Montreal City Weblog

Updates from November, 2020 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• Kate 19:31 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  The SPVM recently floated the idea of merging the Montreal, Laval and Longueuil police forces. Laval declined last week and Longueuil said thanks no thanks on Friday.

  Which makes me wonder exactly what a merger would mean. Surely the 3 forces have to collaborate, if they’re looking for someone who could be in any of the 3 territories, or carrying out one of those raids we hear about from time to time. As Montreal gets bigger and the agglomeration behaves more like a single city, something like a merger is bound to take place.

  Spi is discussing. Toggle Comments

   

  • Spi 21:06 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    Seems to me it’s all about increasing their budget, SPVM is probably hoping to suck up more than it’s fair share from a new mega-montreal police structure.

    Hasn’t the SPVM been under cost control measures for a few years now? Closing and consolidating stations?

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

  Δ

• Kate 19:06 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  A case brought by several groups against Quebec’s Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (“Bill 21”) will open Monday in Superior Court.

   

• Kate 18:57 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  Retired journalist Michel Auger, whose career was recalled recently because it was 20 years since he took half a dozen shots in the parking lot of the Journal de Montréal where he worked – and survived – has died at 76. Fellow journalists pay their respects.

   

• Kate 15:37 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  The firefighters’ union has achieved an agreement in principle for a new contract with the city.

   

• Kate 13:52 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  A woman who tested positive for Covid but never got sick tells about the response from the people around her.

  walkerp, John B, Kevin, and 9 others are discussing. Toggle Comments

   

  • Michael Black 14:15 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    She’s hardly “a woman”, she’s been mentioned here in the past, though I can’t remember if it was beekeeping, or saving the baseball diamond in Jeanne Mance Park, or maybe something else.

  • Kate 14:17 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    Michael Black, what should I have written? A person? A Montrealer? A beekeeper? (Article says nothing about bees.) Also, I don’t know her, and a search shows I’ve never mentioned her, although I can’t say I’ve never linked to something she wrote. In any case I meant no disrespect.

  • JP 19:04 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    Describing her as “a woman” seems absolutely fine to me. She’s definitely not some sort of accomplished local celebrity even if she’s participated in something irrelevant (to this topic) that’s not mentioned in the article. I don’t think there is anything offensive about how you described her, Kate.

    I know I should feel some sort of compassion for her, but I don’t. I do understand acting on one’s instincts (she got tested without having symptoms or known exposure), but am not sure why she didn’t follow through by self-isolating for a few days. However, the worst thing is that while she was awaiting results, she doesn’t seem to have acted in a transparent way with her social circle.  If it were me, I would’ve been very transparent with friends that I had gotten tested, had no symptoms and was awaiting results, and would’ve self-isolated. In her case, perhaps she should’ve let them decide whether they were comfortable having her around,  Instead she went to make tomato sauce with her friend, had a friend over to make him a sandwich, invited a friend over to babysit while she and her husband went out to eat with other friends on a terrace! Does she have “fear of missing out” or something similar.

    This past summer, whenever I was planning to spend time with friends I offered and expected transparency. I even let friends know that I had taken the bus/metro during the week, for example, and made it clear that there was no issue if they cancelled because they felt unwell or if they felt seeing each other was too risky. A friend of mine who works at the hospital was understanding that I wanted to maintain a lot of distance when we met at the park.

    So, yes, I find it quite understandable that some in her circle were upset with her. I would be too. I don’t owe her kindness and her friends don’t either. It was nice that some of them were.

    On a different note, a friend of mine got tested a while back with her husband and daughter. She and her daughter got their negative tests within a couple of days, but her husband’s negative result came in five days later. We found it weird that the tests came in on different days when they had all gone at the same time…

  • GC 19:34 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    Yeah. Some part of her thought there was a chance she was infected, even if it was “vanishingly small”. So, even if she didn’t FULLY isolate maybe she could have at least kept her contacts to a minimum for that one week?

    And, even if she didn’t infect any of her friends she might have infected some strangers and not know about it. At least she knows who her real friends are now, based on how they reacted.

  • Blork 20:20 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    I have no clue what Michael Black meant by ‘”she’s hardly “a woman.'”

    Instead of getting all judgey maybe we can use this as something to learn from. Specifically, even smart and well-intentioned people make mistakes and don’t always follow instructions. (As a person who writes instructions for a living, believe me I know about people not following instructions…) My understanding from the article was that she got tested not because she thought she might have the viddy, but as a way to reassure herself that it was OK to visit her sick mother. She did not expect to get a positive result; all she was seeking was some assurance that she was uninfected.

    In other words, there are people who get tested because they have some symptoms or other reason to think they might be infected (and such people would be fully expected to isolate until they get the results), and there are people who get tested to confirm their thinking that they are NOT infected. She’s in that second group.

    It’s like if I stopped any one of you on the street and said “Hey, you got the viddy?” and you said “No,” and I said “How about a test to prove it? Would you feel compelled to isolate until that test result came back? Of course not.

    It’s interesting to note that her follow-up test for antibodies came back negative, so there’s a good chance she had a false positive.

  • EmilyG 20:22 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    I think this woman was irresponsible.

    I would also have liked to see my friends, but didn’t, because we wanted to keep each other safe. And I live alone, so I wouldn’t have even been a danger to anyone else I lived with.

    And the chance that strangers could’ve been infected….

    Sounds like her contacts have been reduced, though.

  • Blork 21:11 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    I just want to clarify: overall, I agree with EmilyG that she was irresponsible in her lack of distancing and whatnot. But no more so than the rest of her friends and community. The issue seems to be that people think she was extra-irresponsible because she didn’t isolate while waiting for her test results. That’s the part I dispute. (See my comment above.)

  • Kevin 22:51 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    “The issue seems to be that people think she was extra-irresponsible because she didn’t isolate while waiting for her test results.“

    Public health officials ask you to self-isolate while waiting for test results.

    If someone is concerned enough to get tested *because they think they are sick* they should be able to follow instructions.

  • Blork 23:52 on 2020-11-01 Permalink

    FFS Kevin, read my comment. Public health officials ask you to self-isolate while waiting for test results IF YOU GOT TESTED BECAUSE YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE YOU MIGHT BE INFECTED. She got tested to reassure her belief that she was not infected. See my example in my comment about if I randomly asked you to get tested. Would you isolate in that case? Jeez!

  • Raymond Lutz 09:02 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    And for those interested, PCR covid tests have 5% false positive rate (search for “specificity”, here 95%) and as much as 30% false negative rate (search for “sensitivity”, here 70%).

    My sample has been analyzed twice: in the hospital lab and at the provincial one. So my negative result beeing false has odd of 0.3 * 0.3 = 0.09, ie, probably right at 91% . False positives (if PCR done twice) have a low probability of 0.25%

  • GC 09:21 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    “I had just come out of a two-week quarantine, after having visited my mother across the border.”

    My understanding from that was that she had already visited her mother and was concerned about the NEXT visit. It’s not crystal clear which border she means, but I’m guessing the one with the USA and not a provincial one.

    I do agree with you, Blork, that some of her “friends” seem to think she was more irresponsible just because she got a positive results–even though they were all behaving in a similar way.

    As I said above, I might not completely self isolate in her case but I would 100% reduce any activity I was already engaging in. It sounds like she just carried on, already potentially violating the rules if not at least pushing the boundaries of them.

    Thanks for the numbers, Raymond. The false negatives are more disturbing than the false positives. Is it really that high?

  • Raymond Lutz 10:29 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    @GC my bad: I didn’t cite any source… Hereś one:

    “Accuracy of viral RNA swabs in clinical practice varies depending on the site and quality of sampling. In one study,sensitivity of RT-PCR in 205 patients varied, at 93% for broncho-alveolar lavage, 72% for sputum, 63% for nasal swabs,and only 32% for throat swabs.7 Accuracy is also likely to vary depending on stage of disease and degree of viral multiplication or clearance.”

    https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1808.full.pdf

  • Meezly 11:09 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    It took some some courage to write this. She seemed honest for the most part and admitted irresponsibility, though I think she wanted to take pains to point out that she tested negative for antibodies.

    It was also nicely written with phrases that echo my general sense of malaise, that “same hum of anxiety that lives inside all of us now, constantly” and dreading that “immediate, absolute comeuppance for [what little] fun we suspected all along we shouldn’t be having.”

  • Kevin 11:50 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Blork
    SHE got a test because SHE was WORRIED SHE WAS SICK.
    She knew it would take days to CONFIRM if she was sick or not.

    During the time between the test and getting the results HEALTH OFFICIALS ASK YOU TO ISOLATE.

  • DeWolf 11:52 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Blork is right – I called Santé Québec and was told very explicitly by the nurse I spoke to that you *do not* need to isolate if you are tested but have no symptoms and have had no contact with a Covid-positive person. I even asked her twice just to be very clear. That’s straight from the horse’s mouth.

  • DeWolf 11:57 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Two thoughts after reading this.

    First, our testing regime is completely broken, because if takes a full week to give results to a person whose results are positive, there’s something very wrong. My friends in New York are able to get rapid tests with the results in a few hours. I don’t know why we can’t do that here.

    Secondly, this makes we wonder whether she had a false positive. How common is it for someone to have Covid yet have absolutely no symptoms, and to not infect anyone she has interacted with?

  • GC 12:00 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    I wasn’t saying I didn’t believe you, Raymond. It’s just disappointing that it’s that high. A false positive is annoying inconvenience, but a false negative is potentially very dangerous.

  • Kevin 12:03 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    DeWolf
    When I took a family member to get tested, public health handed us a letter stating the family member had to be isolated until they got their results.

  • DeWolf 13:51 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Then it seems that Santé Québec is contradicting the local CIUSSS which is a pretty big problem.

  • Blork 14:53 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Oh Kevin. “SHE got a test because SHE was WORRIED SHE WAS SICK.”

    No. Directly from the article: “I had no symptoms, no known exposure — just the same hum of anxiety that lives inside all of us now, constantly.”

    That is very far from “she was worried she was sick.”

    For those still reading this thread and who are capable of understanding nuance, it was a mistake for her not to isolate while she waited for her results, but it was an understandable mistake under the circumstances.

    BTW, if anyone wants to put Kevin out of commission for a few days just trick him into getting tested. Make a bet (“bet you’re too chicken to get tested!”) or whatever. Once he gets that test he will feel duty-bound to isolate because apparently he feels that getting tested under any circumstances is an automatic trip to the isolation ward.

  • Kevin 15:09 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    Blork
    Go read the post I made 2 hours and 50 minutes before your last comment.

  • John B 15:56 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    A family member got tested yesterday. From the papers we received, (from the MUHC):

    Important: If you have symptoms at the time you are tested or had contact with someone with COVID-19, please isolate yourself at home while waiting for your test results and read the instructions you were given during your test.

    If you do not have any symptoms at the time you were tested and have not had direct contact with someone with COVID-19, you do not need to self-isolate while waiting for your test results.

    Because our person had symptoms we also received an Isolation Order, which from my understanding is a legal requirement to isolate.

    But for the lady in the article, with no symptoms and no contact, she would not have to isolate.

    Before just now I thought that everyone awaiting results received an isolation order, and thought it was pretty brave or stupid to write the article admitting to breaking the isolation order, but after reading what we received yesterday she probably did not receive an isolation order.

    In our case we got results this morning, less than 24 hours after the test.

  • walkerp 21:50 on 2020-11-02 Permalink

    At first I thought she hung out way too much, but upon re-reading it she really didn’t engage in any risky behaviour. The worst was making a sandwich for a friend inside her kitchen (assuming the friend was inside as well). Otherwise, it was mostly outdoors and she touched stuff, which we now know is a highly unlikely way to transmit the virus.

• Kate 11:19 on 2020-11-01 Permalink | Reply  

  There’s virtually no Montreal news this morning after the sword attacks in Vieux-Quebec that killed two people and injured at least five others. This item says the attacker was from the Montreal area.