Interesting that on one (lockdown) side is mostly doctors in University Health Network and Unity Health Toronto (arguable the top hospitals in Canada), and the other (don't lockdown) letter is mostly professors at McMaster and University of Toronto (arguably the top medical schools in Canada).
Probably just circulating petitions within their networks. The numbers are small enough that this could be little more than grabbing some colleagues through the intranet.
Interesting. How's the discussion between those groups going there?
The chasm here in Germany seems to range between a majority of epidemiologists and virologists advising on sensible measures going forward and a few economics folks, a bunch of private clinic doctors and a vocal group of clearly right wing / conspiracy people. The latter group either sings the tiring "it's just the flu" or "people die for many reasons anyway" song and can be seen on Twitter, discovering basic epidemiological models in real time. Their arguments are very similar to those of flat earthers honestly, precluding any notion of a grounded debate on what measures are sensible in order to keep the health system in working order and shield those that are vulnerable.
>Their arguments are very similar to those of flat earthers honestly, precluding any notion of a grounded debate on what measures are sensible in order to keep the health system in working order and shield those that are vulnerable.
From the opposite perspective, the people who keep insisting that measures like that are necessary to "keep the health system working" in spite of Sweden providing a strong counter-example (no lockdowns or masks, but deaths have steadily trended downards, there wasn't a second wave, and it isn't even in the top ten deaths-per-capita countries now) seem anti-science.
Yeah, I've read your other posts here. Note that I did not argue for a complete lockdown in my post but a grounded discussion of effective measures. This "but Sweden" argument is exactly how much of this discussion reads like a bunch of political nonsense.
The UK tried a Sweden, saw it wasn't working, and switched policies. Sweden itself didn't have a full on lockdown but it's had other measures put in place (e.g. restriction of public gatherings that last I checked were now more restrictive than Germany) and we have plenty of places were heavier local outbreaks clearly led to the negative implications we want to avoid going forward (e.g. NYC, Italy). You're free to call that anti science but absolutism in the face of many unknowns isn't scientific either.
Swrdish culture, support systems and economic incentives, and consequently behavior in the absence of mandates, and the Swedish health Systems, aren't the same as, for instance, the American versions of each of those. So, it makes little sense to assume that the behaviors necessary to protect the Swedish health system are identical to those which would be necessary for a dissimilar country, or that even if they were that they would necessarily be acheived by the same policies.
The proof of this is that, Sweden, without a firm mandatory lockdown, experienced pretty much all the economic consequences of one—because without a mandate for lockdown, Sweden acheived the near behavioral equivalent.
