Updates from January, 2021 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 18:35 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

    What a strange news day, flipping from insurrection in the United States to pandemic measures for Quebec.

    Starting this weekend, more things will be closed for a month, and we will have a curfew from 8 p.m. till 5 a.m., till February 8.

    Legault makes quite a thing of education being so important that kids will still be going back to school as of next week. I’m cynical enough to suspect that it’s not so much the education that concerns him as the function of kids being looked after so parents can work.

    Edited to add: CBC has a guide to the new rules, which go into effect Saturday, and Metro explains how this lockdown is different from the one last spring. TVA also has a guide to the new rules.

     

    • dmdiem 18:52 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Why does the school thing have to be all or nothing? Can’t the kids whose parents need to work send them in person, while the rest can attend from home via webcam? That would at least limit any outbreaks. I don’t know. Maybe the logistics of it all are just too unreasonable.

    • jeather 19:14 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      The only change is the curfew as far as I can tell? More WFH, but manufacturing and construction are allowed, and curbside pickup is now ok. Also kids can now study in public libraries. Not clear about visits re people living alone, and apparently we are not allowed to be outside with people who aren’t in our bubble.

      Movies and films? Still allowed. NHL? No prob. Manufacturing and construction? Mostly younger people so sure. Schools and daycares? Go ahead. After all, the cases are all from home visits.

    • Tim S. 19:27 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Yeah, my takeaway is that they aren’t seriously trying to stop community transmission, just buying time until they vaccinate enough old people to take some pressure off the hospitals. At which point who knows what the numbers will be among the under-65s. But who cares about chronic heart damage?
      What’s frustrating is that they got everybody anticipating tougher measures and then backed off. When they have go through the whole process again in a few weeks there might be less buy-in and a lot more discontent. I wasn’t looking forward to a few weeks of home-schooling, but I had my canned soup, multi-packs of KD and reams of printer paper all ready!

    • Sprocket 19:32 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      With restos closing at cutoff time, I think that will impact business a lot. Also Deps.

    • vasi 19:43 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      There are some other new restrictions, though not the biggest ones:

      Houses of worship closed
      Non-essential manufacturing and construction suspended
      More masks in schools
      Mandatory work-from-home for office jobs, it’s no longer up to the business

      We’ll see if it’s enough!

    • jeather 21:05 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      They request that manufacturers only do essential work, but I’m not sure it’s defined. I think they’re just hoping to keep numbers vaguely acceptable until vaccines are here in larger numbers, without actually doing anything useful.

    • ant6n 05:56 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      I`ve got a 2 year old at home and would rather send him off to daycare, pandemic risk be damned. I´m currently shut down where I am, daycares closed, and I don´t feel there there´s the idea that “kids should be sent to school so that parents can work”. Quite the opposite: there seems to be the assumption that you can easily work in the home office while watching a small kid. It does not work and creates a lot of stress, which ppl without kids don´t seem to understand.

      What is really annoying is seeing people go on vacations, party, live life normally going to the big office with everybody while schools and daycares are shut down.

    • mare 09:10 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Still no travel restrictions. Look what New Brunswick did, many months ago, and how low their Covid cases and fatalities per million are.
      https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/corporate/promo/travel-registration.html#register

    • Ephraim 09:55 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      I don’t think a curfew will work. Is there any scientific basis for them? Did they work elsewhere?

      We need to cut the number of visits to places like supermarkets, the only way to do this is to cut the number of people allowed inside at one time and enforce sanitary rules. Does anyone see them wiping the screens for self check-out after each use? Is anyone putting in better ventilation? HEPA filters and/or air heating to kill the virus in the air? (You can superheat the air to kill viruses.)

      If you cut the number of people going in, the supermarkets will push people towards curbside pickup, which will curb possible transmission. Anything to keep people out of shared spaces. Heck, even the SAQ can offer quick pick up, even if they can’t do curbside… order online, walk in, pick up and pay… no need to line up, walk around, etc.

      And help the mom and pop shops. Everyone should be able to be open with curbside or delivery of anything. And let them have 1 customer at a time inside. Maybe it’s also time to require GS1 to collect and keep a database of barcodes centralized for everyone to use with descriptions, so that websites can be created much easier. Stop everyone from having to keep their own databases… I mean, what’s the point in the duplicated effort for UPC codes?

    • Kate 10:09 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Ephraim, I can’t find any links about the curfew in France that get into whether it was considered effective. Since it was brought in with other measures meant to reduce contagion, it would be hard to tell what impact the curfew alone was having on the numbers.

    • Ephraim 10:49 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Kate, let’s look at it the other way around…. who is really out after 8PM and what are they doing? What is the curfew trying to curb? And will this just people to modify their behaviour? The articles that I read online suggest that they think this will curb people participating in “nonessential gatherings” but I find little in real scientific research behind it. Sure, it makes sense if restaurants and bars were open, but they aren’t. So I can only guess that the idea is to curb private parties and/or Tinder/Grindr hookups.

      I can be wrong. Maybe very wrong. But humans tend to adapt… look at the Window Tax in England, France and Ireland. So you end up with PJ parties and after work sex hookups to get around the curfew? Everyone come over, we’ll have pizza, sit around and watch Netflix and pull out the mattresses and have a sleep over.

    • walkerp 11:01 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Ephraim, supermarkets are not places of transmission. The government is installing the curfew to make it easy for the police to bust social gatherings, which other than schools seems to have been a major source of transmission in the last weeks. I think the curfew is basically a major reinforcer to the message to not socialize and not see anybody.

      Does this also mean you are not supposed to be out driving at night as well?

    • Ephraim 11:12 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Walkerp… is the government actually reporting sources of transmission anymore? Cases are going up and yet reports related to WHERE they are happening and tracing doesn’t seem to be. It’s starting to remind me of the dirty restaurant problem… they don’t really tell the public until a LONG time later.

      If supermarkets aren’t the sources of transmission, then what are they doing that has stopped it… and let’s just open up all the stores…. what’s the point of closing them if they aren’t the source of transmission and a few changes at the supermarket has stopped all transmission.

    • jeather 11:30 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      I don’t trust for one second their contention that everyone is getting cases from seeing people at parties at home. Sure, over the holidays, that was probably the source of contagion — but it wasn’t going to be the major source in January, curfew or no curfew. I guess in 2 weeks from Saturday we will start to see who is right.

    • GC 12:24 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      Yeah, I’d also like some indication that curfews work. It won’t be a big impact on me, since I can’t remember the last time I went out past eight, with nowhere to go…

      I’m with Ephraim, though. Those who want to break the rules will just adapt. Granted, not every hookup is welcome to spend the night. But, if it’s a gathering of family/friends then they can just spend the night. Which actually might lead to _extending_ the illegal gathering–not exactly the desired outcome.

    • Michael Black 12:38 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      But what hardship is a curfew for most people? Once there’s nothing to do, there’s little reason to be out.

    • jeather 13:40 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      A curfew is a pain for me, a person living alone who visits one other person who lives alone.

    • Michael Black 13:56 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      “For most people”. My comment was based on people arguing an abstract, “does it really work?”

      Valid reasons make way more sense to oppose this than “I have my rights”

      There hasn’t been much reason for me to go out other than the dog insists. He’s the real reason I get up every day. It’s not fear, though I’m vulnerable. I don’t want to burden the nurses, and the existing rules don’t make it all that appealing, and next month it’s two years of mostly being inside, just a few trips to the grocery store early last year. I feel less and less connection to that outside world.

      So I can’t think of a reason to be out late, not in winter. There are reasons, but in pandemic times way less than in good times.

    • jeather 14:09 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      I am sure it is not a pain for everyone, but I was explaining why it will be annoying for me. I know of people who say that they like to take walks late because it is the only time they can feel safe from walking near piles of unmasked people (though I do not know where in the city they live).

  • Kate 11:22 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

    Oh here we go. A committee at Maimonides has hired Julius Grey to prepare to sue for their second doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

    Pfizer is also saying that the second shot should be given after 3 weeks and it doesn’t support changing the dosing schedule. Maimonides has a case.

     

    • Chris 11:38 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      ffs. 99.9% of Canadians have had zero shots, but wah wah we got one, but insist of two, while the rest of you get nothing.

    • Kate 11:39 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Well, they were told to expect a second dose, and that residence had a lot of deaths in the first wave. I can see why, if you were told to expect the second shot and then had it taken away, you might be angry and not see the bigger picture.

    • Chris 11:48 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      It wasn’t “taken away”. You can’t take away something you never had. And it’s not like they’re never getting their second dose. It’s merely been delayed because there’s lots of other places that have had many infections that have received nothing yet. That’s how rationing works. But no one is used to rationing anymore, in our world of plenty. And they’re greedy and self-entitled to boot. But yes, I can imagine they are angry/disappointed, that’s human nature.

      Well, if these folks think suing is right, maybe health care workers should up their game and so on strike until they get a first dose.

    • Kate 11:50 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Chris, I’ve added a second part to the post that shows the Maimonides folks have a case. Pfizer says the second dose needs to be given 3 weeks later, not randomly.

    • dwgs 11:51 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      As It Happens interviewed a local Dr. who was to have received her second dose this week, the discussion includes some input from Pfizer, it’s worth a listen. Relevant bit begins at 10:15 or so. https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/15816766-assuaging-assange

    • ant6n 11:55 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      The promise of a second dose was taken away. What will happen with the half-vaccinated people? Will they need to get two shots later, or will they always just be half-protected?

      Given that the pandemic will disproportionally kill certain groups, it probably makes sense to properly protect them. It’s not like spreading the vaccine will help herd-immunity a lot (if double the people have half the protection, the virus should approx. permeate at the same rate).

    • Joey 12:02 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Not sure such thing as “half” the protection really exists – I can see how it’s tempting to assume that half the required dose = “half” the protection, but I don’t think it actually works that way. My understanding, and it’s likely wrong, is that the first dose triggers an immune response and the second dose makes that immune response memory last long term. Now, there may be considerable protection from just one dose, and there may be the possibility of getting the same benefit of the second dose even if it’s administered later – but the clinical trials didn’t test for that so we can’t know for sure. The risk that the improperly administered/delayed second dose will cancel out the benefits of the first dose in the medium term (and therefore effectively “waste” both doses in the long term) is real, and seems unnecessary given the marginal benefit of administering somewhat more first doses more quickly.

      I think governments may have been overly cautious in reserving half of all received doses given the slowy rampling up of the vaccine supply and were right to start administering more first doses with the epxectation that enough supply would arrive to administer the second doses on schedule. But this doesn’t seem like that.

    • Bert 12:09 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      They allowed the pharmas to fast-track the vaccines. Now they want to disregard, ignore, deny the manufacturer directives which are based on testing, albeit limited, fast-tracked, etc. How many times have governments gotten things wrong on this… No masks…. Masks. Small groups…. No groups. Classes…. No classes.

      I am glad someone s standing up for the citizen. Though I am far down the list, They can have my first dose if ti gives them their second.

    • Blork 12:13 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Here’s a ridiculous analogy, because that’s the only way I can parse these things:

      Let’s say you have two starving people who must eat something within 24 hours or they will die. Two bananas (each) will save them, but one banana will extend their life by another 24 hours. You have only two bananas, but you expect to get more within 20 hours.

      Do you:

      (a) Give each person one banana, which relieves their hunger and extends their lives to 48 hours, and hope the second batch of bananas arrives on time or at least within 48 hours? (If the second batch never arrives, both people will die.)

      (b) Give one person two bananas, thus saving them indefinitely, and let the other one keep starving and hope the rest of the bananas arrive before that person dies?

      There are flaws aplenty with that analogy, but in broad strokes it’s one way to look at this.

    • Chris 12:18 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      >The promise of a second dose was taken away

      No, it’s merely been delayed.

      >Though I am far down the list, They can have my first dose if ti gives them their second.

      No one is proposing that people ‘far down the list’ get their first shot before people ‘high on the list’ get their second. The idea is to get everyone high on the list a first dose. There are lots of long term care folks and health workers that have had no doses. And there are thousands of vaccines sitting in freezers helping no one.

      > How many times have governments gotten things wrong on this

      And indeed they at first were hoarding doses, and have now corrected.

      The probability of just one dose being beneficial is high. The probability of more vaccines arriving soon is high. There are vaccines in freezers doing nothing for no one. The best course is Blork’s (a).

    • Bert 12:44 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      The “thousands of vaccines sitting in freezers” are there to help people in 3 weeks. To complete the protocol developed by the experts, those delegated the responsibility to develop them.

      Blork’s example is a classic “trolley car” thought experiment. IMO, the government should have o say in the application of the result, at the least, should not override decisions that have been authorized beforehand.

    • Blork 13:02 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      I’m undecided on what’s the best way to go, but please bear in mind that some “experts” agree with the idea of giving twice as many people the first dose now because that effectively vaccinates twice as many people, ASSUMING the second doses come in on time. It’s a risk, but presumably a calculated risk.

      And also bear in mind that most of the “experts” who disagree are people from Pfizer, because they are concerned about liability. However, it’s a backwards objection because if the plan to use all available doses goes ahead, and ANYTHING GOES WRONG ANYWHERE, Pfizer is off the liability hook because they can just blame the government for not following the protocol. I would not be surprised if the lawyers and executives of Pfizer are HOPING the government goes that way for exactly this reason.

      So the safe, sensible, by-the-book, according-to-the rules route is to store the second doses and administer them on time. The risky and maverick route is to use them all for first dose and hope that re-supply arrives in time.

      That second route has a much better payoff IF the second doses arrive on time. So it’s a gamble, but a gamble with a big win if it works, and an unknown loss if it doesn’t (although the loss will likely not be huge because by most accounts half a vaccine is still pretty good.)

    • Michael Black 13:14 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      This is complicated because there’s also the stories of the process being slow. Not just because the vaccine is coming slowly, but because the process of getting it into people’s arms is slow. Holding back half the doseage is not the problem. Three weeks has already gone by, finish what was started. If these are “the most vulnerable”, then keep them safest. Wait, and they may get lost (they were previously worried that people might not come back for the second shot), or some excuse will come later to eliminate the second dose.

      A second dose seems pretty common. I can vaguely remember “booster shots” as a kid. And both the shingles and pneumonia vaccine I got last year came twice. If they didn’t see value, why bother doing it twice?

    • dwgs 14:22 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      If I had any faith in our government being organized and capable I would say by all means go ahead and give single doses all around. Unfortunately nothing that I have seen over the last 10 months gives me any faith in those running things so the only sane course of action is to follow the manufacturer’s directions and give both doses to fewer people.

    • Kevin 14:24 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      I’m surprised by the number of people with PhDs in vaccine development commenting on this thread.

    • jeather 15:15 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      Are we sure this change was supported with people with PhDs in vaccine development?

    • ant6n 18:19 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      If one dose is 50% effective, and the second makes it 90% effective, then one is effectively half as effective as two.

    • Joey 19:40 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      @ant6n but (correct me if I’m wrong) they didn’t study whether one does is 50% effective in the long term – only until the second dose was administered. We don’t know how long that 50% effectiveness lasts without a second dose. It may be that, six weeks after administration, the effectiveness of one dose alone is 0%.

    • Kevin 20:52 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      jeather
      It is not supported by any that I know, and I know quite a few.

    • ant6n 06:22 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      @Joey
      I think I misunderstood you: I thought you say that the first dose may give you more than 50% protection.

    • Joey 09:41 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      @ant6n good question – what do we mean when we say the first dose “provices 50% protection”? I think – and again, correct me if I’m wrong, we mean that, compared to the control group, the recipients of the vaccine were were half as likely to get COVID-19 following the first dose. However, because they received the second dose within 28 days, we can’t measure the value of the first dose alone beyond that (since after 28 days there are *no people* who have only received one dose). My concern is that we don’t know how long the benefit of a single-dose vaccine lasts becuase it hasn’t been studied. Hope this is clearer.

    • david44 15:27 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

      I’m constantly amazed by how Julius Grey still gets so much work. Also mildly strange is that every attorney at his firm is a young woman.

  • Kate 11:12 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

    All kinds of media are already bracing for whatever additional pandemic rules will be called down Wednesday at 5 p.m. when François Legault is to hold a presser, with the Journal evoking the October Crisis and the Gazette reviewing the mixed success of other lockdowns around the world.

     

    • dmdiem 12:45 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      It seems to me the greatest indicator of whether a lockdown is successful is compliance. If people adhere to the spirit of the lockdown or if they look for loopholes in the rules, or ignore it outright. That’s what’s happening right now. People are gathering at each others houses. I think the reason the first lockdown was as relatively successful as it was, was because people were terrified and actually locked down. I suspect that if the virus was slightly more deadly to younger people, there might be greater compliance.

    • DeWolf 13:57 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      The Gazette mentions data from several studies in the US suggests that closing schools leads to a 60 percent reduction in cases and deaths. And yet here we seem to be bending over backwards to keep schools open as much as possible. It seems like a big blind spot.

    • Michael Black 14:25 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      But all of this has been about value versus spread.

      If everything stopped, we’d die. So some have to be out there, no matter how much it might spread the virus. Other things are in the “nice” category, so those can be shut down with only economic hardship.

      Schools aren’t vital, but learning is. It’s a stimulus, and in our society school is a place to house kids. For some, auxiliary things like hot lunches matter a lot. It’s incredibly hard to shut that down even if it’s a spreader.

      Ironically, it’s easy to say “stay home unless it’s absolutely needed” but way harder to control. So schools may be spreaders, but there seems to be activity that shoukdbpn’t be happening but which is way harder to check on.

    • Jack 14:31 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      During the October Crisis was there a curfew? It’s just if the Journal de Montreal says it , I look it up. I can’t find any evidence of a curfew. Can someone help me out?

    • Michael Black 14:46 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

      I remember no curfew but I turned 11 later in the month, so I was hardly out late.

      We did go out on Halloween, the only detail I remember was a house two blocks over guarded by a soldier. An MNA, maybe cabinet minister, lived there. We skipped that house.

    • David256 03:06 on 2021-01-08 Permalink

      Thanks for your recollections.

  • Kate 10:58 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

    Tony Accurso is not out of the woods yet. He’s facing the opening of his fourth trial this week. There’s a brief summary of the previous three trials as well as an explanation of the current charges.

     

    • Kate 10:47 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

      Maybe someone sociologically or economically inclined can explain why residential real estate sales are soaring.

       

      • Chris 11:39 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

        And while you’re at it, explain the current S&P 500. 🙂

      • GC 13:03 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

        Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who have bought bigger places because one or both of a couple is now expecting to work from home a lot more.

        Obviously, a lot of people have taken a big financial hit from the pandemic. (And some billionaires have actually _benefited_ from it…) A lot of office workers, however, haven’t taken a hit but have all this extra money that they used to spend on travel, bars, restaurants, etc.

      • su 13:04 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

        I think it is because of the low interest rates set by reserve banks to make money cheap to borrow .
        Low mortgage rates. The markets have completely disconnected from the real economy through the cheap money that wealthier folks can borrow because they have collateral.
        This was the chosen method to bailout the economies after the derivatives fraud scam of 2007-2008.

      • walkerp 13:22 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

        People who have discretionary income are spending less on consumer goods and thus have more to invest. I think that partially explains the growth of the stock market over this time (and does not undermine the argument that our system is utterly pathological).

      • su 13:47 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

        I worry about massive privatisation to come when our governments are bankrupt and totally in debt after all this. It was bad enough in 2008 ! Whoever has some big bucks stashed away is going to make a killing…which of course will “trickle down” to everyone else.

      • GC 09:02 on 2021-01-07 Permalink

        Also, some people of means have been buying chalets. They aren’t ready to complete give up their place in the city, but they don’t have to be there all the time anymore, so…

    • Kate 10:46 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

      A young woman was stabbed overnight in Dorval and a man was arrested.

       

      • Kate 10:45 on 2021-01-06 Permalink | Reply  

        A grocery store in Rosemont was set on fire overnight when a dumpster outside blazed up for unknown reasons.

        Also, there was a fire Tuesday morning in the Guillaume bakery on the Main.

         

        • DeWolf 13:52 on 2021-01-06 Permalink

          Good thing Guillaume is next door to a fire station.

      c
      Compose new post
      j
      Next post/Next comment
      k
      Previous post/Previous comment
      r
      Reply
      e
      Edit
      o
      Show/Hide comments
      t
      Go to top
      l
      Go to login
      h
      Show/Hide help
      shift + esc
      Cancel