Ok, enough is enough. What does a curfew accomplish? Contact tracing shows where virtually every outbreak comes from, this is publicly available and easily accessible data that is compiled by the government and somehow never used by the government. It is massively skewed towards work place first (48% active outbreaks), old age homes (33% and also where the vast majority of deaths happen which should not be a surprise to anyone), Education (10%), Childcare (4.8%) and "activities and events unknown" rounding out the rest.
This government and media would have you believe that it's all the young people out partying and this is the major factor in communal spread. It is negligible, and a curfew does nothing but add even more stress to a tired and anxious population at the time of year when depression and anxiety are highest in a normal year, let alone a covid year, to accomplish absolutely nothing.
Do you know how many people under 30 have died in Quebec from covid? Almost none. Does that mean we shouldn't take measures to protect our elderly and vunerable? Of course not. But the media at large and even many public officials do almost nothing but enflame fear and it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny of the data compiled by that same government. We need PERSPECTIVE and some type of positivity, not constant fear mongering and dystopian measures like a ridiculous curfew.
Case in point, if you ask a random person what they think their chances of dying from covid is, they will more than likely say about 1%. That is patently false. If you are under 20 and get infected with covid your chance of dying is 1 in 3.3 million. 20 to 49, 1 in 500000 (which happens to be the exact same chance you have of being killed by a bolt of lighting). 50 to 69 is 0.005 out of 100 chance, and over 70 is 0.054 chance out of 100. This is called Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) and the information can be found by anyone by visiting the CDC website.
There is non-stop daily focus on "CONFIRMED CASES!", which the media waves like a flag and the government then makes kneejerk reactions about. An infection in and of itself is not a serious issue (see the IFR stats above) , and an infection isn't technically even a case unless it results in a hospitalization. We need logical and reasonable metrics to use and a clear plan of action based on actual cases. What makes sense as metrics to focus on is rate of infection (because 2500 cases a day doesn't mean as much if we are doing 40000 tests a day, vs early on when we had 1000 cases daily but ony 5000 tests), hospitalizations, ICU beds in use and deaths by age demographic. The actual number of confirmed infections is the least important but gets all the attention because it's a big scary number. And that doesnt mean I dont think there is a big problem, it means focus on what the actual problem is.
The biggest threat to society as a whole was/is hospital undercapacity. Here is something I bet you didn't know. In Quebec we started with 7000 beds designated for covid. The peak beds in use was 1604 in early May. In June the beds were reduced to 6000, in August (right before the EXPECTED second wave) it was reduced again to 3000, and in DECEMBER 2020 is was reduced again to 2164. There was no news coverage about this, no government mention about this or justification for it. If you want to scour the internet you can look at the CBCs archives of "a guide to the numbers" you can verify this yourself. Why is adding back additional beds never part of the conversation or solution?
The government is asking for and taking too much and providing very little to back it up. They've decimated the restaurant industry in spite of the fact there is no data to back it as a significant vector for outbreak. They've turned micromanaging every aspect of daily life in an unprecedented and positively dystopian way, including encouraging snitching on your neighbours. Covid continues to be touted as an apocalyptic plague even though we now understand it far better and have adjusted our treatment (which is why the rate of death is far lower now than at the start) and have vaccines. Instead of creating transparent understanding of the actual problem which leads to social cohesion and solidarity to solve it, they've retreated to censorship and shaming, backed up by a digital mob, for anyone who dare asks legitimate questions, standing on a soapbox platform of authority by portraying that all medical professionals agree with their tactics, when that is far from the truth.
At the start of the latest lockdown in Ontario while there were of course many doctors who applauded it, there were also an almost equal number who actively petitioned against it. Guess which group had a platform for their views. I've personally spoken with three doctors who feel the measures have gone far beyond what they should, yet are often attacked when speaking out about their viewpoint. This type of censorship to me demonstrates a lack of trust in the public in an apparent aim to squash any questions or opposing viewpoints (presumably to keep people in line with their mandates), but in reality it fuels strong dissent and mistrust .