Joshua Weigert April 7, 2021 Other offensive facts, politics

The Never-Ending Lockdowns

By Joshua Weigert
April 7th, 2021

As many of you know, I am Canadian.

I live in the Toronto area, which is in the province of Ontario. Premier Doug Ford announced a few hours ago that as of tonight, 12:01 am Thursday, the province of Ontario, including the Toronto area, will enter a third lockdown/ stay-at-home order.

Yes, you read that correctly. While the USA and most of the world are opening up, we here in Ontario, the most populated province in Canada, are entering another lockdown.

You may be wondering why another lockdown is set to begin?

Well, it’s because Ontario’s Conservative government are spineless cowards that bend to the will of egotistical and puffed up bureaucratic “doctors” and “experts.”

Several of these so-called “experts” have been pressuring the Ford government for weeks to authorize a harsh lockdown due to increased Covid-19 cases and ICU patients in Ontario hospitals.

Here are today’s numbers relating to Covid-19:

3,215 new Covid cases reported today (1)
Nearly 50,000 tests were administered (1)
17 deaths reported today (1)
504 total patients currently in the ICU (1)
27,359 active cases of Covid (1)

There are close to 15 million residents in the province of Ontario. The Ford government will lock Ontario down tonight because 0.0018% of the population currently has Covid-19 and that Ontario’s healthcare system has 504 ICU patients.

According to our health “experts,” 504 ICU patients in a province of 15 million people is a crisis. That’s 0.000034% of the population.

This is where I begin my rant.

Do you need any more evidence that universal healthcare is a disaster? Ontario is destroying small businesses and restaurants, and going into even more extreme debt because a fraction of a percent of residents either have Covid or are in ICU due to Covid. We in Canada have become so terrified of Covid (due to Leftist news outlets perpetuating fear) that we don’t even look at logical responses. Instead, we are repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Lockdowns haven’t worked. It hasn’t only not worked in Ontario, but it hasn’t worked in America or anywhere else.

This is insanity. Enough is enough.

There won’t be an economy left by the time Premier Ford and his government feels comfortable going back to normal.

I am a statistic. A few weeks ago, I contracted a Covid-19 variant. I felt feverish, had a cough, headache, chills, sore throat, loss of taste, and felt tired. The usual symptoms of influenza. In total, I was sick for about 3 or 4 days. I recovered, just like hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents and tens of millions of people worldwide.

This is not a virus that is worth destroying the world economy.

America is realizing this and is opening back up, as is much of the world. However, here in Canada, where freedom is viewed as more of a privilege than a right by our politicians, we are continuing the dangerous path of lockdowns.

I want to be able to visit a local restaurant and eat indoors. I want to be able to go to a Toronto FC game again. I want to be able to go to public events. I want to be able to travel without any restrictions. This is basic freedoms that we apparently took for granted. How can we in Canada call ourselves a free and democratic state when we aren’t even allowed to do basic things like the ones I’ve listed? Will we ever get these freedoms back? It’s easy to give up freedoms, but extremely hard to get them back.

Sadly, it looks like there is no end in sight to these lockdowns.

Sources:

Ontario reports more than 3,200 COVID-19 cases, 17 deaths

3Comments

Add yours

1

Mateusz Swiatek on May 3, 2021 at 5:25 pm
Reply

There is a major glaring problem with what you wrote. You are simply wrong. I live in Ontario as well and like you I believe the current lockdown is a result of poor public health spending and an inadequate response to the virus. Where I take issue with your post is the following:

#1 – Why are you blaming the media and health care professional’s? First off, you are not a qualified medical professional therefore your opinion should make that clear. Secondly, if you actually look in to what is driving this overly cautious response it is because governments will do what the voter’s elected them to do and if you look at voter turnout older demographics are more active voter’s and the government will protect THEIR voters.

#2 – You blame the healthcare system, if you understand how economies of scale works, you will know that by building a more centralized system i.e public healthcare, you will save costs in the long run. You’re inferring that universal healthcare is inadequate. That would be correct if we actually spent the money and then it failed. But clearly in the last 20 year’s OHIP has been getting cut left and right to lower taxes. If you want, go live in the US where an ambulance ride and hospital stay will cost you a portion of your annual income.

#3 – Lastly, I take major offence with your example of getting covid. Statistically, 90% of people that get it are asymptomatic and are non-transmissible. How do you know you are apart of that 90%? How do you know you do not have long covid that damages your cells mitochondria and you might only really feel the effects in 10 years. When we are dealing with a public health emergency, we do not act on speculation or anecdotal evidence. If anything you should be more open minded and thankful that we are dealing with a relatively mild mortality, but what about the people that have committed suicide from losing their voice or taste from covid? This false equivalency that you make between covid and influenza neglects the fact that human’s have been transmitting influenza for centuries so our bodies have some response mechanism evolved to it. My parent’s are both immunocompromised and have abided by the health regulation’s fearing for their health, just because you and a large percentage of the population doesn’t have the same fear should not dictate public policy. As a society we do not neglect the elderly or sick on moral and ethical grounds, why should we start now?

The lockdown is archaic, and relative to other similar population demographics Ontario has reacted poorly and overly cautious. So as much as you want to complain about the lockdown, have some perspective as to why we are in the situation we are in. Personally, we should have segregated 60+ populations, whether business hours and store hours to mitigate their risk and open for everyone else. Your ham handed approach would kill more in the short term like Sweden did, and then you’d do a 180 when it is your parent’s, your family or your friend’s that are sick and dying.

LikeLike
- 2
  
  Joshua Weigert on May 5, 2021 at 12:10 am
  Reply
  
  Alright, there’s a lot to get through so I’ll do my best to respond in a concise manner.
  
  #1. First of all, health care professionals are not elected. Yes, we should try and listen to their advice. BUT, their focus is only on stopping Covid, so their recommendations are centered around this specific goal. Covid policy is not just about stopping Covid. There are other factors, like the economy, mental health issues, drug abuse, etc that should play a major role in policy. What about those who have lost their entire livelihoods as a result of these lockdowns? What about those who committed suicide or overdosed? Do they matter less to the experts recommending stricter lockdowns? What about the experts saying lockdowns are causing a massive increase in mental health issues? Should we not listen to them? Experts disagree with other experts. However, the media is perpetuating fear and clicks by showing only the experts that want stricter measures to be implemented.
  
  “governments will do what the voters elected them to do”. Well, not necessarily. No one elected Doug Ford to implement lockdowns and close businesses. Also, that’s a very naive way of thinking about government. You should know the government doesn’t always have the interests of their voters at heart.
  
  #2. “if you understand how economies of scale works, you will know that by building a more centralized system i.e public healthcare, you will save costs in the long run.” This is wrong. I mean, it works in the private sector, but not when it comes to government. The main reason is simple: It’s not their money. You have a vested interest in becoming efficient in your business because it’s your business and it’s your money/investment on the line. The government doesn’t work like that. We see government spending frivolously every day. Remember the Etobicoke staircase story a few years ago? A man built a staircase to help pedestrians along a park pathway for $500. Long story short, city officials were quoted (and were planning to proceed with the quote) between $65k-$150k for the staircase. This is government misspending in action. This occurs regularly. Toronto school board spent $145 per sharpener to be installed in schools. You have a very different perspective on money when you don’t earn it. I can go on but this really is not an effective discussion to be had via text.
  
  Why is OHIP being cut? Because it isn’t sustainable! It never was. Either you increase taxes more than they already have, or you cut. It’s simple. You’re asking me why I blame the healthcare system, but then admit that it’s been cut in a dramatic way… Seems like we can agree on that. Side Note: America has serious healthcare issues. They have a cross between socialized (Obamacare) and privatized healthcare. It’s actually the worst of both worlds. This is why the doctor can’t inform a patient how much a procedure costs because of all the ridiculous bureaucratic and insurance redtape.
  
  #3. You can take offense all you want.
  “how do you know you do not have long covid that damages your cells mitochondria and you might only really feel the effects in 10 years”. I don’t. A bad cough can also do the same damage long-term. How do you know the vaccine won’t damage your body long term? You can’t say “what if this happens” for one thing, and then ignore “what if this happens” on another thing. Every illness can cause long-term issues. This isn’t anything new.
  “When we are dealing with a public health emergency, we do not act on speculation or anecdotal evidence.” Yes, exactly. The most extremely rare cases should not dictate policy. The “long-term effects” argument is pure speculation, as is the “harmful vaccine” argument.
  “This false equivalency that you make between covid and influenza neglects the fact that humans have been transmitting influenza for centuries so our bodies have some response mechanism evolved to it.” This isn’t true. Every year the flu shot is a concoction of new strains. New strains, or at least mutations, occur all the time. This is why Covid will never go away because it will keep mutating.
  ” just because you and a large percentage of the population doesn’t have the same fear should not dictate public policy.” But you just said government reflects the voters. So if I, and a large percentage of other Ontarioans, agree on other alternatives, then isn’t it their jobs to follow through? Just because you and a large percentage of the population DOES have fear towards to the virus should not dictate policy.
  
  No, we do not neglect the elderly or the sick, and I actually completely agree that segregation of age should have occurred. I want to help the elderly and sick, which is why I am criticizing our healthcare system.
  
  “Your ham handed approach would kill more in the short term like Sweden did.” Pardon me? do you know the mortality rate in Sweden vs Canada? Sweden has a lower mortality rate than Canada and much of the world. Sweden has mortality rate of 1.4%, while Canada has a mortality rate of 1.8%, a big difference.
  “then you’d do a 180 when it is your parent’s, your family or your friend’s that are sick and dying.” This is irrelevant. Policy isn’t made on emotions. If my friends and/or family die from car crashes, I won’t force others to abide by my policies regarding car safety.
  
  In the end, you disagree with me. That’s fine. i can say a lot more but like I said, responding via text on a complex issue like this is difficult.
  
  I do appreciate your reply and willingness to engage in a discussion we need to be having as a society.
  
  LikeLike
  - 3
    
    Matt Swiatek on May 7, 2021 at 3:18 pm
    
    Likewise, I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
    
    #1. I recognize the point you’re making regarding people that have a large economic stake, and also the mental health impact. But by no means am I advocating for more lockdowns. Centrally where I disagree with the approach of opening up quickly is the possibility of being overly optimistic about handling a potential escalation of cases and severity. Opening the province for two weeks before Easter was moronic, but where I stand is if as a government you allow businesses and people to operate without stricter guidance, people will be more careless and frankly that will lead to its own set of consequences. I agree the mental health aspect of this pandemic has not been confronted, and given the number Ontario has, the government response has been overly cautious given the lower risk it represents to the general public. But this to me is an indictment of how poorly how the healthcare system has been set up given our large population. I view myself as a Utilitarian and from what I have seen the appropriate action that positively affects the greatest number of people is still limiting the public in terms of having social gatherings, as mentioned the risk is generally not to the average person, but them passing it on to the elderly or vulnerable has significant consequences. To round out the point as a society we should prioritize the health and safety of all, but given the mortality amongst certain demographics, it should be accepted by all that sacrifices need to be made in the short term. I recognize that people have lost their livelihoods, and frankly, governments at all levels should assist in providing financial remedies.
    
    #2. I recognize there is waste, pork, corruption in government, it is shocking and should not be tolerated. Where I am coming from is the principle that if you build out a system that is appropriately funded it will ultimately benefit society in the long run. I am of the mindset that I would rather the government have the resources to act decisively in the moment such as a pandemic, rather than be lean due to funding cuts and then in the moment struggling to handle the situation. One of the most criminal views in my eyes is the idea that government should consistently be made smaller via tax cuts. Although on the surface this idea is appealing, it neglects the fact that by investing in public programs like OHIP, you are saving long term by having more readily accessible resources for people to draw upon. I am of the mindset that mental health should to some degree be covered by OHIP. The problem with OHIP is there is a group of people that are disproportionally using the services, whereas the average healthy individual might not. For example, an obese individual will be a burden now because they are at higher risk for covid, but also a host of underlying health issues. I would prefer the government was more proactive with what they do, but to me, that is an issue of society not holding their politicians accountable, more than the idea of government failing to work and spend properly. If people paid more attention to the gas plant or other scandals and there were ramification’s the government would be more effective and trustworthy. This speaks to a greater core issue of democracy, which is a subject for another time.
    
    #3. I agree that the fear of the present should not dictate policy over logic. But in the absence of facts, the driver for public health policy and responses should be a cautious and conservative response until we have that information. The most frustrating aspect of this has been the lack of research, trials, data mining to understand the virus to the nth degree. The UK for example tracked all their samples since last summer and they have a near real-time pulse on the variants that are spreading. I give our governments an F with respect to approaching this pandemic with logic.
    
    Where my problem lies is still the equivalency of influenza to covid or vaccine long term effects to not having herd immunity. Your point on the influenza strains is the same, but if you align our covid timeline to influenza, we have centuries of unknown variants and impacts from covid, whereas the flu virus is “under control” in the sense that we have vaccines that are highly effective against the various strains, the issue is we can’t predict which strain will be dominant. Covid is still early in its evolution, generally, in epidemiology, a virus will evolve to either be more transmissible or deadly, therefore the near-term risks of covid vs the flu are significantly higher and should require a tailored and cautious approach.
    
    With regards to the vaccines, as a layperson, I recognize that my knowledge is second or third hand based on what I read. But ultimately the science is solid. If we are looking to vaccinate 8 billion people, there will surely be people that die, people that have severe reactions, etc, it’s simply the odds of the situation. To me when I watch someone like Tucker Carlson have a segment on the long-term effects of vaccines, it simply neglects the fact that yes there is some uncertainty as with everything, but the overwhelming benefit for 99.99% of people far outweighs the impact on the minute. The irony of this is also that anti-vaccination proponents are speaking out about how a small subset of the population would be affected by the vaccine, but they do not extend that sympathy to the 3% of people that are vulnerable on a daily basis to covid. The collective liberty and freedom we have in society are driven not by the government or various subsets of ideology, but the idea that in a time of need, war, or pandemic we collectively respond and react to the threat, and then once it subsides we re-evaluate our strategy. What is frustrating is seeing skepticism of vaccinations that are simply not grounded in fact, but conjecture or anecdotal evidence. I recognize the fear of taking a vaccination and not having studies that show what happens after ten years. But from the science that I understand and the track record of vaccines, there should be a level of trust in the science that developed these vaccines. The myths and misinformation of vaccines are far more damaging to society than the idea that everyone should be vaccinated with a vaccine that does not have a ten-year track record. As a science, the premise is exactly the same as polio and smallpox vaccines which were civilization improving. To me, any decision boils down to which one positively affects the greatest number of people. There is simply no scenario where everyone can be appeased nor can everyone’s concerns be addressed if those same people are not willing to recognize the science and facts available.
    
    LikeLike

	Chante Gulley on Dear Christian Voter
	lindawstorm on Robb Elementary Massacre: Time…
	lindawstorm on Uvalde: Where do we go from…
	Matt Swiatek on The Never-Ending Lockdowns
	Joshua Weigert on The Never-Ending Lockdowns

Share this:

Like this: