Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-30-2020, 10:59 AM   #21
Cecil Terwilliger
That Crazy Guy at the Bus Stop
 
Cecil Terwilliger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Springfield Penitentiary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Pandemic, lockdowns, whatever. It’s all the same. I want us to minimize COVID deaths but also want people to admit that fighting this thing is a lot harder on people than just staying home.
Are you suggesting some people are refusing to admit this?

From the the direct threat to ourselves and families from COVID, the threat and risk due to people not taking it seriously, the lack of social connection due to not going out, the economic stress, the lack of time away from COVID since it cannot be escaped, constant vigilance with regards to hygiene and masks etc, I'd find it hard to believe anyone doesn't understand the broader scope of COVID stress.


This isn't about the "cost of lockdowns and restrictions" that is a misleading premise. If you have that much bias in your question, you definitely aren't going to get worthwhile results. It is about the cost of a worldwide pandemic that has continued to hit us hard for almost 1 full year with the end barely in sight and still looking pretty fuzzy right now.


Also, one persons release is another's stress. All these people trying to have some normalcy by going out, shopping, doing leisure activities, going to the gym etc and fighting for their right to do so, claiming it is safe, pressuring the government to keep things open, they are literally the reason a bunch of other people are worried. It is almost as if people want to make their COVID experience as stress free as possible even if it means making other people's COVID experience much worse than it needs to be. If we all agreed to share the stress, it'd be better for all of us. Instead it is a rat race to minimize our own inconveniences and stresses at the expense of others with not a care for how it might affect them. This also applies to closing things down. If no one is allowed to do anything, then mental health is going to suffer. We can't all sit at home jobless just waiting for a cure.

The biggest difference is what we view as "essential". That means, to me, that a lot of leisure activities will be minimized. We are going to have to focus on only the most important businesses that keep the economy moving and people alive, while placing the biggest restrictions that are "wants" not "needs" for our lives to continue. Business that fall into the "want" category will need to adapt, adjust and possibly get some help from the governement and society at large to stay afloat for post-pandemic times.

Instead what I'm seeing is people ranking their list of desired restrictions based completely on their wants and needs with very little thought of the needs of others. That's peak selfishness and one of the darkest parts of humanity is placing your wants above others needs. And yet here we are. All COVID did was put those things under a microscope and shine a spotlight on the people who are willing to let others die for their own comfort and convenience.

Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 11-30-2020 at 11:06 AM.
Cecil Terwilliger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 11:12 AM   #22
Winsor_Pilates
Franchise Player
 
Winsor_Pilates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Van City - Main St.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveSeven View Post
I always go back to thinking what things would be like if we did nothing.

I hear oh we have more deaths from this and that vs covid.

But what if there was zero lockdowns and did nothing specifically through the winter. I think things would quickly turn nightmarish. Imo.
For sure.

But the data and discussion shouldn't be lockdown vs no lockdown.
This data can be used to help people in addition to lockdown measures.

What if there's another pandemic in 5 years?
Wouldn't it be prudent for governments to learn about all of these unexpected consequences so our toolkit can include mental health resources, suicide prevention aids, drug overdose prevention?
Also the correct stimulus packages to the correct business and workers and knowledge of what type of business closures are most effective to stop spread.

Some people here seem to want to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge these deaths are even possible. It's not a shot at lockdown measures to gain a better, fuller understanding of all consequences the pandemic will have.
Winsor_Pilates is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
Old 11-30-2020, 11:19 AM   #23
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger View Post
Are you suggesting some people are refusing to admit this?

There are certainly people on this board refusing to admit this. I posted multiple times about the massive spike in overdoses in the main thread.

I was met with responses of not enough "statistical data", not enough experts, and straight out denial.

I posted articles quoting healthcare professionals, front line workers, doctors, etc....still the same response.

The same people are trying to minimize the economic effects or insinuate that anyone worried about the economy is really just worried about money. In reality, the economy is linked to things like job loss, depression drug use, homelessness, standard of living, etc...CP is largely made up of male and white collar middle to upper middle class people, so people on here largely remain unaffected.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old 11-30-2020, 11:25 AM   #24
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger View Post
Are you suggesting some people are refusing to admit this?

From the the direct threat to ourselves and families from COVID, the threat and risk due to people not taking it seriously, the lack of social connection due to not going out, the economic stress, the lack of time away from COVID since it cannot be escaped, constant vigilance with regards to hygiene and masks etc, I'd find it hard to believe anyone doesn't understand the broader scope of COVID stress.


This isn't about the "cost of lockdowns and restrictions" that is a misleading premise. If you have that much bias in your question, you definitely aren't going to get worthwhile results. It is about the cost of a worldwide pandemic that has continued to hit us hard for almost 1 full year with the end barely in sight and still looking pretty fuzzy right now.


Also, one persons release is another's stress. All these people trying to have some normalcy by going out, shopping, doing leisure activities, going to the gym etc and fighting for their right to do so, claiming it is safe, pressuring the government to keep things open, they are literally the reason a bunch of other people are worried. It is almost as if people want to make their COVID experience as stress free as possible even if it means making other people's COVID experience much worse than it needs to be. If we all agreed to share the stress, it'd be better for all of us. Instead it is a rat race to minimize our own inconveniences and stresses at the expense of others with not a care for how it might affect them. This also applies to closing things down. If no one is allowed to do anything, then mental health is going to suffer. We can't all sit at home jobless just waiting for a cure.

The biggest difference is what we view as "essential". That means, to me, that a lot of leisure activities will be minimized. We are going to have to focus on only the most important businesses that keep the economy moving and people alive, while placing the biggest restrictions that are "wants" not "needs" for our lives to continue. Business that fall into the "want" category will need to adapt, adjust and possibly get some help from the governement and society at large to stay afloat for post-pandemic times.

Instead what I'm seeing is people ranking their list of desired restrictions based completely on their wants and needs with very little thought of the needs of others. That's peak selfishness and one of the darkest parts of humanity is placing your wants above others needs. And yet here we are. All COVID did was put those things under a microscope and shine a spotlight on the people who are willing to let others die for their own comfort and convenience.
A couple of weeks ago, I predicted long-lasting consequences on people's mental health and overall well-being that would go on far longer than COVID. I was immediately dismissed and now the data is bearing that out.

This is one of the worst periods in the last 70 or so years. I'm with you on sharing the stress. I have reevaluated and reinvested in all of the key relationships in my life and have expanded my circle of key relationships as well.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 12:04 PM   #25
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
A couple of weeks ago, I predicted long-lasting consequences on people's mental health and overall well-being that would go on far longer than COVID. I was immediately dismissed and now the data is bearing that out.

This is one of the worst periods in the last 70 or so years. I'm with you on sharing the stress. I have reevaluated and reinvested in all of the key relationships in my life and have expanded my circle of key relationships as well.
The mental health consequences of Covid have been widely discussed for months in multiple places.

Can you just stop with the scorned prophet routine? You've held basically every position since this started.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 11-30-2020, 12:11 PM   #26
Cecil Terwilliger
That Crazy Guy at the Bus Stop
 
Cecil Terwilliger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Springfield Penitentiary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
A couple of weeks ago, I predicted long-lasting consequences on people's mental health and overall well-being that would go on far longer than COVID. I was immediately dismissed and now the data is bearing that out.

This is one of the worst periods in the last 70 or so years. I'm with you on sharing the stress. I have reevaluated and reinvested in all of the key relationships in my life and have expanded my circle of key relationships as well.

Just to confirm, you posted about long term effects of COVID, not lockdowns/restrictions, right? Massive difference IMO. One is a discussion about COVID, the other was used as an argument and as supposed evidence supporting less restrictions.


This is where I've seen most of the disagreements happen. People come in and say the lockdowns are bad for mental health, ignoring that it is COVID that is the problem, not lockdowns. Blaming it on lockdowns is missing half the evidence and many of the arguments were disingenuous. Not saying yours was one of these, just pointing out the nature of the discussion on CP as I saw it, very broadly of course.
Cecil Terwilliger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 12:29 PM   #27
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
The mental health consequences of Covid have been widely discussed for months in multiple places.

Can you just stop with the scorned prophet routine? You've held basically every position since this started.
Nah, makes it less fun.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 12:40 PM   #28
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CASe333 View Post
Excess deaths is an important statistic because it helps measure the total impact of the pandemic. It avoids mistakes from countries or regions that under reported Covid related deaths as well as accounts for deaths that would have occurred anyways. I do think it is much too soon to start reaching for any kind of conclusions but the data Gullfoss presented is something I think can invoke good discussion.

On that note here is my observation that I am really puzzled about:

I've been looking at excess deaths using:
https://ourworldindata.org/
If there is any reason their data is flawed please let me know.

If you go down to the second graph plotting excess deaths by age and countries there is no surprise that for most countries the 85+ and 65-74 age groups have spikes in the spring when we first locked down. Its lesser pronounced in the fall because data could be incomplete or the fall flu season does contribute a large number of deaths anyways so excess deaths is at a wash but that can be debated.

What I find perplexing is that if you plot ages 15-64 for almost every country it looks like noise between +/-10% excess deaths. The exceptions are Spain, Italy and England who had their healthcare systems overloaded in the spring. Looking at Germany, Finland, Portugal, Canada, Israel or Sweden or any other country they've counted is close to average when taking the running avg over the year. There is no obvious spike for most unless their public health systems were overwhelmed.

The one exception is the US. Their 15-64 excess deaths mirrors their excess deaths for the older age groups throughout the whole pandemic and even exceeds it % wise in June-July. This is completely different than the trends seen in all other countries. Since mid March the excess death rate for 15-64 in the US has consistently exceeded 20% according to this data! This doesn't make sense to me since their health care was said never to be at max.

My hypothesis is that this is one of the best indicators of how broken the American health system is compared to the rest of the world.
My wife suggested obesity is rampant in the US and could be a factor too but I don't see how this explains the ongoing trend.
A third hypothesis is the data is incomplete and could be faulty too. This always is important to consider

Curious to other interpretations.
It might be because the 15-64 age range is wide enough that it includes some people who are at a fairly high risk of mortality from COVID at the higher end of the range. So areas with higher COVID death rates are going to likely see pretty big jumps in mortality in that cohort, though the increased mortality is likely centered on the 50-64 range.

That said, I'm not sure the definition of "excess deaths" in those charts or in this thread in general is all that informative. Deaths fluctuate year to year, particularly when just looking at subgroups of the whole population, so basing the threshold on a simple average of the prior 5 years can lead to some wonky results. The way the CDC does it is a bit better. They use an upper threshold based on the 95% confidence interval of expected mortality in a given week. So that allows for normal fluctuations and only when the threshold gets exceeded are there considered excess deaths. So with that fairly conservative measure, prior to COVID the US had gone over 2 years without a single week with excess deaths. Since March they've gone 36 straight weeks with excess deaths in every week, which shows just how damaging COVID has been:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Old 12-01-2020, 11:43 PM   #29
CASe333
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
...

That said, I'm not sure the definition of "excess deaths" in those charts or in this thread in general is all that informative. Deaths fluctuate year to year, particularly when just looking at subgroups of the whole population, so basing the threshold on a simple average of the prior 5 years can lead to some wonky results. The way the CDC does it is a bit better. They use an upper threshold based on the 95% confidence interval of expected mortality in a given week. So that allows for normal fluctuations and only when the threshold gets exceeded are there considered excess deaths. So with that fairly conservative measure, prior to COVID the US had gone over 2 years without a single week with excess deaths. Since March they've gone 36 straight weeks with excess deaths in every week, which shows just how damaging COVID has been:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
I agree with some of your points but looking at the CDC graph you linked and the graphs I alluded to (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid) the two sources follow the exact same trends for the US. I'd say based on your post we both completely agree that this data shows how damaging Covid has been in the US. The biggest difference between the two data sources as you explained is the CDC uses a very conservative measure resulting in less magnitude of excess deaths in the CDC graph. So the CDC source actually shows less of a percentage of excess deaths but they are quite close and as I said follow the same trend throughout the last 10 months so logically I think it helps confirm the ourworldindata is reasonably collected if not accurate.

..."It might be because the 15-64 age range is wide enough that it includes some people who are at a fairly high risk of mortality from COVID at the higher end of the range. So areas with higher COVID death rates are going to likely see pretty big jumps in mortality in that cohort, though the increased mortality is likely centered on the 50-64 range. "

Going back to your original paragraph my point is that the US is the only country to have experienced sustained +++excess deaths for the 15-64 age at a sustained rate throughout the pandemic. In this case I don't understand your argument since the age range is applied to all countries and I don't think the US has an older population compared to Germany or most of the European countries that did experience a bump in April.

Its probably not as interesting as I thought it was but still appreciate different takes.
CASe333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 12:25 AM   #30
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Nm
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2020, 11:22 AM   #31
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Why would we treat only suicide as a negative mental health outcome from the social distancing measures of the pandemic? Suicide is only one extreme outcome of mental distress, and one that typically takes years to develop. If we had all been forced to eat nothing but fast food for the last eight months, would we assess the health impact only by the number of people who died of heart attacks in that time?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2020, 12:32 PM   #32
AFireInside
First Line Centre
 
AFireInside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
There are certainly people on this board refusing to admit this. I posted multiple times about the massive spike in overdoses in the main thread.

I was met with responses of not enough "statistical data", not enough experts, and straight out denial.

I posted articles quoting healthcare professionals, front line workers, doctors, etc....still the same response.

The same people are trying to minimize the economic effects or insinuate that anyone worried about the economy is really just worried about money. In reality, the economy is linked to things like job loss, depression drug use, homelessness, standard of living, etc...CP is largely made up of male and white collar middle to upper middle class people, so people on here largely remain unaffected.
You were met with criticism because the overall trend from 2008 was a gradual climb, with cases beginning skyrocket starting around 2012 You're using 1 year of data to state there were dramatic increases, when it can easily be an anomaly. Should everyone ignore the data from 2008 through 2018? Right now 2020 is predicted to basically be in line with the trend from 2017 and 2018. It could end way higher, but so far we don't know. The 2019 numbers are significantly lower than 2018 and 2017, and slightly lower than 2016. This is all BC data.

There are down years throughout even though the trend is on an overall climb.

2005 - 230
2008 - 183
2011 - 295


Further
2014 - 369
2015 - 529
2016 - 991
2017 - 1493
2018 - 1549
2019 - 982
2020 - Estimated to be about 1650.

It will go up and down, but to make it black and white based on one year is bad analysis. If it had peaked in 2017 and was on a downward trend I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

As for Alberta, we have a government closing safe consumption sites, and cutting funding. It's not as simple as saying it's covid. There are other elements that go into this.Are more people actually using? Or people using more? How has the drug supply been affected with border closures, is that causing more overdoses?

I have a number of people in my life that have never once mentioned overdoses, or suicides, and now it's their crusade. It's transparent and gross why that is.

Where was all the concern about drug overdoses from these citizens in 2015 and 2016 when case numbers doubled in BC?

Overdoses and suicides may get worse since we all know this kind of stuff is tied to the economy and we aren't out of this. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did get worse but that isn't the case yet, and to suggest it's due to lockdowns, is also not based on good data. We've basically had no lockdowns.

If overdoses end up being significantly higher, is it due to restrictions? Maybe it's due to stress about a virus running rampant, can you differentiate that? You can't.

To suggest that most people here aren't affected by drug addiction, or mental health issues because they are white collar middle class types is also pretty weak.
AFireInside is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AFireInside For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2020, 01:39 PM   #33
woob
First Line Centre
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

I’d be curious to know if those who yammer on about the “rise in opioid ODs” also vehemently support and rally behind safe injection sites?
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2020, 10:27 PM   #34
#-3
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Exp:
Default

I think blaming lockdowns for increased mental health problems is an incredible false dichotomy. And using suicide numbers is throwing out a lot of useful information.

I don't really have the time to dig into the research on this, but I would be willing to bet that their are a lot of mental health indicators other than suicide that would be very useful to a credible social researcher.

I also would strongly predict that to whatever extent you find the year of COVID correlated with worse mental health outcomes the signal will be significantly stronger in areas with severe outbreaks, and less correlated in areas were strong and decisive measures were taken to quell the spread. I'm willing to bet the effect of resisting public measures to prevent the spread of COVID is worse mental health outcomes, and people are going to the exact opposite conclusion because the want a talking point against health measures, otherwise this wouldn't be a key part of the conversation because both viral health and mental health conversations would be pulling in the same direction.
#-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2020, 11:41 PM   #35
Boreal
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Boreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
There are certainly people on this board refusing to admit this. I posted multiple times about the massive spike in overdoses in the main thread.

I was met with responses of not enough "statistical data", not enough experts, and straight out denial.

I posted articles quoting healthcare professionals, front line workers, doctors, etc....still the same response.

The same people are trying to minimize the economic effects or insinuate that anyone worried about the economy is really just worried about money. In reality, the economy is linked to things like job loss, depression drug use, homelessness, standard of living, etc...CP is largely made up of male and white collar middle to upper middle class people, so people on here largely remain unaffected.
“Refusing to admit” something is happening is not the same as “not prioritizing” what you think needs attention.

When you lose focus on the virus, the root cause of all the uncertainty and instability, everything you mentioned gets demonstrably worse.
Boreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2020, 02:35 AM   #36
DeluxeMoustache
 
DeluxeMoustache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports View Post

Please help me understand if you are simply providing a data point or have anything to volunteer in terms of interpreting that data point.

Please elaborate considering all of the factors introduced in the article. Very different society. I’d be interested to see how you view that data point in light of cultural and global factors
DeluxeMoustache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2020, 10:37 AM   #37
kevman
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob View Post
I’d be curious to know if those who yammer on about the “rise in opioid ODs” also vehemently support and rally behind safe injection sites?
Yes. I fully support safe injection sites and the full on decriminalization of all drugs. Drug abuse is a health issue and NOT a crime.
kevman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Old 12-03-2020, 10:41 AM   #38
kevman
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside View Post
It will go up and down, but to make it black and white based on one year is bad analysis. If it had peaked in 2017 and was on a downward trend I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
It's obviously not black and white but the Mayor of Vancouver has come out and said that the restrictions in place have directly led to a rise in ODs this year. The problem is you need support when using illicit drugs so there is someone by your side with the naloxone kit. When you use on your own, you die on your own.
kevman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Old 12-03-2020, 11:05 AM   #39
kevman
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
I believe the comparison of 2016-2019 average to 2020 is incorrect. You need to make an expected 2020 deaths based on the growth from 2016-2019 and even earlier.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lberta-canada/

From the link above you'd expect an approximately 2% increase in the number of deaths in 2020 vs. 2019 as a baseline. Conversely a better comparison would be per capita death rates for each demographic. Has the per capita death rate gone up substantially in 2020?
kevman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Old 12-03-2020, 12:13 PM   #40
AFireInside
First Line Centre
 
AFireInside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevman View Post
It's obviously not black and white but the Mayor of Vancouver has come out and said that the restrictions in place have directly led to a rise in ODs this year. The problem is you need support when using illicit drugs so there is someone by your side with the naloxone kit. When you use on your own, you die on your own.

I need to be very clear, I think the pandemic is contributing to overdoses, but I don't think it's the contributor that some would like to believe. Everything negative in a society can be a contributor to drug abuse.

The numbers so far don't support what the Mayor is saying, for him to say it's restrictions that are causing it vs drug supply etc, is misleading.

The trend from 2008 to 2018 in BC was an upward curve, 2019 was way down for a number of reasons. Maybe it was the start of a new trend, maybe and more likely it wasn't. Now 2020 is predicted to fall back in line with the previous 10 years. Throughout that 10 year increase there were some ups and downs as well.

This article from 2019 speaks to part of the reason we're seeing an increase in overdoses. It states that while deaths were down, 911 calls for overdoses were up in 2019. That doesn't speak to a decrease, but maybe better services.

https://www.straight.com/news/131446...ragically-high

“Carfentanil has been detected in 119 suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2019 and 35 deaths in 2018,” it reads.

If carfentanil appears in B.C.’s illicit drug supply with greater frequency, as the coroner’s latest report suggests, it’s very possible the decline in deaths B.C. has seen through 2019 may not last."

Now from what I've seen, the carfentanil so far isn't incredibly high, but the fentanyl numbers are through the roof this year. So it would seem that with the borders closed drugs are being cut with other substances with more regularity.

This article basically says that the supply of drugs are a big issue. So when they are saying restrictions, are they saying because the local pub is closed or are they saying it's because drugs can't get across the border? Those are two very different things, I'd argue that illicit drugs not getting across the border is a good thing.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...-overwhelming/

Simply saying restrictions are causing it is misleading in the sense that it makes it sound like it's things like the economy, or restuarants, and bars being closed, when a huge part is strict border control. Those other things contribute, but it doesn't appear that they are the main cause.

Maybe I have it wrong, but I'm assuming the people arguing that overdoses are up because of restrictions, aren't in favour of opening the border for the drug trade.
AFireInside is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AFireInside For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Calgary Flames
2019-20




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016