Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu
I didn't mean too leave that info out, but it fits hand in glove with the case I'm making, which is that mandates save lives because they prevent infections. Ontario had/has restrictions on gathering, workplace and public masking and distancing mandates, vaccine passports, and 81% vaccination rate (all ages) and 85% vaccination all persons over 5 years of age, with a further 4% partially vaccinated. They're not the same because one has been much more successful at preventing spread and vaccinating more people earlier.
|
Matsu, are we sure that the mandates are themselves saving lives, or merely prolonging some of them?
Yontsey points out that the virus mortality rate looks largely the same across the jurisdictions. Assuming that locking down is not a strategy that can be implemented much longer than it already has, then the virus is going to run across the population at some point.
I don't know much about the data myself, and apparently
there's a reason for that. (Don't bother asking if the Ottawa crew are releasing more than the CDC.)
But in the absence of data, I'm starting to believe that a lot, if not most, of the over-70 deaths would have happened anytime they were exposed.
No one has suggested that two years of popping Vitamin D tablets has made anyone more personally safe from the virus.
And so then one wonders if that's the case, why would we lockdown our economy and cause more obesity, drug overdoses, mental health collapses, bankruptcies, divorces and the like, in order to save lives we seem unable to save.
Remember, I'm pro-life. I'm happy to live with emergency restrictions if it can be shown to save lives.
If Omicron's truly less lethal and people were saved long-term by holding them back from the more dangerous variants, that's a huge win.
However, we all got into this not because we thought we could save people by restricting their movements.
We signed up to save lives because the ERs were going to be overrun. And that is apparently no longer a concern.