in social settings at capacity.

My main issue now is will people be willing to tighten up if a new variant causes things to get out of hand again.

I understand where you're coming from, but I see it for myself that people truly live in fear of the virus. I think you can be highly compassionate for others all the while not letting the virus completely consume your lifestyle to the extent you are never going to get past it. I'm not condoning people to be reckless, but those who want to start to proceed to move on with more leniency in their lives should also not be seen as unsympathetic (non-compassionate) either.

I don't think the majority will be willing to tighten up. Between the presumption of continued vaccine effectiveness along with virus fatigue, it will frustrate many in scaling things back again. Re-implementing vaccine passports, mask mandates and perhaps a minor reduction in capacities shouldn't be met with too much resistance. Telling people they are shuttering indoor activities again and recommending minimal interactions (ie. holiday dinners would family) would not be accepted for a fourth time.

 

[Arn]

We're about 3 weeks into having restrictions become "advisory" rather than legal here in Northern Ireland. By that it means things like no requirement for masks in shops, encouraged to but no requirement for masks on public transport, reopening of nightclubs etc. Pretty much back to "normal".

On an anecdotal level from what I've seen in terms of masks being worn it's probably around 50/50 still wearing and not wearing. That number tends to vary depending which parts of the country you're in as well in terms of affluence.

As far as cases go, despite the lifting of the restrictions the cases have more or less remained plateaued and have even fallen slightly.

Hospital admissions have continued to fall, hospital inpatients have continued to fall and covid deaths have also continued to fall.

I think the same trends are also visible overall in England, but with some regional variations.

 

[Bullfrog]

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full agreement that vaccine passports should have remained in place for quite a while longer. The government completely erred on that one. Essentially, that yes, the unvaccinated held out long enough to let this pass, and in a way they did indeed "win". No argument whatsoever on that one.

The mask mandate however seems rather silly to me, and has been for a while. Want to continue enforcing it in higher risk settings like long-term care homes and hospitals, by all means. Recommending grocery store workers continue to do so. Sure. But to tell people they must wear it into indoor settings and can immediately take it off (restaurants, bars, hockey arena, school lunch) reeks of contradiction.

I'm the opposite. I'm ok with losing the vaccine passport, but not the protective measures of mask mandates, particularly with the omicron variant being dominant. Transimissibility is high in both vaccinated and unvaccinated, so masks will help.

With restaurants, the masks are only supposed to be off while eating.

 

[herman]

How or when do we proceed then?

Nik and Bender largely captured what I'd say, in particular:

I think the issue is to what extent "learning to live with" Covid looks like pretending Covid doesn't exist.
[...]

I buy the argument for things like letting venues open, I buy the argument for bringing back restaurant dining and so on but doing that in conjuncture with getting rid of mask mandates and vaccine requirements doesn't read like bravely fighting on, it reads like surrendering. Only with people seemingly being fine with sacrificing the lives of the especially vulnerable instead of experiencing any inconvenience themselves.

I would understand walking a line in terms of safety if properly implemented but it seems moot to me when people can congregate indoors in social settings at capacity.

My main issue now is will people be willing to tighten up if a new variant causes things to get out of hand again. 

What the Ontario government (and several other jurisdictions) are saying is tantamount to, 'you're on your own'. Granted, that's sort of what conservative politics drives towards, so there isn't really a surprise here.

In hockey parlance, a puck just got turned over and a rush is forming. Would you not absolutely lambast the 'forechecker' who is standing still, and just makes a cursory stick check from a terrible position after the puck is behind him? Would you not roast the d-man who subsequently gives a 5-stick gap and concedes the blueline immediately?

Wouldn't you prefer a player who keeps his feet moving to regain position above the puck, pressuring the carrier into safer ice (the boards), and working in concert and conjunction with a team structure of other trusted linemates to funnel the play into superior numbers and reclaim the puck to kill the rush?

Ontario (and several other jurisdictions) are playing Randy Carlyle defense with COVID. Individuals, without much clue or communication, running around the ice either with their heads cut off or blatantly giving up on the play; hemmed in their own DZ and needing to punt to relieve the pressure, but it's just a turnover waiting for another demoralizing and energy sapping cycle.

 

[Kin]

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full agreement that vaccine passports should have remained in place for quite a while longer. The government completely erred on that one. Essentially, that yes, the unvaccinated held out long enough to let this pass, and in a way they did indeed "win". No argument whatsoever on that one.

The mask mandate however seems rather silly to me, and has been for a while. Want to continue enforcing it in higher risk settings like long-term care homes and hospitals, by all means. Recommending grocery store workers continue to do so. Sure. But to tell people they must wear it into indoor settings and can immediately take it off (restaurants, bars, hockey arena, school lunch) reeks of contradiction.

So I think we broadly agree that at this point the question should be "what restrictions should remain in place so that we can get back to some semblance of normalcy while doing whatever we can to slow the spread and protect the vulnerable(within reason".

Regarding the mask mandate, it seems again like we mainly agree. There are some places where I think it makes sense to maintain it including, for instance, public transport. I also think that asking people to wear masks in places where it doesn't immediately make sense because you won't be wearing them all the time might not be as useful but I wouldn't dismiss it either.

One thing that I'd just throw in there, and apologies if I've made this point before, but I think something to think about is World War 2 and some of the ways in which government asked citizens to help with the war effort. Now, some of them were directly and particularly useful. Asking the public to buy War Bonds, for instance, was getting citizens to re-invest their money in the government. Other things, like growing a garden to deal with the shortage of fresh produce or doing scrap metal drives, were less about directly helping the war effort and more about fostering a sense of, you know, "we're all in this together and everyone's got to do their part". Asking people to wear masks in bars while they're not drinking, like, is it going to do the most to stop the spread? No. Is it a massive inconvenience either? No. Does it maybe serve as a gentle reminder to people that "Hey, we're all still in a pandemic and we've got to make little sacrifices for each other"? Maybe.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/RevivalCare/status/1499099252529643521
https://twitter.com/RevivalCare/status/1499099270833704961
https://twitter.com/RevivalCare/status/1499099275258699777

 

[Joe S.]

Yeah but you?re getting $120 back for your license plate sticker so yay?

 

[Guilt Trip]

Yeah but you?re getting $120 back for your license plate sticker so yay?

Woo Hoo!

 

[Bender]

Yeah but you?re getting $120 back for your license plate sticker so yay?

I'd rather have $120 than pay for so called social services that only impact unimportant things like *checks notes* my and my community's health!

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/robferguson1/status/1499487964082188292

The whole "almost nobody has actually been eligible for a PCR test in 2022" thing has been very under-reported.

 

[Bender]

https://twitter.com/robferguson1/status/1499487964082188292

The whole "almost nobody has actually been eligible for a PCR test in 2022" thing has been very under-reported.

Why stop surveillance? This is pretty stupid.

 

[Kin]

This whole thing has echoes of when Ford cancelled the already funded UBI intiative in Hamilton. They've made a decision and they don't want pesky facts to get in the way.