COVID-19 Pandemic Reflections and The Next Pandemic

Well the pandemic is over, at least according to most governments, science and medicine not so much. So now it is time to look back, and to look forward.

Perhaps my biggest reflection is that governments, at least in Canada, did not receive the rational criticism for their failures that they should have. The media was intent on concentrating on the irrational response of the anti-science, anti-public health, anti-vaxer crew who were co-opted by the far right white supremacist convoy types in Canada. The left, on the other hand, felt so strongly the need to defend the principle of governments acting to protect Canadians from this deadly pandemic that they failed to properly criticize governments failures in doing so. Not that there was no rational criticism, but what there was was overwhelmed by the Freedumb Convoy Shitshow.

The biggest failure was in not being prepared, even though scientists and public health officials had predicted that pandemics would be commonplace in the future, along with not following the precautionary principle and treating it as airborne until that could be completely ruled out.

But the most egregious, and I would say unforgivable decision, was to not utilize the front line of our health care system, but rather shutting down the vast majority of family physicians’ offices pushing an even greater workload onto the overwhelmed hospital system. This was either complete negligence on the part of the health care system or a clear indication we don’t actually have a health care system but just a bunch of disconnected parts.

As far as messaging goes, we had the use of the language “social distancing” rather than “physical distancing” at a time when maintaining social connections was critical to people’s mental health. Along with that error in messaging was the message to stay inside, rather than stay away from other people, at a time when getting outdoors (with appropriate precautions) could be critical people’s mental health.

However, in the long run, if only coincidental, there is some truth to the arguments for “no more lockdowns” and “we have to learn to live with the pandemic”.

If and when pandemics become a normal part of our reality we will indeed have to learn to live with them and it will not be sustainable to completely shut down our economy and society everytime they occur. Shutdowns or lockdowns, whatever you want to call them, will have to only occur rarely and for short periods when necessary to get an initial grasp of what is happening. And they will of necessity have to be political decisions.

But living with pandemics does not mean ignoring them. It means taking necessary precautions, such as physical distancing, masking with high quality masks, extensive vaccination programs, and, at times, restricting the highest risk activities such as large indoor gatherings of people packed closely together for long periods, methods that have been proven to work and reduce the incidence and seriousness of the outbreaks and most of all save lives.

But most importantly it means being prepared beforehand.

The first step in being prepared is having a primary care system where everyone has access to a primary care physician. In Ontario everyone does not have access to a primary care physician so we urgently need to drain more family doctors, fast track the approval of foreign trained doctors to work in Ontario and increase immigration and training of doctors from abroad, along with increasing the number of nurse practitioners available. And, of course, not shutting the primary care system down during a public health emergency.

We also need to have a hospital system that is not running at over 100% of capacity during the best of times. How do we build in excess capacity without it being inefficient. By using that excess capacity. As it is now so-called elective surgery is ridiculously backlogged. But this elective surgery is not elective at all. What we call elective surgery is surgery for non-life threatening conditions. Knee and hip replacements, eye surgery and many other so called elective surgeries may not be life saving but they certainly can be life changing for many patients for whom they make life worth living again. We can then, in the case of a public health emergency, divert that capacity to save more lives during a future pandemic. Purpose built publicly funded and operated specialty clinics can be part of that solution, and can be used to treat pandemic patients separate from hospitals, reducing the risk of infecting patients in the general hospital population.

And, though it need not be said, when the problem is the lack of doctors and nurses adding profit into the system is not going to solve the problem, only add unnecessary costs.

It also should not have to be said that the lives of vulnerable elderly persons should not be routinely sacrificed to ensure the profit margins of private long-term care facilities, creating a situation where those needless deaths increase exponentially during a pandemic. Being prepared for future pandemics requires that all health care should be publicly funded and operated. Private profit has no place in health care because that profit always has to come at the expense of patient care.

The other need for preparedness is economic. During the COVID pandemic the government scrambled to implement makeshift assistance programs for those economically impacted by the pandemic, and though it helped many it was a very messy solution. What we need is a permanent solution that will not only deal with public health emergencies but also with the economic disruptions of a transition from a fossil fuels based economy to a sustainable energy based economy. What we need is a guaranteed basic income along with a fair progressive taxation system.

There is no justification for not being prepared for the next pandemic.

Beliefs That Will Destroy The World

God Created Adam and Eve Not Adam and Steve

I'm really not sure why religious right wingers always seem to use this phrase in reference to the Adam and Eve story (as well as other Old Testament references) to justify their claims that homosexuality is an abomination (and as the Catholic school system would call it "intrinsically disordered"). The lesson from the Adam and Eve story doesn't exactly fit in with their moral code.

After all if you accept the story of "the rib", Eve was essentially Adam's cloned sister. So according to the Biblical version of the origin of the species the first two humans were siblings, who had sex to produce the second generation, also siblings who had sex to produce the third generation (well there was another possibility but it still would be incestuous). And then it was the cousins and so on and so on. So mankind is based on incest according to their literal interpretation of the Bible.

Of course if we accept Old Testament stories as fact people seemed to live a long time back then so maybe incest was not such a bad thing. But I prefer to base my opinion of the desirability of incest on scientific studies into the impact of "in-breeding".

I also prefer to base my understanding of the origin of the species on the scientific explanation of The Origin of Species.

According to the theory of evolution and natural selection non-useful traits of a species will disappear over time with evolution. Thus if homosexuality was not naturally useful to mankind it would have disappeared, The fact that it has not simply proves that it is natural and good.

Heritage Minister James Moore Wrong on Sexhibit

Heritage Minister James Moore is clearly wrong in his criticism of "Sex: A Tell-All Exhibition" at the Canada Science and Technology Museum.

It is not so much his criticism of the content that is wrong, although suggesting that human reproduction is an inappropriate subject for a science museum is somewhat bizarre.

But it is the expression of an opinion on a museum exhibit at all that is worrisome. The Minister should know that cultural and scientific agencies are supposed to be free of political interference or influence. Knowing that, the Minister should have avoided any statement that could have, or be seen to have, such undo influence. However it appears to be quite clear that the Minister did not try to avoid such influenza but did everything he could to have such undue influence, and his efforts have had the desired effect in causing the museum to make changes to the exhibit in response to political pressure.

This appears to be just another effort, along with reducing Statistic Canada's information gathering and closing federal libraries, in the Harper government's War on Knowledge.

Curling - WOW

Yes, I've been watching Olympic curling. What a combination of science, art, and athletic control. I could try and explain that but the best way to understand it is to watch international or Brier level competition.

Thank You David Warren

I was beginning to worry about the Pope but you have assured me that the Pope has not gone over to the dark side - he has not forsaken god and embraced science nor has he accepted the evil that is sexual equality. Nor should I worry that the Pope thinks governments have an environmental responsibility because that would be "socialist materialism" and a "statist solution", which as you state, the Pope rejects.

I am not sure what "statist solutions" are but I can only assume that they are government actions like holding child molesters accountable and punishing them for their sins crimes. After all who are we to judge - that is for god to do after they die. Oh, but I forgot, if they accept Jesus as their saviour all is forgiven after they die.

But then again, this all assumes that you, David Warren, have a clue and some sense of reality outside of your own sheltered extreme right wing existence.

And Then God Created The Tar Sands

And then god created the tar sands and placed them beneath the ground, while the dinosaurs roamed above, and instructed his followers to destroy the environment in order to dig them up for fuel.

This may be what some Alberta parents will be teaching their children while they are kept home from school when everyone else is being taught science.

A Lesson for PETA in Biology and Ethics

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and others of their ilk, claim to be concerned about the ethical treatment of animals.

Let us talk about science. Animals can be classed as carnivores, herbivores or omnivores. It is natural for carnivores to eat meat, herbivores plants, and omnivores both.

People are animals. To be more specific, people are primates, mammals and omnivores.

Let us talk about ethics. It is highly unethical to try to make an animal go against it's own nature. For example, to try to force feed a herbivore meat or a carnivore plants. It is equally as unethical to try to coerce people into going against their own nature and eat only plant matter, and extremely unethical to suggest that it is immoral for people to act in a perfectly natural way, as the omnivores that they are.

And while I may enjoy PETA's rather sexist topless protests I find it rather odd to see the “I'd rather go naked than wear fur” protesters dressed in high “leather looking” boots. I can only assume that they are synthetic and that PETA, who try to claim to be environmentalists, believe it is better to wear boots made from petrochemicals from the tar sands, than wear boots made from natural renewable animal products.

We need to send PETA, and their followers, back to school for some basic lessons in biology and ethics. I have selected a few sources that might help them understand.

Omnivores - Kid's Corner - Sheppard Software

Carnivore, Herbivore, or Omnivore?

What is an omnivore?

Migraine Hell and Other Thoughts

The Fifth Columnist has just gone through migraine hell, spending two weeks with an almost continuous migraine. Thus blogging was sporadic over the last couple of weeks. After a visit to emergency, and a CT scan determined my brain was normal and a visit to the doctor put me on new medication, I am actually feeling quite optimistic that my migraines may now become much fewer.

Unfortunately a lot was happening and I was thinking about blogging about things but was not able to – like how pissed off Stevie must have been when Michaëlle shared the front page photo of the Ottawa Citizen with Barack, rather than him, especially as he tried so hard to hide her from the press, but she and they would have none of it.

The other thing I contemplated was other “controversial” ads that OC Transpo could ban from their buses, like:

The Earth is Not Flat, Stop Worrying You Won't Fall Off The Edge

Gravity Keeps You Down – Don't Worry If You Run Out of Crazy Glue

The Climate is Changing and it's Our Fault – Don't Worry, Do Something About It

The interesting thing that all these slogans have in common with “there’s probably no god”, is that they have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. It is a sad day for Canada when scientific facts become too “controversial” for the side of a bus.

Send “Across The Universe” Across the Universe

For the first time ever, NASA will beam a song, The Beatles' "Across the Universe", directly into deep space at 7 p.m. EST tonight.

The transmission over NASA's Deep Space Network will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the day The Beatles recorded the song, as well as the 50th anniversary of NASA's founding and the group's beginnings. Two other anniversaries also are being honored: The launch 50 years ago this week of Explorer 1, the first U.S. satellite, and the founding 45 years ago of the Deep Space Network, an international network of antennas that supports missions to explore the universe.

February 4 has been declared "Across The Universe Day" by Beatles fans to commemorate the anniversaries. As part of the celebration, the public around the world has been invited to participate in the event by simultaneously playing the song at the same time it is transmitted by NASA. Many of the senior NASA scientists and engineers involved in the effort are among the group's biggest fans.

You can play the song below:

The Contradictions of Religion and Religious Tolerance

One can understand the birth of religion at a time before the age of reason and science, when people were looking for simple explanations of the world around them. The biggest contradiction of religion is why it has remained so dominant in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries when we actually understand the origin of the universe and how man evolved.

Of course the answer is simple. Religious belief defies logic because it excludes logic. Religion does not try to convince you that god exists based on science or logic. In fact religion suspends logic and science and asks you to believe on the basis of faith - to just decide to believe.

So how do people choose a religion. In most cases they do not actually choose, they inherit their religion from their parents or the cultural community they live in. And how do they decide what to believe. Again they do not decide, they are told what to believe by religious leaders, who follow teachings developed thousands of years ago and passed on or modified dependent on the intricacies of the politics of their particular religion. In the cases of some newer religions the “theology” is simply the figment of the imagination of a charismatic leader.

The next big contradiction of religion is it’s responsibility for good and evil. I do not need to go through the history of religion to point out the evil done in it’s name by believers, except to point out that most genocides are justified by religious beliefs, as interpreted by the religious leaders of the time.

But, on the other hand, much good has been done by religious people, from the abolitionists movement and the underground railroad to Canadian medicare, made possible by a Baptist minister from Saskatchewan. And indeed many good people credit their “goodness” to their religious beliefs.

But reason tells us that one can be a good person without religion. What religion enables, is good people to do evil things because they have been convinced, usually by charismatic leaders, that it is the will of god. There is no greater evil than good people doing evil things because god told them to.

The latest contradiction with religion is the development of the concept of religious tolerance. Religious tolerance teaches that other people are not unworthy or evil because they belong to the wrong religion. Religious tolerance removes the justification for evil, such as genocides, perpetrated in the name of god.

But religion is supposedly based on the true word of god. How can there be more than one true word of god. There cannot. And the acceptance of religious tolerance is an unstated acceptance that religion is man-made, not god-made.

I have no problem with religions as communities of fellowship with sets of rules to life by and rituals that celebrates the stages of ones life. Just do not try and tell me it is all based on the word of a non-existent god.

I am all for religious tolerance because it can help to end the evil done in the name of religion as well as make the true nature of religion as something man-made not god-made, finally evident to all “true believers” everywhere.