The same day Premier Doug Ford declared a province-wide mask mandate, Ontario announced an additional 76 COVID-19 deaths.
But what didn’t make the news was that Ontario had been adding data from previous months to its daily tally when coming up with the record-breaking figure.
On October 2, it added 73 cases and 74 deaths, with Health Minister Christine Elliott explaining that “due to a data review at Toronto Public Health, a number of cases and deaths that occurred in the spring or summer are being reported today.”
Not only did they not give you this information in the mask-hysteria press conference, the added 73 cases were enough to boost Ontario to its single-day high.
What they also didn’t mention was what the definition of a “case” is, as per Ontario Health officials. Cases come in three types according to the government, though one definition isn’t used anymore. The two of significance
The first type you need to know about is a “probable case” which includes: a person without a test whom has travelled to an affected area before experiencing symptoms, a person who has been in close contact with a confirmed case, or a person who has lived or worked in a facility with a known outbreak. This also includes a person with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, regardless of if they really have the virus.
As many people living in primarily Democrat run cities and states have suspected for quite sometime, Governor Cuomo admits that the lock downs are not based on any science. In Canada, several regions in Ontario are back in lock down again all but guaranteeing the final destruction of many businesses which had barely survived the first set of lock downs. Intentionally impoverishing people through the systematic destruction of their livelihood for no reason is a crime against humanity. The hardships that millions of people are having to endure as a result of these unconstitutional, and destructive lock downs is likely to endure for many years.
Fresh from her “ordeal” of almost being kidnapped by a couple of white supremacists leftist, BLM-supporting militia nuts, overnight there was more bad news for Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer when on Monday a conservative majority in the Michigan Supreme Court denied her request to extend the emergency powers which she invoked to curb the spread of the coronavirus, declaring it unconstitutional.
The justices reversed a lower court’s opinion that supported the governor’s use of executive powers amid the pandemic when they voted 6-1 against halting the precedential effect of its Oct. 2 opinion until Oct. 30. They reaffirmed their initial 4-3 ruling that declared unconstitutional her use of the 1945 emergency powers law.
Michigan Supreme Court justices are elected on the nonpartisan portion of the Michigan ballot, but they are nominated at state political party conventions. The four Republican-nominated justices — Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, David Viviano and Elizabeth Clement — all ruled that the Emergency Powers of Governor Act that the governor relied on in issuing her orders is unconstitutional. The three Democratic-nominated justices — McCormack, Bernstein, and Cavanagh — all said that both the law and Whitmer’s orders under the 1945 law should be ruled valid.
In striking down her attempt to continue usurping power, the court wrote that executive orders issued under the law “are of no continuing legal effect. This order is effective upon entry.”
But new emergency orders that the Whitmer administration has issued through the state health department director — which replicate mask requirements, restrictions on gathering sizes and restaurant capacity, among other features — are not affected by the court’s ruling.
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling is in response to a lawsuit brought by the Michigan Legislature. The Oct. 2 ruling, which was a 4-3 decision striking down the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945, was in response to questions sent to the court by a federal judge handling a lawsuit brought by medical service providers in western Michigan.
Whitmer had asked the justices to give her administration, lawmakers and local health departments 28 days to transition in the wake of the major decision. Last week, her administration quickly reinstituted mask requirements, gathering limits and other restrictions with orders issued by the state health department under a different law.
As of October 13th, 9,227 medical and health scientists as well as 23,943 medical practioners have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has been censored across social media as Governments and their tech allies have sought to conceal the fact that there is no global concensus that lockdowns work, or that they should be used at all. As the declaration began to gain steam the World Health Organisation appears to have walked back their stance on lock downs.
The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.