Jump to content



Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, deicer said:

Shiftwork will do that for you.

Also helps with 'social distancing' when you never have the same times or days off as anyone else.


or just maybe a very light work load?  ? Lucky you.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTTAWA -- Ottawa has announced that any cruise ship that carries more than 100 people will be prohibited from operating in Canadian waters until at least Oct. 31, pushing off the possibility of a summer cruise ship season.

In March, the federal government announced it was temporarily barring all large cruise ships and ferries that carry more than 500 people, including crew, from docking in Canada until July 1, citing the need to limit the possible avenues for further COVID-19 spread. Now, Transport Minister Marc Garneau is extending that ban for four months.

Though, as of July 1, any cruise ships that have overnight capacity for fewer than 100 passengers or day cruise vessels will be subject to provincial, territorial, and municipal health authority rules as to whether or not they’ll be able to operate.

Any passenger vessel capable of carrying more than 12 people will continue to be banned from entering Arctic coastal waters until Oct. 31, though passenger vessels can begin to operate on inland rivers and lakes in the territories as of July 1.

Smaller vessels like water taxis, passenger ferries and other essential vessels in other waters can continue to operate under the current mitigation measures, such as reduced passenger capacity, Garneau announced on Friday. 

Garneau acknowledged that this decision will have a major impact on the Canadian tourism industry, but couldn’t say whether further financial assistance is on the horizon for the businesses and provinces that will be hardest hit by this move. 

In 2019, 140 cruise ships from more than 10 countries came ashore in Canada, and annually the industry brings at least two million travellers into the country.

“Our Government continues to work with other levels of government, transportation industry stakeholders, and Indigenous peoples to re-examine measures and to ensure Canada’s transportation system remains safe and secure during this time,” he said in a statem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2020 at 11:59 AM, Jaydee said:

Still More Evidence That Lockdowns Were A Massive Waste Of Time, Money, And Lives


And Sweden, which had come under harsh attack from public health experts for not imposing an all-out lockdown, is now being held up by the World Health Organization as a model for the future.


Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO’s top emergencies expert, said that “Sweden represents a model if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns.”

Instead of issuing stay-at-home orders and forced business closures, Ryan said Sweden “put in place a very strong public policy around social distancing, around caring and protecting people in long-term care facilities.”

As we noted recently, Swedish infectious disease expert Johan Giesecke, writing in the medical journal Lancet, says “It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes — a population the lockdown was designed to protect. Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the United Kingdom’s experience with that of other European countries.”

We also pointed to a paper by Lyman Stone, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which looked at the available evidence and concluded simply that “lockdowns don’t work.” Stone found the death rate climbing after the lockdowns went into effect in the U.S.

Don’t expect anyone to admit they were wrong. The public health community – which has been peddling wildly exaggerated predictions of deaths – will never do so. Nor will Democrats and the press – which are committed to the narrative that every death in the U.S. is President Donald Trump’s fault. Trump isn’t likely to, either, since he agreed to shutting down the economy after he started taking his cues from public health doomsayers.

This isn’t to say that no action was needed to cope with this uncharted virus. That’s not the argument any of these researchers are making. What they are saying is that the lockdowns weren’t based on sound science, and that far less intrusive measures would likely have been just as effective, if not more so, without destroying T the economy.To be sure, there are studies claiming that the lockdowns reduced infections and saved lives. 

But as JP Morgan’s Kolanovic noted, “Unlike rigorous testing of potential new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself.”




Seems that Sweden's model was  a failure!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52853556  May 29, 2020

Norway and Denmark say they will open up tourism between their two countries from 15 June but will maintain restrictions for Swedes.

Sweden did not impose a lockdown, unlike its Nordic neighbours, and its Covid-19 death toll - above 4,000 - is by far the highest in Scandinavia.

Danish PM Mette Frederiksen said Denmark and Sweden were in different places regarding the pandemic.

Denmark is also opening up tourism with Germany and Iceland, within limits.

Tourists from those countries cannot stay the night in Copenhagen, which has the most coronavirus cases. Danes can travel to those two countries too, without having to go into quarantine on their return.

The announcement dashes the hopes of Danes hoping to travel to Southern Europe for their holidays and Denmark's foreign minister said they should avoid big cities and stick to the countryside.

At a joint video news conference, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said "we can't open too suddenly, that would jeopardise everything we've accomplished".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 2020 at 6:45 a.m. | UPDATED: May 11, 2020 at 10:51 a.m.

In the worldwide campaign to stamp out death and illness from the coronavirus pandemic, Sweden is clearly an outlier.

There’s no lockdown in Sweden. Its bars, restaurants and even nightclubs have not been closed since COVID-19 first reached its shores on Jan. 31. Elementary and middle schools remain open, though high schools and universities now rely on distance learning.

There are no government orders to wear masks or socially distance, though the latter is recommended and most citizens have voluntarily complied. In fact, voluntary compliance and individual responsibility is at the heart of Sweden’s strategy to slow the spread of the virus.

Its approach is not completely hands off, however. Sweden has banned gatherings of 50 or more people and visits to nursing homes, where about half of its COVID-19 deaths have occurred. It has encouraged people to work at home if possible.

The country’s soft approach was devised by scientists and backed by the government, even though not all of Sweden’s virologists and immunologists are convinced it is on the right path. Although Sweden has been widely condemned around the world for the strategy, its own citizens largely embrace it.

So how are things working out?

The number of COVID-19 cases and related deaths has been higher in Sweden compared to its Nordic neighbors — Norway and Finland, which both imposed complete lockdowns. As of Friday, May 8, Sweden had recorded 25,265 cases of the coronavirus and 3,175 deaths for a population of about 10.2 million. Norway, with about half the population, has 8,055 cases and 218 deaths, while Finland (population 5.5 million) has 5,738 cases and 260 deaths.

Dr. Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist who devised the country’s coronavirus response, talked about Sweden’s experience and the lessons learned during a webinar Friday hosted by the International Center for Journalists. As California and the rest of the nation begin to open up their economies, here are 10 takeaways from Tegnell.

The complete article can be viewed at:

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/10/10-takeaways-from-swedens-controversial-approach-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ 22-sweden-coronavirus-worst-death-count/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they are saying, if you read between the lines, is that the government gave the people the CHOICE and the people did it anyway because they understood what was going on.  Unlike the US and others who imposed it like martial law and started a rebellion of idiots who refused to sacrifice their "Freedom".

So yeah they may not have imposed a lockdown, but everyone stayed home anyway.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Item 19 really stands out. 


Facts about Covid-19

UpdatedMay 6, 2020; Share on: Twitter / Facebook
Languages: CZ, DE, EN, ES, FI, FR, GR, HBS, HE, HU, IT, JP, KO, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RU, SE, SI, SK, TR

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)


  1. According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about ten times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
  2. Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
  3. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 97% of all persons develop mild symptoms at most.
  4. Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
  5. The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
  6. In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
  7. Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
  8. Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
  9. Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill(e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
  10. The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
  11. Regional increases in mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Special regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
  12. In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers are currently put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
  13. The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
  14. Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
  15. The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
  16. Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections(e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.
  17. There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomaticindividuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
  18. Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including many cancer screenings and organ transplants.
  19. Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
  20. The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.
  21. Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups. The risks for children are virtually zero and closing schools was never medically warranted.
  22. Several medical experts described vaccines against coronaviruses as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions.
  23. The number of people suffering from unemployment, psychological problems and domestic violence as a result of the measures has skyrocketed worldwide. Several experts believe that the measures may claim more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN millions of peoplearound the world may fall into absolute poverty and famine.
  24. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
  25. More than 500 scientists have warned against an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.
  26. A 2019 WHO study on public health measures against pandemic influenza found that from a medical perspective, “contact tracing” is “not recommended in any circumstances”



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, boestar said:

What they are saying, if you read between the lines, is that the government gave the people the CHOICE and the people did it anyway because they understood what was going on.  Unlike the US and others who imposed it like martial law and started a rebellion of idiots who refused to sacrifice their "Freedom".

So yeah they may not have imposed a lockdown, but everyone stayed home anyway.


If you are talking about Sweden, no they did not stay home........ and the result was higher death numbers than similar regions that did impose a lockdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Back in April, it became clear that Florida was intentionally hiding a list of daily deaths that had previously been compiled by county medical examiners. Since that time, those examiners, as well as hospitals and local officials, have complained that the number of COVID-19 deaths being reported in Governor Ron DeSantis regular updates, doesn’t match what they’re seeing in their areas. Last week, the scientist behind Florida’s COVID-19 dashboard was fired after she says she refused to alter numbers as she was told. 

With 52,600 confirmed cases of COVID-19, Florida is in the top ten states when it comes to infections. But the 2,300 recorded deaths is less than half of those from Michigan, a state with a similar number of cases. Considering the number of elderly residents and retirement communities, Florida’s relatively light death toll seemed somewhat miraculous, and DeSantis has been bragging both about the “success” of his policies and sneering at pundits that warned of potential disaster from his refusal to enforce social distancing guidelines.

But there’s still more evidence that “miracle” isn’t the right word. The correct word is “con.” Because it looks like DeSantis has been taking COVID-19 deaths out of one column and inserting them into another.

Even before the state took what had always been public information and began to hide it behind a newfound concern for privacy, there was evidence that DeSantis was covering up COVID-19 in the “Sunshine State.” On April 17, the Sun Sentinel warned that there was a spike in “pneumonia deaths” indicating that COVID-19 was already present and active in the state at a time when the official test results were showing a handful of cases. Even though flu cases were winding down in mid-March, pneumonia deaths had continued to head straight up. State Department of Health officials refused to comment on whether there was a connection between the soaring death count and the coronavirus, even as the official number of COVID-19 remained low.

As a infectious disease expert from George Mason University made clear, “It is likely that they missed some COVID-19 deaths and reported them as respiratory deaths.” However, while it might have been possible that deaths in March and early April were missed simply because state officials weren’t keyed to look for COVID-19 deaths, that certainly wasn’t true after that day.

On May 7, the Miami Herald called on DeSantis to stop hiding the true toll of deaths from the novel coronavirus. In particular, that paper pointed out that DeSantis “continues to keep Floridians in the dark about what is—and isn’t—happening in the state’s 3,800 nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.” And on Wednesday, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that in spite of DeSantis’ claims about his actions in Florida, the “whack-a-mole approach” to dealing with nursing homes was failing. Instead, the percentage of deaths in those facilities was continuing to grow along with a rising tide of new cases.

But DeSantis didn’t open up. He didn’t open the list of deaths, or any other information. As the firing of Dr. Rebekah Jones made clear, Florida has only continued to hide and alter more information over time.  

And it seems there really was something to hide. Multiple tweets have pointed out that Florida is one of several states where a particular category of deaths that have happened in 2020 represents a sharp increase over past years. That category is deaths due to “flu or pneumonia.” As compiled by the CDC, in the first six months of 2020, Florida has logged 5,248 deaths due to pneumonia. Of those deaths, 960 were identified as being connected to COVID-19. That leaves 4,288 pneumonia deaths which were reported, but not logged against the COVID-19 deaths. Looking at the period between 2014 and 2018, Florida has averaged 2,870 deaths from pneumonia … over an entire year. 

That leaves an excess of 1,418 deaths from pneumonia over past years. If those numbers were added to Florida’s current COVID-19 total, the number of deaths would be 3,738. That would still leave Florida with a lower death toll due to COVID-19 than many other states, but it should certainly represent a bit of a stumble in DeSantis’ self-congratulation tour … and a reason to think again about the speed with which already lax social distancing rules are being dropped.

It’s also worth noting that Florida isn’t the only state with a spike in pneumonia cases not attributed to either flu or COVID-19. Across the country, the total number of deaths logged to COVID-19, flu, or pneumonia was 139,925 on May 27.

Read More


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh

Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a church’s challenge to California’s COVID-19 restrictions by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges’ escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaugh’s dishonest vilification of the state.

SCOTUS’ late-night order in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom divided the justices into two camps: those who acknowledge reality, and those who ignore it to score ideological points. The case began when a California church accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of violating its religious freedom. Newsom’s current COVID-19 policy limits attendance at houses of worship to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. At the same time, it allows certain secular businesses, like grocery stores, to operate under looser guidelines, allowing more people to enter. The church claimed this disparate treatment between churches and commercial establishments runs afoul of the First Amendment.

As Roberts noted, however, California does not impose uniform rules on all places where people assemble. The state does strictly limit church attendance. But it applies “similar or more severe restrictions” to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances.” So the question for the court is less constitutional than scientific: From an epidemiological perspective, are churches more like grocery stores or concerts? And that, the chief justice concluded, is a question for lawmakers, not federal judges.

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts declared, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” The Constitution leaves such decisions “to the politically accountable officials of the state,” whose decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing” by judges who lack “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concerts—where people “congregate in large groups” and “remain in close proximity for extended periods”—than grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.


Kavanaugh, in dissent, viewed the case through a different lens. Whereas Roberts began by noting that COVID-19 has “killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide,” Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order “indisputably discriminates against religion” in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that “comparable secular businesses,” like grocery stores and pharmacies, “are not subject” to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a “compelling justification” for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.

But Kavanaugh’s assertion that California treats churches and “comparable secular businesses” differently begs the question: what is a comparable secular business? When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, is a church really just like a grocery store, where people spend as little time as possible, separated by aisles and shopping carts, rarely speaking to one another? Or is it more like a concert, where people congregate for lengthy periods, shoulder to shoulder, often speaking or singing and thereby spreading droplets that may contain the coronavirus?

What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question. The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are “comparable” to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now. If the justice wants to override public health measures during a pandemic, shouldn’t he at least admit that he’s substituting his own scientific judgment for that of a democratically elected lawmaker’s?

Roberts seems to think so. His opinion ends with a clear swipe at Kavanaugh: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional,” the chief justice wrote, “seems quite improbable.” Roberts went out of his way to telegraph his displeasure with the raft of lawsuits contesting COVID-19 restrictions as unconstitutional burdens on religious liberty. Even in borderline cases, he suggested, courts must defer to the people’s representatives if they decide the health crisis requires limitations on public assemblies.

While all four far-right justices dissented from Friday’s order, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Kavanaugh’s dissent. Justice Samuel Alito declined to join Kavanaugh’s opinion and did not explain why. It’s possible Alito was so perturbed by his colleague’s deceptive recitation of the facts that he could not sign in good faith. Meanwhile, though the four liberals joined Roberts in turning away the church’s challenge, the chief justice wrote only for himself. His opinion reads like an official statement from the head of the judicial branch, reminding lower courts not to overstep constitutional boundaries when assessing COVID-19 orders. As long as Roberts has anything to say about it, the Supreme Court will not facilitate the spread of a deadly virus in the name of the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's now safe to say that all of the effort, all of the pain and all of the expense that went into containing Covid19 have been rendered totally moot across the entire nation. All for not.... think about that for a second. 

It's also safe to say that the protests are (largely) no longer worthy of being called protests. The kindest definition for many of these events is riot. If you believe Democrat and Republican accusations (you either do or you don't) but if you do, there is no other definition (of the events they refer to themselves) than domestic terrorism. 

Politicians (of all stripes) who supported and enforced draconian lockdown measures, fines against barbers and pizza makers etc. etc. will eventually be asked about throwing their full support behind protesters (rioters/terrorists). No matter how you choose to spin this, you now have people afraid of pending election results (with good reason), and political leaders attempting to capitalize on politically motivated violence for political gain.

If you aren't looking deeper into cause and effect, and you aren't comparing the trajectory here to other parts of the world, you are missing a show that rarely occurs in great civilizations. Get some popcorn and good scotch, settle in and watch history in the making. Before the scotch takes full effect, you can calculate the cost of nation wide property damage and add it to the total of the Covid19 bill. Take that sum, divide it by the population and you have your personal bill which has just been flushed down the toilet of current events. When the people who actually pay those bills begin to revolt (and they are the ones who never revolt BTW) then you know the show is about half over. You can stop watching at the point,  the plot becomes both predictable and sad leading to an overall assessment of 2 thumbs down.



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long before the next spike?  So much for the Declaration of Emergency. I guess Toronto which is the “hot spot” in the entire country is exempted :Scratch-Head:

Thousands of protesters demand 'Justice for Regis' in downtown 

Thousands of people, some carrying signs that read, “Stop killing us,” and, “Black Lives Matter,” while chanting, “Shame, shame,” and, “Say her name,” gathered after high-profile police-involved deaths of black people in both Canada and the U.S. — the latter prompting several days and nights of protests in American cities.

In Toronto, the Justice for Regis protest was organized by a group called Not Another Black Life after Regis Korchinski-Paquet, 29, fell from the balcony of a 24th-floor Toronto apartment while police were in attendance on Wednesday night.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are self isolating, wearing masks, being scolded by politicians for going into parks for fresh air, plane loads of “visitors” have dropped into the country from god knows where carrying god knows what:


Remember when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally closed Canada’s borders to stop the spread of coronavirus?

Well, new figures released by the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA) show that the borders never really closed.

According to new CBSA data — which was emailed to reporters and hardly received any media attention — 1.66 million travellers entered Canada between March 21 and May 24.

That leaves a jaw-dropping 129,772 non-Canadian travellers who were able to fly into Canada while our borders were supposed to be closed.

Nearly one in three travellers seem to fall outside the guidelines about who can enter Canada at this time.

I reached out to the CBSA to ask the obvious questions: Who are these 130,000 travellers and why were they allowed into Canada if our borders are closed to non-citizens or permanent residents?

The CBSA promptly replied to my email, letting me know that they simply don’t track this information.

“The statistics you have requested are not available. As you can imagine, compiling stats is a very time consuming process and requires resources that are not readily available at this busy time,” wrote a CBSA spokesperson.

Busy time? Airport travel into Canada is down 98% from this time last year.

Feel better now??


Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaydee said:

” Protestors decided what leaders could not—the lockdown is over “

Very true.

Not only have they decided it's over, they've decided that the entire effort to date, all of the expense and added debt was worthless, redundant and superfluous. As I recall, Ontario and Quebec had some 577 new cases on Monday last, I haven't tracked it since then.... it no longer matters. In a single day, and in only two provinces, the count was  higher than that which shut down the entire country in the first place.

I dare say this is the single largest, self inflicted economic disaster in human history, and by virtue of civil disobedience, and for good or ill, the citizens now have little cause to blame politicians for any of the grief that follows from their own actions. 

There really is little grounds for political discussion, debate and negotiation anymore. You vote em down.... and a huge (unsustainably huge) percentage of the population cries on election night because they know full well that they are about to be treated unfairly. That outcome is what opinionated voters with too much narrative and too little experience should have feared all along. Instead they were deathly afraid that a sitting president was a Russian spy and thought that it was duck hunters from Nova Scotia shooting up the streets of Toronto. They can't even say ethnic street gangs without choking on a wad of political correctness.

The warning signs have been there for years, all unheeded. So bring on the sarcastic memes, ridicule people who don't agree with you, call them lazy, stupid, ill informed, or whatever. But don't blame politicians, they are you and you are them.... you got exactly the government you deserve and you worked hard at obtaining it.  As always, when I say you, I really mean we and us together and collectively.


 This is the result of our collective labours.... and two generations of helmet and seatbelt laws. And, it's here to stay.

These creatures vote, and they elect other creatures that think signs and chalk circles are magic. Here's my favourite fragment

So, this past weekend as the city prepared the park better for social distancing by drawing chalk circles on the grass, 


Maybe the whole thing is "June Fools day" or something. I can't tell anymore...


Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Ford to ask Ontario legislature to extend state of emergency through June


On Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford will ask the provincial legislature to extend Ontario’s state of emergency for another four weeks due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The premier confirmed the news on Monday, but would not say when any further restrictions would set to be lifted.

“We’re working very aggressively on coming up with a plan to get the economy going based on the numbers,” Ford said. “Four weeks is a long time. So a lot of things can happen in the four weeks, especially if we see the numbers come down.”

Ford then made way for Health Minister Christine Elliott, who gave no indication that Ontarians would see any major changes Tuesday.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...