Well, for starters we know it would halve the risk, and then people being just a little farther from one another should reduce the risk at least a little bit more. On top of that, our PHO says they haven't found hockey games to be a big spreader to this point. Is it the right decision? I couldn't say. But the reasoning is clear to me.

50% doesn't start until tomorrow, but no decision for me because the Canucks had their games yesterday and today postponed anyway. Now I just have my fingers crossed that the 50% gives me an out for the two other games I have tickets for in the next few weeks. I'm likely not going either way, but I'd rather not have to decide and thus get credit for a future game.

Edit to add - further on the hockey theme:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...ristmas-break/

So Calgary wants to use public funds for this. As much as I find this law disgusting we need our federal leaders to call it disgusting

https://globalnews.ca/news/8454288/c...uebec-bill-21/

Sadly the only one that had the stones to do it was the Green Party

Lozen you will be extremely pleased to discover that Trudeau has consistently and strongly opposed that bill publicly!

I also think the not-just-yet legal arguments jurisdictionally for when the federal government steps in are likely reasonable here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...ijab-1.6283895

No Justin, Erin and even Jagmit have been very careful on how they label it not to cost votes

O'Toole has even told his members not to talk about it which I am sure the other parties have as well

They should be clear and say its a disgusting piece of legislation

Read the quote again. He is completely clear in his opposition. You are just all mad because you want him to uh rephrase his clear opposition in uh different wording? I do agree O’Toole has been a cagey mother****er on the file, but excellent leadership from Trudeau here who has bravely been willing to pay the high political price of his strong opposition in Quebec.

Canada pledges $40 billion in talks over rampant abuses of Indigenous children

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/10640...enous-children

---

‘I want to know the truth’: Frog Lake First Nation members concerned after $120M in net assets goes missing

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-new...-goes-missing/

---

But as people get exposed to Covid, those with no vaccine and who are vulnerable with comorbidities continue to die off. That is the main way a herd gets to immunity as the weakest amongst them are culled and those not as vulnerable are left.

So herd immunity is being approached. It does not mean immunity to catching, it means less susceptibleness to harm.

Now what we are not sure about is if once covid runs thru the populace and culls the vulnerable, does the post covid effects leave or create new comorbidities that ,make someone who was not susceptible on the first pass, now susceptible on the second pass.

If that is happening then herd immunity is not approaching. If that is not happening then every death of the vulnerable and weak is moving us towards a stronger herd.

Firstly, can we maybe not call about our vulnerable people as being "culled", particularly when characterizing Omicron as a "step in the right direction"? Killing off our most vulnerable people is the thing we've been trying to avoid!

Secondly, no this is not the primary driver of "herd immunity". Thankfully, covid kills at a sufficiently low rate that the "main thing" driving the pool of susceptible down is vaccine and infections, not deaths.

Thirdly, I don't think you really know what herd immunity means given your final sentence. But regardless, we are in an extremely dynamic context where the vaccination rate has dropped to negligible amounts (most either gotten double vaxed or won't ever), where immunity due to vaccines or natural infection is decaying frustratingly quickly, and where new variants change the transmissibility. These dynamic features all make a fixed "herd immunity" a more or less meaningless concept. I actually give a somewhat more sophisticated version of this prompt to my advanced mathematical modelling students who study pandemic models, and one of the big lessons is that in a static model where everything is fixed except whether you've gotten the illness or not, then herd immunity has a well defined notion, but for more dynamic models it is hard to do.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/q...soar-1.5714268

Remember when it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Then ~80% vaxxed back to normal, good times! How long before Ontario and other provinces follow Quebec? It's going to be interesting to see how people start to react to the new lockdown restrictions, judging by reddit comments a lot of double vaxxed people are not happy.

"Why does science keep adapting to changing circumstances???" *shakes fist at clouds*

I would have enjoyed his post more if he included a story about how he used to wear an onion on his belt.

I don't agree with any thing you say there.


First off as you say most people not vaccinated survive covid. That IS a step to herd immunity. Getting it and being amongst those who are the survivors IS herd immunity.

And no, those refusing vaccine are embracing the cull. They are making a choice to test the question. Get it live or get it and die. Again that is the exact process of the cull and those not embracing the vaccine must know that is exactly what they are doing. We should not soft sell the language.

Put covid aside and think of any new XYZ virus. We have a vaccine that takes mortality down to near zero. Or your group can refuse it, get sick and see who lives and gains some immunity and who dies. That is herd immunity by definition.

So sorry but it is you who do not know what herd immunity if you think it is not catching it, seeing who gets it and dies and who lives and the living moving on.

And to hopefully avoid a pointless back and forth over the use of herd immunity, even with vax'd people when they talk about seeking herd immunity it has NEVER involved no break thru re-infection nor diminishing of the anti bodies. What it means is getting a population transmission rate (R) down below 1 such that the virus ceases to then circulate in the population and getting the impact of the virus down such that those who get it are not at risk.

Vaccination can do that by reducing the transmission rate and severity.

Saying no to the vaccine can do that when it the virus burns thru the population, and whether you like to hear it said or not, kills off the weak and vulnerable and leaves behind those who are not as vulnerable and who then have anti bodies.

Both way will reduce R and slow the death and sickness going forward for a period.

What we do not say, or should not, is that duration of the immunity period (which is more a question mark for natural immunity) does not qualify as if the vaccines have the magic amount time needed just by coincidence. We do not know that.

Even in States like Florida you see spikes and then declines in infection despite no measures being taken. That is because you have a percent of the populace who embrace the virus (bath in it and take zero measures) and they get it very quickly and burden the systems, they also then get burned thru, with those who are vulnerable dying off. That group then becomes sort of a buttress in the community for a while as you see the curve bend. They are the most active in the community but are now out while enjoying some protections from prior infection as they circulate amongst those in their communities who are more careful.

Ah that sweet, sweet science is all about half assed lockdowns and political optics. Pfizer says this will last another ~2 years. Sounds good if you're a small business, drug addict, alcoholic, mentally ill, etc.

Bars closing 3 hours early isn't science
Quarantine hotels when the virus is already community spreading isn't science
50% retail capacity isn't science. Either close it tf down or leave it open

You're better than to present politics as science

Ontario is following soon. We were told vaccine passports were there so the vaccinated could enjoy the benefits. Wrong.



Lockdowns were always about theatre. Gotta show the public you are "doing" something. All the places that have vaccine passport get hit with the hammer. Meanwhile all places that don't need vaccine passport like shopping malls and house parties get the nod of approval.

Is it science to restrict all the places where vaccine passports were necessary and leave open all the places that don't require vaccine passports?

Construction sites opened, shopping malls opened, house parties still happening. Science.

Good to see Cuepee turn to the let it rip side.

Is it science to claim reducing capacity by 50% at a 100% vaccinated required event cuts the risk of COVID-19 spreading by half? Why does science say to reduce it by 50%? Why not 55% or 61% or 80%, how does science come up with he safest %? And why does the science depend on what province, state or country you live in?

Nope. Not close. Try again.
I obviously said nothing remotely like this, but nevertheless you frame it making clear you have no idea what herd immunity is here either.

A tad closer but still terrible. Firstly, everything about "those who get it are not at risk" has nothing to do with herd immunity. You sort of start to get there by talking about R_t<1, which is relevant, but no when this happens it is not the case the virus ceases to circulate! That's not true even in a static situation. But in a dynamic one where immunity wanes and the virus's transmissivity changes over time, it is particularly not true that R_t<1 for some time t means herd immunity has been reached and the virus will diminish to zero.

TTC (toronto public transit) has decided to leave all its bus windows open for ventilation. Was -15° last night. I'm going to guess your average bus rider isn't wearing ~$400 outfit required not to get sick in that weather. Imagine waiting at a bus stop in -15 then getting on a bus with all the windows open. Good times

No, of course it's not science alone. But it was as good a response as any to Shifty's "remember when it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve" silliness. And that doesn't mean there was no science involved in "Remember when it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Then ~80% vaxxed back to normal, good times!" Science isn't perfect, and there's unquestionably mistakes, missteps, and surprises. That's what happens when scientists have to make predictions and projections with less evidence than they would in an ideal situation.

Nope. It's never about science alone, IE there's almost no medical policy where decisions are made based 100% on the best possible health outcome. There are always other considerations.

As I said just the other day:

So carrying on about "Remember when it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Then ~80% vaxxed back to normal, good times!" is rather pointless.

But if you're just venting because you're pissed off about our situation and want to find someone to blame, fair enough I guess. I also find the situation quite maddening; I'm just not bothering with scapegoats at this point.

Ya lets agree to disagree here. Nothing you are saying is correct in my view and vise versa for you.

If you don't want to agree to disagree and want to do pages of 'no you are wrong... no you are' until they close thread feel free to prompt by again telling me I wrong and I will step up and reply endlessly. I'll be your huckleberry.

Yeah folks are getting sick of it and we all knew there would be another variant and guess what chances are there will be one after this

The problem is its been 2 years and we still do not have the testing capacity or enough Rapid Tests and in the US the CDC may have misled Americans on kids

If only we just stuck to actual tested science.

Discussion on herd immunity was moved from this thread to the Covid-19 thread.

Babysitting qp is a full time job