Ontario Covid lockdown - will it be extended?

[buster]

I thought I would stay out of this but here I am back in. The age is irrelevant. You cannot protect old people if the disease is running rampant in younger groups. The disease will reach us because that's what diseases do.

Some of us live with families, like the woman who I know who died. The disease came in through her son-in-law who got it who knows where, and he was asymptomatic. The whole family got covid. She was a healthy 76 and died. She wouldn't have if she lived in New Zealand.

Some take care of grand-kids while the children's parents work, maybe at a hospital for example. If the disease is all over the community it will reach those older people.

Care givers, no matter how it is set up, have families, boyfriends, girlfriends, co-workers, kids who play with neighbours. If one caregiver in the very early stages of covid transmits it to the Nursing Home, it will spread easily to the vulnerable.

Older people have to go out to doctors appointments, dentists, and in my case, have eye surgery (I'm fine now, thanks for asking), get snow tires put on, and whatever. We don't live in caves with sealed doors.

If it is rampant in the community, covid will find its way easily to old folk. The community is super-connected. The fewer cases there are, the less likely it is to reach the vulnerable.

I will leave it to someone else to make the last post.

[gmiller1977]

All very good points! 

All I'm saying is that lockdowns aren't working to protect those that are at risk.  I understand that seniors don't live in caves with sealed doors, but, if we put police on the streets with a curfew, we're halfway there.

I am sorry to hear about your eye, I wasn't aware that you had any surgery, but I'm glad that it is doing ok.  What was wrong?

[Jason]

70.4% of all hospitalized cases (cumulative) are aged 60+
63.9% of all ICU cases (cumulative) are aged 60+

Therefore the vast majority of all hospitalized COVID patients are seniors. 

2/3 of hospital and 2/3 of ICU cases do not a vast majority make. You're taking a pertinent piece of data and warping it to serve your argument that the government should only focus on seniors and/or LTC homes. But if 1/3 of the patients are under 60+ this disease is pretty serious for those who aren't seniors, too. And most seniors don't live in LTC homes so there is no easy way to protect them other than to keep the disease at bay in the larger population who interact with them.

Regarding that your argument about lockdowns aren't necessary, you've already admitted they worked in the Spring to reduce numbers but you're saying they won't work now. That makes no sense. You argue that a lockdown isn't necessary because it doesn't protect those most at risk but as Buster has pointed out you can't stop a contagious disease by focusing on only one group. That is unless you somehow cordon them off from everyone else. Most seniors aren't in LTC homes. Only those with the highest needs for healthcare are in them. Therefore, I can't possibly see how you can protect them. And even if you could, you can't just let the disease rage on with everyone else. Because people of other ages DO die. Even if 99.5% of the deaths are seniors, 0.5% of 2/3 of Ontario (non-seniors) is pretty significant. That's 50,000 people if everyone other than non-seniors got it. That number is more than half the population of Peterborough. So you can't just focus on seniors even if you could separate them to protect them (and not sure that'd be a good idea). So you have to lower the overall case numbers.

However, the government is focusing its vaccine efforts firstly on LTC homes, their workers, healthcare workers generally and those at highest risk (80+) in the first quarter. That's probably the best approach at this point. Keep the case numbers from getting out of control, if they're not already, and get those at the highest risk vaccinated. I don't see how you can do that without a lockdown.

[Jason]

All very good points! 

All I'm saying is that lockdowns aren't working to protect those that are at risk.  I understand that seniors don't live in caves with sealed doors, but, if we put police on the streets with a curfew, we're halfway there.

Maybe not but I don't see alternatives. People aren't responding to the government just asking people politely to stop behaving in ways that are going to spread the virus and the government has used the "don't kill grandma" argument many times. If you don't stop the spread of the virus then you also can't protect those most at risk. Because they interact with others across age groups. You have to reduce the spread. And if people won't voluntarily do it, then stronger measures are needed like the lockdown we're having.

Buster: Glad your eye surgery went well. I'll PM you about this.

The last argument engages the slippery slope fallacy to argue against curfews (i.e. curfews will lead to sealed doors, therefore curfews bad because nobody wants sealed doors). We know lots of cases where curfews did not lead to sealed doors, most I would expect. Therefore, curfews aren't halfway to sealed doors.

[gmiller1977]

The last argument engages the slippery slope fallacy to argue against curfews (i.e. curfews will lead to sealed doors, therefore curfews bad because nobody wants sealed doors). We know lots of cases where curfews did not lead to sealed doors, most I would expect. Therefore, curfews aren't halfway to sealed doors.

I hope you're right.   

[Jason]

I hope you're right.   

Gentlemanly bet?

[gmiller1977]

Of course!  I could think of nothing better! 

I offer a good pint of beer (or 2 or 3!) and some fish and chips at a pub of your choice!  (assuming you like fish/chips/beer lol.  We can work out the specifics if you don't

I wager we will be under travel restrictions by sometime in April, 2021.

Bet?

[Jason]

I see that a stay-at-home order has been issued. While not strictly a curfew it's pretty similar. You can go out anytime you like but only for essential activities vs. not being able to go out at all in the middle/late evening to the morning. So let's say it's the same thing and we're already at a curfew.

You suggested that curfews were halfway to sealed doors and I said it's a slippery slope argument and that it doesn't have to happen. You said that you hoped I was right and then I suggested the bet, with a wink, which is my way of saying it'd be a silly bet. But you took the bait anyway.

Okay, for me to be wrong requires two things:

1. That sealed doors must happen at some point. Otherwise, how could you know if we were halfway to anything when a curfew happens?
2. We need to agree on the type of scale. Does every new restriction count as 1 or just the group of restrictions that the government enacts at once. For example, does a lockdown count for 1 or 5 or 10? This will help us set the scale so we know that at the end that curfews were "halfway".

(2) sounds really messy so I'd suggest we just go with (1). If we end up with sealed doors just in Ontario, say in a year to give you the maximum amount of time, then you win. Otherwise, I do. I would define "sealed doors" as being required to be inside 24 hours a day backed by locked doors, welded doors, a guard or a sniper in a guard tower for each small street or portion thereof. That'd be a more efficient use of resources.

I could make it a million-dollar bet but I don't think either of us can back that up (unless you have a house in the GTA). But I could do, say $500,000 and put Buster's house up as collateral.  I'm sure he'd be cool with that. Nah, that's silly, let's go for a Fish & Chips at a Pub or Jeff Purvey's, beer unnecessary. Are you on?

[gmiller1977]

I see that a stay-at-home order has been issued. While not strictly a curfew it's pretty similar. You can go out anytime you like but only for essential activities vs. not being able to go out at all in the middle/late evening to the morning. So let's say it's the same thing and we're already at a curfew.

You suggested that curfews were halfway to sealed doors and I said it's a slippery slope argument and that it doesn't have to happen. You said that you hoped I was right and then I suggested the bet, with a wink, which is my way of saying it'd be a silly bet. But you took the bait anyway.

Okay, for me to be wrong requires two things:

1. That sealed doors must happen at some point. Otherwise, how could you know if we were halfway to anything when a curfew happens?
2. We need to agree on the type of scale. Does every new restriction count as 1 or just the group of restrictions that the government enacts at once. For example, does a lockdown count for 1 or 5 or 10? This will help us set the scale so we know that at the end that curfews were "halfway".

(2) sounds really messy so I'd suggest we just go with (1). If we end up with sealed doors just in Ontario, say in a year to give you the maximum amount of time, then you win. Otherwise, I do. I would define "sealed doors" as being required to be inside 24 hours a day backed by locked doors, welded doors, a guard or a sniper in a guard tower for each small street or portion thereof. That'd be a more efficient use of resources.

I could make it a million-dollar bet but I don't think either of us can back that up (unless you have a house in the GTA). But I could do, say $500,000 and put Buster's house up as collateral.  I'm sure he'd be cool with that. Nah, that's silly, let's go for a Fish & Chips at a Pub or Jeff Purvey's, beer unnecessary. Are you on?

A pub without beer?  These exist?   

[Jason]

A pub without beer?  These exist?   

Not that I know of! I just meant I don't need the beer as I'm a teetotaler.