Anit-maskers and Anti-Lockdowners tend to go hand in hand.
They can, but aren't necessarily the same.
I'm fairly well set against a good deal of our lockdown measures but was wearing a mask in indoor public spaces months before it was a requirement. But then, I'm a rational man of science.....which some days seems to be a rarity.
Many are parroting terrible ideas (like the Great Barrington Debate) simply because it validates their selfishness. Others are resisting both because of "freedom".
Yeah, I don't put much stock into being against plague measures for the purpose of protecting abstractly-defined freedoms. Rather, I find there has been a serious lack of foresight in terms of unintended consequences and lack of evidence on the efficacy of some restrictions. This, measured against personal freedoms that are guaranteed but only exist as long as they don't infringe on the freedoms of others (in this case, right to life, perhaps) has been severely lacking in any sort of rational rationale.
The death rate follows the infection confirmation by about 3 weeks. So our death rate is relative to the confirmed infections from 3 weeks ago, and not the current confirmed infections. We're currently at near capacity and if the numbers surpass that capacity over the next few weeks, there'll be insufficient treatment, equipment and space and more people will die that could've been saved otherwise.
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
But is there evidence from elsewhere that such instances significantly impacted the fatality rate of the disease? I'm not aware of any.
Don't forget that the infection case rates are vastly under-reported due to the vast majority of cases being asymptomatic or of mild symptom, ergo, the fatality rate is likely much lower than is currently considered.
It isn't the case that this is a particularly deadly virus. It simply isn't. Ebola is, for example. Or HIV used to be.
It's just very virulent and so transmissible. Obviously, the higher the case load, the higher the death toll.
In real terms, yes, this plague is quite deadly, but 2-3% fatality rate is not bad at all when considering some other viruses.
All of that still doesn't mean that vague and bad restrictions are meant to be ignored. Those intentionally gathering in groups, restaurants who secretly opened when dine-in was closed and politicians going gathering with family or going on vacation all know what they're doing is wrong.
I can agree with that. Even I've kept up with most regulations most of the time. No, almost entirely actually. The only thing I may have disregarded was the strict social bubbles of last summer. I kept it to under 10 actually, but it wasn't mutually exclusive. I also have left town a lot to get out in nature because I can't just sit here in town without completely losing my mind.
www.guelphtoday.com
