[wbradley]

Sorry for jumping into this thread but for those that have argued that the efforts should have been focused on keeping the vulnerable out of the line of fire (lock them up!) and letting the rest of the hopefully 95% of the population continue on with commerce, lifestyle etc. I'd like to relate a scenario.

Firstly, acknowledge that any significant percentage of the population that wants as little disruption to their daily activity will keep propagating transmission among the so-called less vulnerable majority population until everyone is infected. There will be a certain number of unexpected fatalities and quality of life harm done. And with propagation of the virus, far greater likelihood of further mutation of the virus, possibly creating a variant without vaccine effectiveness.

Vulnerable people in care facilities require outside assistance, and individual needs vary. For example, my father stayed in his room as per lockdown but needed someone to ensure he was taking insulin and meds daily. He also had someone help him shower several times per week. His meals were delivered to his room.
He still became infected some time between Dec 23 and 26. The symptoms were intense by Dec 29 when he was taken to hospital.

The infection comes from outside and spread to my father by the people that assisted him. Whether they changed PPE appropriately from person to person or not, knowing there was an outbreak, whether people that worked in these facilities were exposed by the huge percentage of the population that admitted to not following protocols during the holidays. Or, buying Christmas gifts in the mall because it is open, and inadvertently picking up the virus and bringing it into work as a result of others spreading the virus.

So if you will ONLY protect the people that are vulnerable then you are required to protect the people that care for the vulnerable too. And these people go home at the end of their workdays. Even if they are the most compassionate and caring and careful people, there is no protection for them, therefore no real protection for the vulnerable. They have families, travel on public transit, have room mates. How do you stop it?

It is far far better to extinguish the virus wherever possible than allow it to smolder forever.

Somehow, somewhere somebody became too casual in the chain of protection for my dad and for that reason we buried him yesterday.

Note: even though he was old, he wasn't sick before the pandemic. Yes the lockdown and inability to see family and move freely affected him terribly, but in the end we were unable to protect him from Covid19.

I have heard that argument to lock up the old before. Ironically from a friend of mine that loved Trump. Not common among Canadians. Sorry if you own a business that will become insolvent as a result and how does that compare to becoming...dead?

I have seen several people in public indoor spaces with their noses above their masks. I trust nobody.