Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gareth

  1. 19 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

    That’s kind of amusing. Do you think if countries didn’t ask for negative tests China would start being more transparent with information? Do you think the country that locked foreigners in their apartments for months at a time would consider a request for a negative test from travelers to be too burdensome?

    I don't know what China will do but like I said before, after travel ban and testing requirement for negative tests for African countries due to omicron, majority of African countries are not sharing data anymore.  These kind of comfort measure behaviors by countries like the U.S. and Canada are impeding transparency and data sharing.  The first step to data sharing and transparency is to stop comfort measure behaviors that do nothing to eradicate this pandemic except to make the public feel like the government is doing something.

  2. 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

    I think Public Health was trying to be reasonable by saying it’s for 30 days (which can be extended, for sure) because of a lack of data coming out of China. And while you might cry “punishment” or even “racism”, I suspect health officials don’t want to be lashed with the same criticism they got back in 2020 that they hadn’t acted fast enough.

    Thats the issue.  Its already too late.  From WHO reports, the variants that are surging through China are not new variants but variants that are already in Canada, the U.S., Europe, etc.  It would be different if the COVID surge in China is due to a new variant.  Requiring a negative test from just China when someone infected with BF7 traveling from Europe, the U.S., or any other countries entering Canada w/o a required test doesn't make sense.  If the Public Health are really trying to do their due diligence to protect Canadians, they should require a negative test for everyone entering Canada.  Even then, historically that has not shown to be effective...ie see Japan, Taiwan, USA, etc.  I'm surprised that countries continue to do the same things over and over again even though empirical evidence don't support these measures.  Government should stop with comfort measures that empirically have been shown to be ineffective.  

    Like I said at this point, the world has to be more transparent and willing to share data with each other.  Alienating 1 country is the wrong step to promote this. 

  3. 53 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

    Some professors here in Canada have accused the government of being wrong headed by announcing visitors from China will need to have a negative Covid test to enter the country. They say testing didn’t work before and won’t work now. No quarantine provisions because people who test positive won’t be allowed to enter the country. Public Health says it’s a 30-day temporary measure because of the lack of information about what’s going on in China.

    It depends on the intent or what Canada is trying to achieve.  If the intent of requiring negative COVID test to enter the country is to slow or prevent transmission of COVID then it is pointless since COVID is already circulating through Canada.  Likewise, if it is to prevent a certain variant from China then that is also pointless since the BF.7 variant has been detected in Canada since August I think. 

    I heard a decent podcast about how many countries see negative covid test for entry as a form of punishment.  This perception stemmed from when most countries required a negative test for entry for South Africans because they were the first to identify the omicron variant (even though it was first detected in Botswana).  Singling a country out doesn't make sense at this point and just stymie data sharing and transparency.  

  4. 5 minutes ago, DMC said:

    One could indeed argue that!  Indeed - many researchers are currently arguing that point.  Which is the point!  The scheduling is a whole huge ass pile of horse shit.  And moreover, for anyone that has taken these drugs recreationally, it's just about as ass backwards as you could possibly imagine.  LSD, shrooms, and weed are not nearly as addictive as oxy, coke, and meth.  That's...beyond absurd.  Which is why the DEA can go fuck itself right up its anachronistic hippy hating fucking ass.

    Its Congress that came up with the Controlled Substance Act of 1990 (I'm sure with DEA's input).  So blame should be placed on Congress and not the DEA who is just enforcing the Act.  

  5. 5 hours ago, DMC said:

    Yeah.  I really don't think this needs to be argued.  Here's the DEA's description of Schedule II drugs if you just google it:

    Obviously all those drugs are quite dangerous.  Problem is, the "Schedule I" drugs - or specifically and legally coded as more dangerous - include LSD and marijuana, which is of course absurd.  Hell, even rating ecstasy and peyote as more dangerous than the others is absurd to me, but whatever. 

    The main difference between Schedule I vs Schedule II drugs is not "more dangerous" but medical benefits.  Schedule I drugs are deemed to hold no medical benefits while Schedule II drugs have medical benefits.  Both schedule I and II drugs hold similar addictive or abusive potential.  For example, cocaine (with severe adverse effects) is a schedule II because its a potent vasoconstrictor that is used in surgery while LSD (with less adverse effects compared to cocaine but no proven medical benefits) is a schedule I.  One could argue that putting drug in schedule I prevents scientific/medical research to prove that the drug has medical benefits.  For example, there are anecdotal reports of LSD having benefits in the treatment of anxiety and depression but no randomized control trial can be done to prove this.  

    When I was a pharmacy student, working at a big teaching hospital, part of my job was to deliver controlled drugs to satellite pharmacies to restock their supplies.  I would deliver huge batches of  cocaine, fentanyl, morphine, etc vials as well as beer and hard liquor (mostly whiskey) to the cancer units that have inpatient hospice units.  The beer and hard liquor were heavily scrutinized and the pharmacists there would immediately count how many were delivered and signed off on the use of proof of use sheet of receiving x amount.  The cocaine, fentanyl, morphine, etc not so much.  I guess pharmacy students back then were more likely to crack open a beer in the elevator then steal a vial of cocaine lol.  

  6. 50 minutes ago, Zorral said:

    They were cashing in on the bounty rewarded to ANYONE who reports an abortion has taken place.  It wasn't the hospital who did this, it was a specific PERSON who worked there.



    I didn't read that the specific person received a bounty or was trying to get a bounty.  I have always been pro-choice and the new Texas law is absolutely wrong.  There are ways to tell the difference between miscarriage vs induced abortion.  Induced abortion requires an inducer, eg chemical, trauma, etc.  Unfortunately I have seen my fair share of cases of women taking an overdose of OTC or prescription medications to induce abortion.  

    edited to add:  If a specific person turned the woman in hope of cashing in on a bounty, that is violation of HIPPA and subjected to $250,000 fine personally as well as the hospital system that person works for.  I'm sure that hospital compliance dept will be viewing this.

  7. 1 hour ago, LongRider said:


     See above, the DA dropped the charge because they determined that no crime was committed.


    Yes, this is after the grand jury indicted her.  I don't know the specifics but my guess is that the hospital is trying protect themselves against the new abortion law in Texas.  

  8. 20 hours ago, LongRider said:

    Interesting, wonder if the hospital was a Catholic one or run by another religion.  If the woman was a patient there, wouldn't this be a violation of her HIPPA rights?  Not that it matters as apparently, punishment of women is what really matters.

    HIPPA doesn't applies when a law is broken.  I'm sure Texas anti-abortion law has a stipulation that not reporting is subjective to a fine.  

  9. In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on

    Robert Frost.


    Lately, I have been reminding myself at work of the polish expression:  Not my circus, not my monkeys.

  • Create New...