How silly are Covid restrictions

Author: ronjs ,

Posts

Total: 39
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 265
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
Here in Ontario we have certain businesses shut down, except for curbside pickup, some businesses are open but you can't buy certain "non essential" items or there are only a certain number of people allowed in stores at one time, which results in line ups at grocery, drug drug stores and hardware stores, which results in having more people in less places, even though they may or may not be distancing. At stores like Costco there are certain aisles blocked off but you can still buy food and pharmaceuticals, but you can't buy clothing ( I guess we can go naked since clothing is non essential ). At Dollerama  you can't buy greeting cards, but at Shoppers Drug Mart you can. At Walmart I saw a woman trying to buy shoes for her child only to be told they weren't essential. I could go on but the point is it looks like you can get Covid from buying certain items from certain stores or walking down certain aisles in certain stores. It seems like our politicians are making up the rules as they go along.  
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
Here is the relevant law in effect until June 2.

ontario regulation 265/21
made under the
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
Made: April 7, 2021 (1:02 p.m.) Filed: April 7, 2021
Published on e-Laws: April 7, 2021
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: April 24, 2021
STAY-AT-HOME ORDER
Terms of Order
1. The terms of this Order are set out in Schedule 1.
Application
2. This Order applies as of 12:01 a.m. on April 8, 2021.
SCHEDULE 1
Requirement to remain in residence
1.
(1) Every individual shall remain at the residence at which they are currently residing at all times unless leaving their residence is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:
Work, school and child care
1.  Working or volunteering where the nature of the work or volunteering requires the individual to leave their residence, including when the individual’s employer has determined that the nature of the individual’s work requires attendance at the workplace.
2.  Attending school or a post-secondary institution.
3.  Attending, obtaining or providing child care.
4.  Receiving or providing training or educational services.
Obtaining goods and services
5.  Obtaining food, beverages and personal care items.
6.  Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an individual, including vaccinations, other health care services and medications.
7.  Obtaining goods, obtaining services, or performing such activities as are necessary for landscaping, gardening and the safe operation, maintenance and sanitation of households, businesses, means of transportation or other places.
8.  Purchasing or picking up goods through an alternative method of sale, such as curbside pickup, from a business or place that is permitted to provide the alternative method of sale.
9.  Attending an appointment at a business or place that is permitted to be open by appointment only.
10.  Obtaining services from a financial institution or cheque cashing service.
11.  Obtaining government services, social services and supports, mental health support services or addictions support services.
Assisting others
12.  Delivering goods or providing care or other support or assistance to an individual who requires support or assistance, or receiving such support or assistance, including,
i.  providing care for an individual in a congregate care setting, and
ii.  accompanying an individual who requires assistance leaving their residence for any purpose permitted under this Order.
13.  Taking a child to the child’s parent or guardian or to the parent or guardian’s residence.
14.  Taking a member of the individual’s household to any place the member of the household is permitted to go under this Order.
Health, safety and legal purposes
15.  Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an individual, including,
i.  protecting oneself or others from domestic violence,
ii.  leaving or assisting someone in leaving unsafe living conditions, and
iii.  seeking emergency assistance.
16.  Exercising, including,
i.  walking or moving around outdoors using an assistive mobility device, or
ii.  using an outdoor recreational amenity that is permitted to be open.
17.  Attending a place as required by law or in relation to the administration of justice.
18.  Exercising an Aboriginal or treaty right as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Multiple residences and moving
19.  Travelling to another residence of the individual if,
i.  the individual intends to be at the residence for less than 24 hours and is attending for one of the purposes set out in this Order, or
ii.  the individual intends to reside at the residence for at least 14 days.
20.  Travelling between the homes of parents, guardians or caregivers, if the individual is under their care.
21.  Making arrangements to purchase or sell a residence or to begin or end a residential lease.
22.  Moving residences.
Travel
23.  Travelling to an airport, bus station or train station for the purpose of travelling to a destination that is outside of the Province.
Gatherings
24.  Attending a gathering for the purpose of a wedding, a funeral or a religious service, rite or ceremony that is permitted by law or making necessary arrangements for the purpose of such a gathering.
25.  If the individual lives alone, gathering with the members of a single household.
Animals
26.  Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an animal, including obtaining veterinary services.
27.  Obtaining animal food or supplies.
28.  Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an animal, including protecting an animal from suffering abuse.
29.  Walking or otherwise exercising an animal.

(2) Despite subsection (1), no person shall attend a business or place that is required by law to be closed, except to the extent that temporary access to the closed business or place is permitted by law.
(3) This Order does not apply to individuals who are homeless.
(4) If this Order allows an individual to leave their residence to go to a place, it also authorizes them to return to their residence from that place.
(5) The requirement in subsection (1) to remain at an individual’s residence does not prevent the individual from accessing outdoor parts of their residence, such as a backyard, or accessing indoor or outdoor common areas of the communal residences in which they reside that are open, including lobbies.
(6) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits a business or place to be open if it is required by law to be closed.
(7) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits an individual to gather with other individuals if the gathering is not permitted by law.
(8) For greater certainty, individuals may only attend an outdoor organized public event or social gathering for a purpose set out in subsection (1) if the event or gathering is permitted by law.
 

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @ronjs
the point is it looks like you can get Covid from buying certain items from certain stores or walking down certain aisles in certain stores.
You've missed the point 100%.  The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19.  The Province of Ontario has told you to go home and stay home until Jun 2nd.  If you can't work from home, go to work and go straight home.  If you need  food and other essentials, have it delivered.  If it can't be delivered, pick it up curbside.  If you absolutely must go into a store, it should be for emergencies with no safer alternative.  You can probably get by until Jun 2 without a new pair of shoes, therefore, yes, stay out of the shoe aisle, please, they've already sent the normal shoe helping employees home so that they get don't get sick from the illegal shoe shoppers.  You can definitely  get by until Jun 2 without buying a greeting card, much less shopping from store to store looking for a place that hasn't roped off the card section.  You have access to the internet so you can buy a greeting card online or make your own.

It seems like our politicians are making up the rules as they go along.  
The law as printed above is reasonably consistent and says nothing about greeting cards or shoes or any specifics.  The inconsistency arises from various commercial responses to law-breaking individuals such as yourself.  Of course, stores would like to maximize sales even if most of their in store customers are violating quarantine but you can't lay the inconsistency of availability on the politicians who have already made the rules quite clear.  If you are out shopping for greeting cards, then you are the one fucking up and putting people at risk. The politicians have done what they can to protect the public from your poor hygiene.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
silly
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 265
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @oromagi
Yes I know what the law says, what I didn't know is that there would be a lack of humour here. But, my post is not entirely meant to be humorous.
The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. That is the point, if you can't get Covid from so called non essential items , then why can't a mother by her children shoes or clothes or other items deemed by someone to be non essential. My experience with online shopping for clothes is every time my wife orders online most of it has to go back because it doesn't fit. During the first lockdown some of the businesses, including Walmart complained about the restrictions, pointing out the fact that they resulted in more people in smaller areas, thereby defeating the purpose of social distancing.
 Not sure how you could possibly know that I am breaking the law by pointing out the inconsistency of the law you see as consistent and attacking my hygene  is a logical fallacy.
 Someone is telling these businesses what they can sell and what they can't, if not our polititions then i don't know who. At least one of those making the rules is making loads of money off of all this because his company, which makes the directional arrows (among others) that tell us which way to walk down an aisle has gone from being worth nine million before the pandemic to now being worth fifty + million.  
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,915
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @ronjs
I would suggest that making up the rules as we go along is the only option.

Or perhaps they tell us how to deal with Covid in the Bible...LOL.

Nanny State expects it's leaders to be miracle workers....Nope, it doesn't work like that.

You need to heed ongoing  advice, but also think for yourself.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,915
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
Silly is as silly does Doc.

There was a woman over here, who went about hospitals protesting against the fake virus....And you've guessed it........Covid-19 killed her.

Silly woman.


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @zedvictor4
lie.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,915
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
Nope....Very true Doc.


And I've just been reading of many similar incidences in the U.S.

Though, believe what you want to believe Doc.

I will continue to be cautious.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
-> @oromagi
Yes I know what the law says, what I didn't know is that there would be a lack of humour here.
Sometimes humor is hard to translate in text.  I did not detect any jokes in your OP- could you identify which passages in your OP were meant to be humorous?

The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. That is the point, if you can't get Covid from so called non essential items , then why can't a mother [buy] her children shoes or clothes or other items deemed by someone to be non essential.
  • Because you can get COVID from mothers and children and shoe store employees.
  • The law does not say that mothers can't buy their children shoes,
    • the law says that mothers should
      • Buy shoes online or
      • Buy shoes curbside or
      • wait 4 days until Jun 2
    • If you have trouble getting the fit right and want to try the shoes on in person, then the law says wait until Jun 2.  No inconsistency there.
During the first lockdown some of the businesses, including Walmart complained about the restrictions, pointing out the fact that they resulted in more people in smaller areas, thereby defeating the purpose of social distancing.
But that is not because of any flaw in the law, right?  The law say zero customers in any part of Walmart except for present emergencies that can't be solved outside of the store.  All those Walmart customers crowding into smaller areas are breaking that law.  The law is not endangering the people by forcing them into less social distancing, the people are endangering themselves and others by breaking the law.

 Not sure how you could possibly know that I am breaking the law by pointing out the inconsistency of the law you see as consistent and attacking my [hygiene]  is a logical fallacy.

  • You have failed to point out any inconsistency in the law.  Please identify at least one inconsistency in the law as I printed out for you above. 
  • My evidence for concluding "law-breaking" and "poor hygiene" is conditioned on your testimony.  i.e "If you are out shopping for greeting cards, then you are the one fucking up"  Obviously, I don't really know if you are telling the truth about Dollerama and Shoppers Drug Mart, I'm just relying on what you've reported seeing.
    • IF you have gone into stores to buy a greeting card during a quarantine that forbids such frivolity then
      • yes, by your own testimony you are breaking the law
      • yes, by your own testimony you are practicing poor hygiene.
  • Pls. identify the logical fallacy you allege and how it applies.
 Someone is telling these businesses what they can sell and what they can't,
  • False.  The whole of the restrictions are printed in POST#2.  There are not some secret by-laws telling Dollerama to sell greeting cards and Shoppers Drug Mart to not sell greeting cards- the rule is "everybody stay home except for really, really important shit"  Buying a greeting card is never ever really important.  Yes, there are some people who don't care about the law or spreading disease and go buy greeting cards anyway and yes, there are some businesses that will go ahead and sell you that card rather than piss off that careless customer but that is not, as you suppose, an inconsistency within the law- that is a failure in civic virtue and good pandemic hygiene on the part of the consumer.  Blame the stupid customer and not the politicians who, in a democracy, are correctly constrained from more vigourous enforcement.
if not our politicians then i don't know who.
I think I have demonstrated the latter.

At least one of those making the rules is making loads of money off of all this because his company, which makes the directional arrows (among others) that tell us which way to walk down an aisle has gone from being worth nine million before the pandemic to now being worth fifty + million. 
I...what?  No idea who "he" is.  No idea what you are talking about.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @zedvictor4
There was a woman over here, who went about hospitals protesting against the fake virus....And you've guessed it........Covid-19 killed her.
Specifics?

sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 868
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say all of them are a 10 on the silly scale because every single protocol regarding a pandemic has been broken 100,000 times over. It was all for nothing for that reason alone. Any real viral scientist is just shaking their heads in disgust as their profession is now a complete joke. They allowed politics to take over their real science. They have 0 credibility  anymore based on their own documented standards regarding pandemics before covid was even a thought.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 906
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
--> @Dr.Franklin
Well, there is this.  An Ohio man died of COVID-19 after actively voicing on his social media accounts that he would not be buying a mask and would not be “buying into the hype” of the pandemic.
Richard “Rick” Rose, 37, of Port Clinton, Ohio, was diagnosed with COVID-19 on July 1, 2020 and passed away just three days later, according to local news media.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @sadolite
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say all of them are a 10 on the silly scale because every single protocol regarding a pandemic has been broken 100,000 times over. It was all for nothing for that reason alone.
If sadolite's reasoning here has any validity then it must follow that every law that has been broken 100,000 times is maximally silly.  So for example, "Thou shalt not kill" must be a very, very silly law because that law has been broken millions of time and the Ten Commandments were all for nothing.  Likewise, all laws prohibiting homicide are pointless because those laws are regularly broken.

Any real viral scientist is just shaking their heads in disgust as their profession is now a complete joke. They allowed politics to take over their real science. They have 0 credibility  anymore based on their own documented standards regarding pandemics before covid was even a thought.
I see no evidence that virologists were  generally guilty of allowing politics to take over science.  For the most part, virologists accurately predicted the course of the disease and effectively communicated the means of prevention.  That many people ignored their advice in no way reflects on the professionalism of the experts.  I think history will note that virologists rose to the challenge of COVID-19 by producing a highly effective vaccine in less than a year- a feat unmatched in the annals of Virology to the everlasting credit of molecular biologists and the global cooperation fostered by those worthies.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @FLRW
statistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @zedvictor4
ok zed, give me a zedku
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 767
3
3
9
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
3
9
I think all covid restrictions should be eliminated.  If your not vaccinated now, your either young enough to have a low shot of dying of covid, or old enough to where you have made your decision and if you get covid, it’s on you.  I hate having to wear masks for people who refuse to vaccinate.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 72
Posts: 3,586
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
--> @Dr.Franklin
even yllis applies.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @Dr.Franklin
--> @FLRW
statistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
It will probably take a few years to collate the correlations in great detail but the preliminary data is undeniable- states with more restrictions suffered fewer coronavirus cases.

The present standard for comparing differences in US State restrictions comes from the Variation in US states’ responses to COVID-19 working paper at Oxford's Blavatnik School in the UK which has been applying a 1-100 stringency index number to government responses worldwide for the purpose of side-by-side comparison.  Let's compare Oxford's ranking to the May 5th NY Times estimates of number of COVID cases per 100,000.

Oxford ranked North Dakota as the state with the least stringent restrictions in the US over the course of the last year and North Dakota was also the worst hit state in the Union.

50th North Dakota — 14,165 covid cases per 100,000 population

South Dakota had the second least stringent restrictions and had the 3rd most Coronavirus cases

48th South Dakota — 13,901 per 100,000

Utah was the third least restrictive and the 4th worst state for COVID

Oklahoma and Wisconsin were 4th and 5th least and suffered the 11th and 10th worst pandemics respectively.

That is quite decisive.  The other end of the scale is just as clear.

Oxford ranks Vermont as the state with the most stringent pandemic restrictions and Vermont suffered the second least number of cases per capita.

1st Vermont — 3,717 per 100,000

while the second most restrictive state had the least number of cases of any state

Hawaii — 2,340 per 100,000

Oregon was 3rd most restrictive and had the 3rd best case numbers

Oregon — 4,448 per 100,000

Washington State and Washington DC were the 4th and 5th most restrictive and the 5th and 6th least cases per capita respectively.

The top 3 least restrictive states were in the top four worst outcomes
The top 3 most restrictive states were also the top three best outcomes
Of the ten least restrictive states, ND, SD, UT, OK, WI, AL, IA, TX, SC, NH, 8 are in the 16 worst outbreaks.
Of the ten most restrictive states, VT, HI, WA, DC, NY, NM, NC, CT, MA, CA 9 were in the 17 best results and all were in the top 25.

One in 7 people got sick in North Dakota, the least restrictive state.
One in 27 people got sick in Vermont, the most restrictive state.

I'm sure a statistician would be more cautious but I call that significant correlation- you were about four times more likely to catch COVID in the states with the least restrictions than you were in the states with most restrictions. Yes, we should probably wait a couple of years until all the numbers are crunched but I'm ready to say
that Dr.Franklin's unevidenced claim:

statistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
is utter horseshit and the opposite of a fairly obvious conclusion. 

Statistically speaking, states with more restrictions fared significantly better than states with fewer restrictions.

sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 868
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @oromagi
Your "OPINIONS" are noted. You will never convince me that sending infected people back home to infect non infected people is pandemic protocol.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 906
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
--> @Dr.Franklin
Here is another one. A  Colorado sheriff's deputy died from COVID-19 complications shortly after sharing a string of anti-vaccination posts on his social media, according to MailOnline.
Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday with his family by his side, Denver's Sheriff Department said on Twitter.
Three weeks before his death, Trujillo had updated his Facebook profile picture to include a border that read, "I have an immune system," the MailOnline said.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @FLRW
your way off topic, were not talking about random cases of anti vaxxers dying from covid, were talking about restrictions!
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @oromagi

"“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”


"“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”


"A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”


"“Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,402
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @fauxlaw
i dont get it
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 5,707
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @FLRW
--> @Dr.Franklin
Here is another one. A  Colorado sheriff's deputy died from COVID-19 complications shortly after sharing a string of anti-vaccination posts on his social media, according to MailOnline.
Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday with his family by his side, Denver's Sheriff Department said on Twitter.
Three weeks before his death, Trujillo had updated his Facebook profile picture to include a border that read, "I have an immune system," the MailOnline said.
In fact, we have lost 2 anti-vax sheriff's deputies in the past month with others sick or hospitalized.  One of the leading local radio hosts promoting anti-vax rhetoric, Steffan Tubbs was hospitalized with COVID last night.