Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

First off, Smith should absolutely be held accountable for the health care crisis, if the investigation shows wrong doing. Full stop.

I wouldn’t say Canadians are getting what they deserve because of what the Trump government is doing and looking to do to Canada with tariffs and bullying. But let’s be clear, Canada could have been in a better situation with the northern gateway pipeline and strong exports of LNG, adding more trading partners.

Canada isn’t to blame for Trump, we are to blame for not better positioning ourselves globally. The fact that the Liberals are trying to move closer to the center is a positive thing for that party, and it validates what the CPC has been saying for the time that Trudeau has been in power.

It’s nice to see some common ground on a few things politically.

You don't need the rest of that sentence.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The problem there, as it is now with the US election, is that groups of extreme anti-science wieners grabbed hold of any reasonable narrative and discussion, and wrenched it hard, using moderate reasons to convince the larger populist into pushing their message. The same "hide the worst of it" actions led to Trump getting elected again. This is one example:

https://newrepublic.com/article/1654...back-to-normal

But if you want to argue how we handled it in Canada, the argument always was that we had no capacity in the medical system, people would die from covid, other lack of access to treatments, and medical professionals would burn out and quit, leaving our long term health system in crisis conditions that would last years. And all of these things happened, just as they were warned against, as they were pressured to follow these groups calling for loosened restrictions before our system was ready to handle it, and lily-livered politicians caved without listening to expert opinions(not just on covid, but on the strength of our HC system).

So while there was an academic conversation to be had about when it made reasonable sense to change restrictions based on the virus, they weren't all that relevant in Canada when our HC system was buckling.

As to worrying about children's education, from a recent study:


https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...young-children

The reality is, it's a pandemic. People are sick and stressed. Many kids missed a ####load of school, because they were sick. Nothing is going to be perfect, there are going to be negative effects. Blaming it all on masks and lock downs is an ignorant approach.

The real drawback though is we are going to be so ####ed the next time one rolls around, and that can only be blamed on one side of the anti-science gang, and sadly, they convinced a lot of rational people of their views, and have caused our laws and planning around pandemic response to be neutered. So good job to them, they won.

That study doesn't deal with or look at the developmental and learning impacts on school aged kids. It is for kids under 5 and mostly focused on toddlers.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The pandemic is maybe one of the worst examples you can use. Highly politicized on both sides, a quickly evolving situation where much of what we know now had to be learned (aka science!) along the way. Pinning a whole generation of affected learners on the left is absurd.

You’d have been better off citing anti-vaxxers as originating in the vaguely left wing, natural health sphere.

I mean, the proof of what I'm saying is that you're not refuting any actual facts I presented, just vaguely pushing them off because of your biases.

I also highly disagree with the your point on "quickly evolving situation where much of what we know now had to be learned (aka science!) along the way".

By the time vaccines were widely available, the science and data was quite clear that the vaccines were effective at reducing the severity of symptoms and protecting a broad portion of the population, and also that children had a much lower chance of becoming severely affected. The science was clear. But this was still ignored by many on the left, and lockdowns continued, and any notion of the lockdowns being unwarranted was met by angry pitchforks.

Again, the data is clear in the US - children in blue states had a higher reduction in education scores. Clearly this was a politicized issue and had an effect on the younger generation. I don't know how you can possibly say it's one of "the worst examples possible", when it is clear that politics was the reason for this divide.

And again, my point isn't that the left's approach was worse than the right or anything like that. Many lives were needlessly lost because the far right identity politics preyed on people's stupidity against vaccines and mask mandates that science showed was clearly helping save lives. My point was to provide an example that the left has absolutely politicized science at the detriment to society. Though I 100% agree that it's nothing compared to what the right has done.

[Ped]

Sure, but iirc, while there was data showing kids didn't get COVID as much, or as badly, one of the concerns that they were carriers; they would go into school with dozens of kids in their class, take it home, and spread it amongst those that were vulnerable.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

By the time vaccines were widely available, the science and data was quite clear that the vaccines were effective at reducing the severity of symptoms and protecting a broad portion of the population, and also that children had a much lower chance of becoming severely affected. The science was clear. But this was still ignored by many on the left, and lockdowns continued, and any notion of the lockdowns being unwarranted was met by angry pitchforks.

When was the last school lockdown in Alberta vs the time the vaccine was widely available for school aged children?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ped

Sure, but iirc, while there was data showing kids didn't get COVID as much, or as badly, one of the concerns that they were carriers; they would go into school with dozens of kids in their class, take it home, and spread it amongst those that were vulnerable.

Also this. And the fact that Prince’s position lumps the majority of the medical community, who were the most vocal in support of lockdowns and restrictions, in with “the left.”

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

When was the last school lockdown in Alberta vs the time the vaccine was widely available for school aged children?

I didn't know the political divide existed in Alberta only. Is it only acceptable look at Alberta for any and all data points related to science?

Not going to be boxed into your goal-post moving attempted gotchas. If you want to refute the scientific data I've provided, go ahead and do so.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Also this. And the fact that Prince’s position lumps the majority of the medical community, who were the most vocal in support of lockdowns and restrictions, in with “the left.”

Can you show me where I said that?

I think we should listen to medical experts on medical research and health affects. They are not, however, the experts on the educational effects of prolonged lockdowns, or other downstream effects.

As society, we need to listen to experts in their respective fields, and make educated decisions about the benefits and costs of policies. That was not done in this case because of the politicization of the issue from both sides. And damage was done to society because of both sides.

[Ped]

Okay, but the medical experts were the ones calling for the lockdowns. And we didn't know the affects on education of keeping the kids out of school at the time.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I mean, the proof of what I'm saying is that you're not refuting any actual facts I presented, just vaguely pushing them off because of your biases.

I also highly disagree with the your point on "quickly evolving situation where much of what we know now had to be learned (aka science!) along the way".

By the time vaccines were widely available, the science and data was quite clear that the vaccines were effective at reducing the severity of symptoms and protecting a broad portion of the population, and also that children had a much lower chance of becoming severely affected. The science was clear. But this was still ignored by many on the left, and lockdowns continued, and any notion of the lockdowns being unwarranted was met by angry pitchforks.

Again, the data is clear in the US - children in blue states had a higher reduction in education scores. Clearly this was a politicized issue and had an effect on the younger generation. I don't know how you can possibly say it's one of "the worst examples possible", when it is clear that politics was the reason for this divide.

And again, my point isn't that the left's approach was worse than the right or anything like that. Many lives were needlessly lost because the far right identity politics preyed on people's stupidity against vaccines and mask mandates that science showed was clearly helping save lives. My point was to provide an example that the left has absolutely politicized science at the detriment to society. Though I 100% agree that it's nothing compared to what the right has done.

But red states also had more covid deaths than blue states, so you could say it's trading education for lives. Looking at one outcome(and one that isn't death)and forming pandemic policy around that is not good science.

Spoiler!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...atic-counties/

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Ped

Okay, but the medical experts were the ones calling for the lockdowns. And we didn't know the affects on education of keeping the kids out of school at the time.

Nobody knew that keeping kids out of school was going to affect their education?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Ped

Okay, but the medical experts were the ones calling for the lockdowns. And we didn't know the affects on education of keeping the kids out of school at the time.

While we're on the subject of schooling...."effect"

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But red states also had more covid deaths than blue states, so you could say it's trading education for lives. Looking at one outcome(and one that isn't death)and forming pandemic policy around that is not good science.

Spoiler!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...atic-counties/

Idk would you rather that grandma dies or that Billy has worse education outcomes? Tough trade-off.
Strange how we don't see red states (or blue states) doubling down on funding schooling to catch up.



...and I'm noping outta this thread now 'cause ain't nobody got time for another covid lockdown argument.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ped

Okay, but the medical experts were the ones calling for the lockdowns. And we didn't know the affects on education of keeping the kids out of school at the time.

Hard disagree. You'll note that I've been very careful in my posts to say that "prolonged" lockdowns and restrictions were the issue. Not lockdowns in general. I was in alignment with the initial restrictions and lockdowns that were put in place, which were heavily campaigned for by medical experts.

As I've said, where I stopped agreeing was once the data was clear that vaccines were effective at protecting severe disease and children were largely not getting very sick. There was also definitely data at the time that children were starting to fall behind. There are always going to be edge cases where people need to be protected, but you can't stop society functioning to do so. However, there were many on the left that would jump down your throats for mentioning that there are other downstream effects to consider and that prolonged lockdowns were doing more harm than good.

[Johnny Makarov]

Great news for PP right now. Pat King only gets 3 months house arrest instead of the 10 years the crown was seeking.

He can now join the campaign trail with PP!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Hard disagree. You'll note that I've been very careful in my posts to say that "prolonged" lockdowns and restrictions were the issue. Not lockdowns in general. I was in alignment with the initial restrictions and lockdowns that were put in place, which were heavily campaigned for by medical experts.

As I've said, where I stopped agreeing was once the data was clear that vaccines were effective at protecting severe disease and children were largely not getting very sick. There was also definitely data at the time that children were starting to fall behind. There are always going to be edge cases where people need to be protected, but you can't stop society functioning to do so. However, there were many on the left that would jump down your throats for mentioning that there are other downstream effects to consider and that prolonged lockdowns were doing more harm than good.

Would you care to address my points on the need to protect the healthcare system and the vulnerable as a reason for needing to continue firmer restrictions than the virus and vaccines alone allowed for?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But red states also had more covid deaths than blue states, so you could say it's trading education for lives. Looking at one outcome(and one that isn't death)and forming pandemic policy around that is not good science.

Spoiler!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...atic-counties/

I think I already addressed this adequately in these two paragraphs:

And again, my point isn't that the left's approach was worse than the right or anything like that. Many lives were needlessly lost because the far right identity politics preyed on people's stupidity against vaccines and mask mandates that science showed was clearly helping save lives. My point was to provide an example that the left has absolutely politicized science at the detriment to society. Though I 100% agree that it's nothing compared to what the right has done.

As society, we need to listen to experts in their respective fields, and make educated decisions about the benefits and costs of policies. That was not done in this case because of the politicization of the issue from both sides. And damage was done to society because of both sides.

Again, my entire position is that the right with their "science" fear mongering caused many needless deaths with their politicization of the issue causing widespread refusal to utilize masks and get the vaccine in red states. (We'll ignore right now that obesity and diabetes are more prevalent in red states, and those are some of the factors that led to the higher death rates in those states). At the same time, the left also did some damage with their politicization of the issue and prolonging lockdowns when they did not need to because, causing other downstream issues like educational effects in the name of virtue signaling.

And I keep saying this: people asked for an example of when the left has politicized science to our detriment. I provided one, with data to back it up.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I think I already addressed this adequately in these two paragraphs:

Again, my entire position is that the right with their "science" fear mongering caused many needless deaths with their politicization of the issue causing widespread refusal to utilize masks and get the vaccine in red states. (We'll ignore right now that obesity and diabetes are more prevalent in red states, and those are some of the factors that led to the higher death rates in those states). At the same time, the left also did some damage with their politicization of the issue and prolonging lockdowns when they did not need to because, causing other downstream issues like educational effects in the name of virtue signaling.

And I keep saying this: people asked for an example of when the left has politicized science to our detriment. I provided one, with data to back it up.

Sigh. You again ignore my point that it wasn't for virtue signalling, it was to protect the healthcare system. You keep ignoring that, and what the trade off is. This is a blatant straw man argument, making your point is invalid, unless you want to address it.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would you care to address my points on the need to protect the healthcare system and the vulnerable as a reason for needing to continue firmer restrictions than the virus and vaccines alone allowed for?

Sigh. I've already addressed this, so not sure why I need to keep repeating myself just because you choose to ignore it.

It was pretty clear shortly after vaccines were widely available that they weren't going to be a full cure, and COVID was going to be endemic. I also don't think that after vaccines became widely available that the health care system was under nearly as much strain that we needed to be worried about a collapse. But happy to be proven wrong on this point

So those vulnerable were always going to be vulnerable, just like they are with the flu and any other infection. The best we could do as a society is to follow the advice of medical experts and data showing that the vaccine was safe and effective. Shutting down society to protect the few vulnerable people was something that became obviously a hindrance to society.

People die of lots of things daily - the flu, driving, etc. We don't shut down society for those things, but the pandemic became so politicized that we lost some common sense on how we approach these issues.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Sigh. I've already addressed this, so not sure why I need to keep repeating myself just because you choose to ignore it.

It was pretty clear shortly after vaccines were widely available that they weren't going to be a full cure, and COVID was going to be endemic. I also don't think that after vaccines became widely available that the health care system was under nearly as much strain that we needed to be worried about a collapse. But happy to be proven wrong on this point

So those vulnerable were always going to be vulnerable, just like they are with the flu and any other infection. The best we could do as a society is to follow the advice of medical experts and data showing that the vaccine was safe and effective. Shutting down society to protect the few vulnerable people was something that became obviously a hindrance to society.

People die of lots of things daily - the flu, driving, etc. We don't shut down society for those things, but the pandemic became so politicized that we lost some common sense on how we approach these issues.

The HC was absolutely under massive stress when lock-downs ended.

On September 9, amid strained ICU capacity and the cancellations of elective surgeries province-wide, Hinshaw admitted that the province's decision to treat COVID-19 as an endemic disease was premature.

Alberta Health Services announced that British Columbia and Saskatchewan declined to accept ICU patients citing high demand in their hospitals, while the Government on Ontario was prepared to accept Alberta ICU patients. The same day, the Alberta Children's Hospital announced the closure of 75 per cent of the facilities operating rooms to transfer staff capacity to ICUs, the Children's Hospital was elevated to the highest alert level and reduced capacity to complete "life and limb procedures only".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...E2%80%93August


I know people want to forget how it played out, but it was disaster of disaster based on poor choices to loosen restrictions before our HC could handle it.