CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[Brad Sallows]

Isn't that an inherent problem of leadership, though? You take the information you are handed and take your best shot with confidence and decisiveness. The people subject to your direction expect little else. If the decisions of the moment are later found wanting, such is humanity.

But that's not how they behaved. They lacked humility. I suppose they fear that "the people" can't be trusted with information. (It has become increasingly obvious that "they" don't trust "the people" to make "the right decisions" on a range of topics.) If a measure isn't very effective, just say so.

Was every wartime field commander raked over the coals because they were subject to a later analysis that found a different decision would have caused x% fewer casualties?

Not "every", but many of the prominent ones - yes.

I have no political axe to grind.

There is at least one worth sharpening. Very early on, there were those who wanted to immediately shut some things down, and others who berated them as racists, nativists, etc. Then the groups approximately switched places. Hardly a peep of apology from the people who wanted to play political games at the time when restrictive measures might still have been effective. People who play political games during crises destroy trust. The blame for erosion of trust lies with the people in charge who can never seem to tell a story straight.

 

[lenaitch]

Not "every", but many of the prominent ones - yes.

The only I can think of is Currie, and I believe that was a private civil action.

PHAC gave them advice that a travel mandate would not reduce virus transmission. The government then instituted such a mandate in violation of the Charter, stating that they were following expert advice... if not PHAC's epidemiologists, what experts were they listening to? Thousands of people's lives were severly impacted (unable to travel for work, unable to visit loved ones before they died or attend their funerals, etc.).

It's not that they didn't act on advice, it's that they then lied about it in an attempt to justify curtailing of Charter rights. Maybe you're okay with the government acting in such a way, but it's not a very liberal (small "l") position. I guess we could take the same approach to crime, as long as the criminals aren't still actively committing the offence, then who cares, right?

You raise a fair point, but the 'Charter' argument fails; 'mobility rights' as written were not impacted. Even without a Section 1 'reasonable limits' test, Intra and inter provincial travel was still possible. Ontario did announce it but retracted it less than a day later.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.​

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:​

1. to move to and take up residence in any province; and
2. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in section (2) are subject to:​

1. any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
2. any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Sections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.​

​

​

*****

Assuming they would have done something, I wonder how the post-game analysis would have played out if the Conservatives had been in power. Maybe it would have been Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin all-round.

 

[brihard]

The only I can think of is Currie, and I believe that was a private civil action.


You raise a fair point, but the 'Charter' argument fails; 'mobility rights' as written were not impacted. Even without a Section 1 'reasonable limits' test, Intra and inter provincial travel was still possible. Ontario did announce it but retracted it less than a day later.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.​

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:​

1. to move to and take up residence in any province; and
2. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in section (2) are subject to:​

1. any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
2. any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Sections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.​

​

​

*****

Assuming they would have done something, I wonder how the post-game analysis would have played out if the Conservatives had been in power. Maybe it would have been Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin all-round.

There was one Section 6 Charter case out of Newfoundland; Taylor. The court found that COVID restrictions did impugn Section 6 mobility rights, but that the infringement was saved by Section 1. The question was moot before heard at the NL Court of Appeal.

https://canlii.ca/t/j9p6v

 

[Halifax Tar]

@winds_13 some people are simply willing to let the Gov have a pass on the whole COVID thing and the way they handled it.

Nothing you provide or show will change that.

You're wasting your key strokes my friend.

 

[lenaitch]

There was one Section 6 Charter case out of Newfoundland; Taylor. The court found that COVID restrictions did impugn Section 6 mobility rights, but that the infringement was saved by Section 1. The question was moot before heard at the NL Court of Appeal.

https://canlii.ca/t/j9p6v

Thanks. People often forget about that pesky Section 1.

 

[Remius]

@winds_13 some people are simply willing to let the Gov have a pass on the whole COVID thing and the way they handled it.

Nothing you provide or show will change that.

You're wasting your key strokes my friend.

Except they only give them a pass if the government of the time matched their politics,

As an example,

Those calling for Trudeau’s head over COVID mandates had no issues voting in and cheering for Doug Ford’s victory despite his government’s COVID policies having a much bigger impact on people’s lives.

Passes are given by an assortment of people not just « some ».

 

[RangerRay]

Assuming they would have done something, I wonder how the post-game analysis would have played out if the Conservatives had been in power. Maybe it would have been Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin all-round.

Maybe they would have not sent our PPE stocks to China and maybe would have blocked flights from Wuhan and not done that shady vaccine deal with Beijing? Who knows…?

 

[lenaitch]

@winds_13 some people are simply willing to let the Gov have a pass on the whole COVID thing and the way they handled it.

Nothing you provide or show will change that.

You're wasting your key strokes my friend.

Perhaps if discussions such as this were more nuanced and didn't boil down to Liberals (or Democrats) = bad/idiots/incompetent they might more useful.

 

[brihard]

Except they only give them a pass if the government of the time matched their politics,

As an example,

Those calling for Trudeau’s head over COVID mandates had no issues voting in and cheering for Doug Ford’s victory despite his government’s COVID policies having a much bigger impact on people’s lives.

Passes are given by an assortment of people not just « some ».

Indeed. The fact that most of the restrictions actually impacting us day were under provincial mandates seems to get overlooked at times, depending on which party governed a particular province at the time. I’ve seen a TON of angry and ignorant attribution of various measures to the federal government that were entirely provincial in their enactment and enforcement.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except they only give them a pass if the government of the time matched their politics,

As an example,

Those calling for Trudeau’s head over COVID mandates had no issues voting in and cheering for Doug Ford’s victory despite his government’s COVID policies having a much bigger impact on people’s lives.

Passes are given by an assortment of people not just « some ».

Ok.

Perhaps if discussions such as this were more nuanced and didn't boil down to Liberals (or Democrats) = bad/idiots/incompetent they might more useful.

You are probably right.

 

[Booter]

But that's not how they behaved. They lacked humility. I suppose they fear that "the people" can't be trusted with information. (It has become increasingly obvious that "they" don't trust "the people" to make "the right decisions" on a range of topics.) If a measure isn't very effective, just say so.

I think this was observable. The usual us vs them politics that have become the only way to vote and think was on display in its purest form. Which was unhelpful- and a quick way to radicalize people. Which it did. Not in the jihad or extremist way but in a new YouTube radical way.

The poor and lower middle class and the small business paid the brunt of the bill for Covid and still do. Our political class made and gave out millions.

But the response to Covid wasn’t as easy as some formula. There were health/political/economic considerations in a new way

 

[Quirky]

But the response to Covid wasn’t as easy as some formula.

Didn't we, and the western world for that matter, have a pandemic response plan in place for such a scenario? None of which, as far as I can remember, involved closing the economy and isolating the young and healthy to protect the old, sick and weak which this virus primarily affected.

 

[Booter]

Didn't we, and the western world for that matter, have a pandemic response plan in place for such a scenario? None of which, as far as I can remember, involved closing the economy and isolating the young and healthy to protect the old, sick and weak which this virus primarily affected.

Was anyone on the front of the swine flu epidemic in 2009? It was mostly overblown but there were pockets of severe illness that had us stacking bodies in coolers because we couldn’t afford to have airplanes flying between places with active outbreaks.

I was in one of those places- working with HC and the emergency management people. None of their plans were useful because the plans relied on a known value. And it wasn’t one. So some pieces worked and some had to be made up on the fly.

That wasn’t nearly as unprecedented as Covid. It seems to me a lot of the arguments otherwise always assume there is a really great plan that people knowingly don’t use because they have some agenda.

We all have agendas. So that part can be true. But I also have worked with the government enough to know they are incompetent way before they are nefarious.

People who occupy the opposite view on this stuff from me always act like the government is a well put together entity that has all these excellent plans. They also didn’t have PPE stockpiled. And hangers of emergency response materials were rotten.

They are incompetent. I don’t believe us apes are nearly as well organized and society and our apparatus is as nearly as effective as we think it is. So when people screw up I go “well yeah”

Spend a week or two managing wildfires and then go to a town hall and hear all the stuff you “should have been doing”. People don’t get it. Their vantage points don’t allow them a clear view of the totality of the circumstances. They also don’t account for having one asset and two choices and having to make a decision in the moment on partial information. They like to say once the clouds part.

Like in Covid when we got a more clear picture then all the decisions were “dumb” when lensed with all the current info looking at the past. That’s not how decisions are made and that’s not how you evaluate a COA

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Didn't we, and the western world for that matter, have a pandemic response plan in place for such a scenario? None of which, as far as I can remember, involved closing the economy and isolating the young and healthy to protect the old, sick and weak which this virus primarily affected.

And I enjoyed having my Mother around for a couple more years,.....sorry this inconvenienced you.

 

[Winds]

Indeed. The fact that most of the restrictions actually impacting us day were under provincial mandates seems to get overlooked at times, depending on which party governed a particular province at the time. I’ve seen a TON of angry and ignorant attribution of various measures to the federal government that were entirely provincial in their enactment and enforcement.

Tell that to a federal employee or someone who works in a federally regulated sector (banks, transport, etc.) who lost their job due to the federal government's vaccine mandates... was that not the leading issue going into the last federal election. JT said that it was the most important election since WW2 and characterized his party as the one that was "following science" (despite not actually following the advice of medical experts). Then the first act on being re-elected was the mandate for public servants. His cabinet members then recommended provinces and private businesses to follow suit, assuring them that the feds had their back. Later he described the election as a referendum on his pandemic policies.

Of course, if you don't have much of a counter argument you can always just try to minimize what others say... perhaps by saying something like "well some other medical experts were even more extreme and narrow-minded in their views" or "if you think the federal government made bad choices, you should see what the provincial governments did".

 

[Winds]

The only I can think of is Currie, and I believe that was a private civil action.


You raise a fair point, but the 'Charter' argument fails; 'mobility rights' as written were not impacted. Even without a Section 1 'reasonable limits' test, Intra and inter provincial travel was still possible. Ontario did announce it but retracted it less than a day later.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.​

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:​

1. to move to and take up residence in any province; and
2. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in section (2) are subject to:​

1. any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
2. any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Sections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.​

​

​

*****

Assuming they would have done something, I wonder how the post-game analysis would have played out if the Conservatives had been in power. Maybe it would have been Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin all-round.

Mobility rights were not the only rights infringed upon but I don't understand how you think domestic travel restrictions don't directly infringe upon people's ability to freely move to and take up residence in any province, or to pursue the gaining of a livelihood there... or to freely enter and leave the country. Sure this policy didn't effect international travel (there was a seperate policy for that), but domestic connecting flights, along with trains and buses were prohibited. That's not even delving into the mandatory disastrous testing and quarantine measures in place at certain times.

 

[Quirky]

had us stacking bodies in coolers because we couldn’t afford to have airplanes flying between places with active outbreaks.

So the threshold for how bad an illness is our inability to house bodies in facilities which were designed for ordinary times. When tractor trailers start being utilized for storage it's time to panic.

"following science"

JT was following the science that polled well from emotional and panicked people who bought into the fear campaign. There was plenty of other science that disproved the path which was followed.

 

[Winds]

There was one Section 6 Charter case out of Newfoundland; Taylor. The court found that COVID restrictions did impugn Section 6 mobility rights, but that the infringement was saved by Section 1. The question was moot before heard at the NL Court of Appeal.

https://canlii.ca/t/j9p6v

The Taylor case dealt with measures in place during May of 2020 when little was known about COVID, how it spread and what risk factors were involved. What was considered a reasonable measure in May 2020 may not be considered reasonable in September 2021. I disagree with the decisions of superior courts to find significant Charter cases moot after the policy has been repealed, as it does not allow for public accountability. I believe there is an argument for them to be considered similarly to reference cases, but based on public interest rather than government request.

The Peckford case would have been particularly interesting, had it gone to trial, given that he was a Charter signatory and thus able to give his interpretation of the drafters' intentions when the Charter was written.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How to get people on board for the vaxx.

 

[Booter]

Tell that to a federal employee or someone who works in a federally regulated sector (banks, transport, etc.) who lost their job due to the federal government's vaccine mandates... was that not the leading issue going into the last federal election. JT said that it was the most important election since WW2 and characterized his party as the one that was "following science" (despite not actually following the advice of medical experts). Then the first act on being re-elected was the mandate for public servants. His cabinet members then recommended provinces and private businesses to follow suit, assuring them that the feds had their back. Later he described the election as a referendum on his pandemic policies.

Of course, if you don't have much of a counter argument you can always just try to minimize what others say... perhaps by saying something like "well some other medical experts were even more extreme and narrow-minded in their views" or "if you think the federal government made bad choices, you should see what the provincial governments did".

Bruce’s point about provincial legislation and people blaming fed is valid. Some premiers were more than happy to let the mistaken understanding persist too.

I think everyone in here thinks that the PM’s “science” quips were all garbage.

So the threshold for how bad an illness is our inability to house bodies in facilities which were designed for ordinary times. When tractor trailers start being utilized for storage it's time to panic.



JT was following the science that polled well from emotional and panicked people who bought into the fear campaign. There was plenty of other science that disproved the path which was followed.

guy. We were discussing burning piles of bodies on the shoreline in Canada. Save me your minimizations

Like COVID it was most deadly in old folks and those with pre existing immune or respiratory issues. So it was a killer of certain demographics and isolated people more than others. We were lucky that it wasn’t a more deadly thing. We worked with it- everyone in the community had it at one point it seemed like. Sick doctors and nurses. Sick cops. Sick ambulance. Sick schools.

We made everyone stay home. We loaded food into pickup trucks that was unloaded at the airport by people we didn’t come into contact with. Whole community was required to stay home.