No, I'm saying any boundary you set falls to the identical argument of well are they less dangerous than one more day????. Maybe it should be 48h or 96h. Each is a marginal change in public health vs economic effect. Given that this is a vaccinated cohort and has significant economic effects (much more than just cross border shopping, like people going for business for a cocuple days then returning) it seems like a reasonable enough middle ground.

I can understand one day which allows more cross border shopping. There is no science that says 3 days is safer than 4 . For a guy who always says show me the proof.

Experts say its time to remove the PCR test.

So basically, maybe it should be 1 day, maybe it should be 7 days, and maybe it should not exist at all. The only thing you are confident on is that since the Liberals proposed 3 days, that just must be wrong.

No if any government did this it would be plain out stupid and not based on Science and what its own experts are saying .

So if they had followed your suggestions for one day, seven days, or never, all of those would be fine and you wouldn’t be mad but because they chose 3 days you are launching into a speech about ~*science*~?

This is a balance of public health vs economic health. There is no objectively right scientific number. It’s a judgement call like so many others in this pandemic. When you suggest both a smaller and a larger and no number as viable alternatives, it just makes it seem like your opposition isn’t anything to do with ~*science*~ and just the fact that you abhor liberals with the passion of a thousand seething suns

I would think one day or no days would be more of a balanced and rational decision. Reality is every day you spend in a area with a higher infection rate will increase the probability of you catching it ( preaching to a math prof yeah yeah)

Ah great, let's add zero days to the list. Viable options you have mentioned: zero days, one day, 7 days, and no PCR tests at all. The only objectively scientifically proven wrong answer is whatever the Liberals say because that will make you mad.

I repeat unlike you I can be critical of all governments. My point is 3 days is a dumb number and having PCR tests is dumb. It also has no science behind it .

If O'Toole had done this Id be critical as well

You get that 0<1<3<7, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think there are arguments on both sides. If you are more concerned about the economy, you would think PCR tests are onerous on people coming over for business for just a single day. If you are more concerned about public health, you would think that people staying a week with no tests is too risky. That doesn't mean either of those people have to think that 3 days is a pragmatic middle ground, but to be mad at 3 days while simultaneously suggesting either 1 or 7 just seems ridiculous.

Oh from a science based decision its No PCR Tests or required PCR tests. Though from a business point of view allowing one day allows cross border shopping .
If your truly looking to allow fully vaccinated CDN's the opportunity to travel more than you would go a week or two. Now I could see saying to the going south for the winter folks you need the PCR test.

Heck Canada is at 80% fully vaccinated which is really good

This really connects with pretty common misconception of what ~*science*~ is. Being scientific isn't the same thing as meaning your public policy decisions are black and white 100% one way or 100% the other. A policy that balances economic and public health factors can still be "science based" even if it is a balance between competing factors. At every single stage of the pandemic our public health policies could have been more or less restrictive, just like this one, and finding reasonable balances is important. Confusing that with not being scientific is pretty bad 18 months into the pandemic.

If all of zero days, one days, one week, two weeks, and never are all reasonable options, why - precisely - is 3 days so obviously "stupid"? It seems pretty clear it is a compromise that gets rid of the big friction point of PCR tests which are pretty onerous for someone doing a one day turnaround, while still keeping them in place for longer and thus riskier trips. I have no real claim that 3 days is the optimal number to balance this, but your willingness to think both less AND more days are reasonable numbers but the specific number the liberals chose is obviously stupid mainly just is about your hyperpartisan bias.

No lets look at typical vacation patterns

Mexico, Caribbean, Hawaii 7 days
Las Vegas 4 or 7 days based on packages
Phoenix Golf 7 days

Most folks travelling to the USA go for a day trip or the ones posted.

Lets move on I think its a stupid time frame you Anything the liberals do is just plain fantastic

The Fraser valley has been flooding since forever. If this was the first time it's ever happened your whole "omg climate change" stance might have some merit to it . You and your ilk claiming every natural disaster or weather event is because of man made climate change makes you an ideologue.

That article/study is just more I think's and predictions from people who have never been right. Cite or ban that the flood was from climate change, natural disasters are getting worse or that people are at more risk from them.

This is a bit misleading. Yes, flooding is a constant concern there because over a century ago they took a lake and made it into farmland. This is was an extreme event far beyond what they normally have to worry about. Not unprecedented of course; a similar flood happened in 1990. But it wasn't just this valley that has been "flooding since forever" that had an issue. We've got major roads and highways that have been devastated in ways that will take months to repair (likely a year+ to completely restore). This was clearly a very extreme weather event for a large area of the province that can't simply be hand-waved away because one valley has "been flooding since forever". That doesn't mean one can directly tie it to global warming, of course.

Nice strawman. Here's what uke actually said, which you already know, since you've quoted it yourself:

Continuing the strawman.

Cool story, bro. So if you want to take issue with some of assertions in there, go ahead and do so. Or don't. But doubling down with "cite or ban" simply because you don't like the citation provided is nothing more than trolling.

What a fun thread this would be if we all engaged in that kind of behaviour. Like this:

Cite or ban.

Am I doing that right?

Shifty I do not know if you really know science or economics but ….

1 day do not make a trend in economics but multiple days does .

In science I can find basically 1 paper saying just about anything but what makes a science facts is the amount of scientific papers, that increase the degree of confidence needed to claim a science theory true .
Climate changes papers dominate by like 98-99% of paper confirming human do affect climate .

So I guess this flood means nothing by itself about climate changes but do you really need a citations of commonly extreme natural events occurring more and more Often ?

Again 1 event do not equal a trend but a series of events does .

In some ways was the area of Abbotsford self created? Not agreeing a buddy sent me this with the word Karma


https://globalnews.ca/news/8385289/s...first-nations/

Man watching Global last few nights and CBC online the devastation is mind boggling

Great read .

Not just in some ways - it was completely self-created. Well, at least the Sumas Prairie area, but that isn't where the vast majority of the population is located.

If he's looking at it from an indigenous perspective (regardless of whether he or she is indigenous), then that's valid, but said karma is falling very disproportionally. We all benefit from our colonist predecessors having stolen the land we live on, and many of us benefit from the food grown on those lands; taking a broad view, this can certainly be seen as a comeuppance for the colonizers (and their descendants, all of us) that decided they should tame nature.

If he means this is karma for those particular people that live there now, that would seem to be a pretty unreasonable (and dickish) point of view.

Yes he was looking at it from the indigenous point of view and not the latter. Of course he had compassion for anyone displaced as do we all for the human and livestock and property lost.

Over the weekend I saw more footage and coverage of the disaster and I just do not see and quick fixes for some of these highways. One rea outside of Hope has 41 km gone ?

Such an irresponsible statement by David Suzuki I am glad the premier Spoke out about it. Our PM should as well


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...climate-change

David Suzuki: public enemy #1

Man Biden hates Canada

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...edgdhp&pc=U531

FYP.