Coronavirus

[L K]

A second for some perspective here:  Approx. 22,000 Canadians die each month based upon 2019 figures.  I had 6 friends and family die just before Coronvirus arrived in force.  This happened in a 3 week span.  Two died from Cancer, one a heart attack, 3 from old age/dementia.  Yet if they had died after exposure to Coronavirus would they have died from Coronavirus or natural causes?

It really depends on the acute cause.  When we fill out death certificates the form has several things that show up.

The Ontario death certficate has a few lines:

1) Immediate cause of death
2) Antecedent causes that led to death
3) Significant conditions contributing to death but not directly related to the cause of death

So lets say you died from a bad pneumonia

1) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
2) Pneumonia
3) COPD

Line two has a part a, part b, part c kind of list.  So for something like COVID-19.  It would be COVID-19 leads to Pneumonia. 

Now lets say you have COPD but also died from COVID

1) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
2a) Pneumonia
2b) COVID-19
3) COPD

If we take say the dementia patient it would depend on what symptoms they had at the time of death.

If it was someone who was in the end stages of their dementia and they passed away without clear respiratory symptoms but did secondarily test positive for COVID they still could have a cause of death as dementia.  If they died from acute respiratory symptoms their cause of death would be the respiratory failure and not dementia.  So COVID will certainly change the most likely cause of death for some people.

 

[L K]

We have not been out of the house for over a week. I finally decided to make a grocery store run yesterday. I had a list to get that should last for two weeks. There were numerous couples shopping and I watched a woman buying bananas pick up 8 different bunches and put them back. I finally asked her from a safe distance if she intended to touch them all.She scowled at me took the ones in her hand and walked up to the checkout line. that was the only thing she bought.

I like banana bread as much as the next person, but it hardly warrants a specific trip to the grocery store right now.

Someone going to the grocery store to buy one item of that nature would suggest they aren't taking this whole thing seriously as probably has been potentially exposing themselves to on a regular basis. Those are the people I would be afraid of getting close to.

This is why the "oh its young kids" or "oh its just the elderly" stuff needs to stop. We should scold the Spring break kids.  We should scold the 80 year olds.  We should scold the soccer moms. 

The follow on the discussion theme of fear mongering vs. focusing on positive.  Yes, we should definitely be celebrating the success stories more.  We should be talking about the recovered people.  We should be praising the health care workers who are finishing their shifts and going back for more the next day.  We should be having better respect for the grocers and people still serving coffees out of the drive-thru. 
We also need to highlight the start reality that no one individual can escape the disease if they have the wrong factors and it doesn't matter if you are healthy or never get sick.  If you aren't protecting yourself, you are doing it to protect others and being gentle doesn't get the message across to idiots who think they are above everyone else.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The follow on the discussion theme of fear mongering vs. focusing on positive.  Yes, we should definitely be celebrating the success stories more.  We should be talking about the recovered people.  We should be praising the health care workers who are finishing their shifts and going back for more the next day.  We should be having better respect for the grocers and people still serving coffees out of the drive-thru. 
We also need to highlight the start reality that no one individual can escape the disease if they have the wrong factors and it doesn't matter if you are healthy or never get sick.  If you aren't protecting yourself, you are doing it to protect others and being gentle doesn't get the message across to idiots who think they are above everyone else.

Very well said.

 

[Stebro]

In Sweden I think we have 3 deaths under the age of 50, and the ones who seem to worry the most are people under 50. Media is constantly posting articles about young people all over the world that die. So I hold media responsible if mental health issues increase a lot for young people, well the media and unemployment.

I sent critical comments with my perspective to a big paper here, and asked them to inform people that we have 3 deaths under the age of 50 of a population of over 10 million (obviously all of them are not 0-50). Kudos to them since they posted it, and just stating that what I said was correct, and they will try to lift that perspective more.

 

[Highlander]

In Sweden I think we have 3 deaths under the age of 50, and the ones who seem to worry the most are people under 50. Media is constantly posting articles about young people all over the world that die. So I hold media responsible if mental health issues increase a lot for young people, well the media and unemployment.

I sent critical comments with my perspective to a big paper here, and asked them to inform people that we have 3 deaths under the age of 50 of a population of over 10 million (obviously all of them are not 0-50). Kudos to them since they posted it, and just stating that what I said was correct, and they will try to lift that perspective more.

Hey Stebro,  What is going on over in Sweden? My wife is British and goes to the BBC site and she seems to think that people are out and about, eating in resto's and bars and such.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52076293?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c77jz3md4rwt/sweden&link_location=live-reporting-story
Looks like you are having more fun than poor Moi!

 

[Stebro]

In Sweden I think we have 3 deaths under the age of 50, and the ones who seem to worry the most are people under 50. Media is constantly posting articles about young people all over the world that die. So I hold media responsible if mental health issues increase a lot for young people, well the media and unemployment.

I sent critical comments with my perspective to a big paper here, and asked them to inform people that we have 3 deaths under the age of 50 of a population of over 10 million (obviously all of them are not 0-50). Kudos to them since they posted it, and just stating that what I said was correct, and they will try to lift that perspective more.

Hey Stebro,  What is going on over in Sweden? My wife is British and goes to the BBC site and she seems to think that people are out and about, eating in resto's and bars and such.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52076293?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c77jz3md4rwt/sweden&link_location=live-reporting-story
Looks like you are having more fun than poor Moi!

Hey Highlander, I'll try to make a summary of what it's like in Sweden right now:

*People above 70+ and risk groups are allowed to go outside as long as they keep a distance, what usually is recommended here is at least 2 meters. They are recommended to avoid crowds, they are not longer allowed in supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants etc. So basically they can only leave the house to go for a walk.

*Only crowds up to 50 is allowed, however there are regulations/recommendations in relation to that number. So supermarkets for example are supposed to have control over how many they have in the store, and must make sure that there's a distance of about 2 meters, when standing in queue.

*Just like most other countries we have issues with equipment and staff.

*Our biggest issue is residential homes. In a recent investigation it was found that the virus had been spread to 1/3 residential homes in Stockholm, which obviously is a big problem. So there are emergency meetings on how to deal with this. Since a while back people are not allowed to visit residential homes.

*As for restaurants and bars, you are only allowed to make orders while sitting by a table and keeping a distance as well as you can. Restaurant are responsible for doing what it takes to make sure that this works, other they will be shut down most likely. People are not allowed to hang in a bar.

*The government is working on a legislation so they can make faster decisions of shutting things down if it is needed, however the opposition have some democratic concerns about this, but we will see where it ends.

*In general in Sweden the people have a lot of confidence in governments as well as different authorities, so there is a mutual trust between the people and the government and the public agencies. In general we've only been given recommendations in Sweden, which people for most part have followed. There has been a debate here on whether the "experts" in the public health agency is getting to much influence or not in relation to the government. One thing that is important to note is that the public agencies here are independent, so we don't have ministerial rule here, which is quite different compared to most countries. A recommendation here from a public agency or the government is pretty much as efficient as a law in general.

*The public health agency is constantly stressing that we have to think long term, and they don't think that a complete lock down would be sustainable for a long period of time if needed. Therefore they are trying to achieve similar results as other countries with recommendations, which people for most part follow. They're not ruling out a lock down though, but as I said they say that it could only work for a very short time.

*There has been a lot of discussion about Sweden's strategy. Basically what I think the strategy is based on what I hear is that the public health agency is worried about the long term. If we shut everything down now, fewer people might get infected, and then they are afraid that a second wave will hit in the autumn or winter when it will be colder here and easier for the virus to spread. At that time we will most likely not have a vaccine, and maybe not other cure either, and we don't know how deadly a second wave will be if it comes. However they are admitting that they are unsure of how the immunity works, for how long and to what extent. But they are confident that we will see more waves of the corona virus. I think the general strategy is herd immunity while protecting risk groups, but if the death tolls escalate too much I think they might change their minds. The Netherlands are currently using a similar strategy to Sweden's.

*Some scientists/doctors are not in agreement with the public health agency over the strategy, an e-mail with concerns signed by around 2000 was sent to the public health agency. However some experts in Norway and Denmark said that their own countries decisions were political and not based on science.

*As for pictures of Stockholm, I've been there a couple of times in the last few weeks, there's not a lot of people around. In Swedish media it's been called a ghost town.

*Stockholm just used a specific option in a union deal, which means that the staff
in the healthcare have to work 8 hours more per week (48 in total now) if I remember it correctly, and in return the staff will get 220% of their salary.

*We have had big issues with public transports. People who can are advised to work from home, and people have been asked not to use public transports unless absolutely necessary, they are still trying to find a better solution for this, and in Stockholm they are working on a solution where staff in the healthcare etc can take taxis for free instead, to try to prevent them from getting infected.

*High schools/Colleges/Universities are not open, people study from home.

*People with any kind of symptom have been told to stay at home, and the government have changed some rules regarding sick leave. So the first day you get 70% of your salary, from then on it's at least 80% (it depends on which union you are apart of). The government also removed the need for a doctor's note for the first 14 days, usually you need that after 7 days, but they extended that period. The public health agency have also stated that they want people to be out on a regular basis even if it's not to the same extent before. But they want you to keep a distance, they see it as a risk to the public health if people are not outside every now and then and move around.

So that's the short summary

 

[Kin]

You know, when all of this is over I really hope there's some real accountability for how this all shook down. And I don't mean accountability in the way people sometimes mean it politically as "I don't agree with the PM's politics so I hope this hurts his chances at the next election" because any fault in the Government's response can be equally thrown at the opposition parties who weren't advocating for anything better.

But, like, we're going to need to know why the reaction to this was so bad. Why everything that should have happened in early February happened in mid-late March. I'm not looking to score points here but the people who are supposed to be looking out for us should have been better prepared. Both federally and provincially. And not in a Bill Gates-esque "We know a pandemic is coming sense" but like, we knew it was here in February. All of those chances shouldn't have been taken.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Trump was warned as early as January that something wasn?t right concerning the situation in China by U.S. Inteliugence.  In fact, it was as early as December when alarm began to sprout in earnest.  The Trump administration, namely Trump himself chose to ignore such warnings.  The original pandemic intelligence council, propped up by the previous (Obama) administration that was put in place to keep watch on outbreaks of Ebola and other potential epidemics & pandemics, was long disbanded by the Trump administration.

The fact that the United States, once a world leader, has no national nor unifying plan and is nothing more than a disorganized and rudderless mess, in what should have amounted to a concerted and direct effort to at least be somewhat better prepared & equipped to handle such a scenario, is a result of the ineptitude and volatility of it?s leader in the White House.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-did-president-trumps-decision-disband-global-pandemic-office-hinder-response/5064881002/

BTW Trump?s decision to halt supply shipments to Canada is very frankly, by any other name, insulting. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/3m-warns-of-white-house-order-to-stop-exporting-masks-to-canada-163060

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Trump was warned as early as January that something wasn?t right concerning the situation in China by U.S. Inteliugence.  In fact, it was as early as December when alarm began to sprout in earnest.  The Trump administration, namely Trump himself chose to ignore such warnings.  The original pandemic intelligence council, propped up by the previous (Obama) administration that was put in place to keep watch on outbreaks of Ebola and other potential epidemics & pandemics, was long disbanded by the Trump administration.

The fact that the United States, once a world leader, has no national nor unifying plan and is nothing more than a disorganized and rudderless mess, in what should have amounted to a concerted and direct effort to at least be somewhat better prepared & equipped to handle such a scenario, is a result of the ineptitude and volatility of it?s leader in the White House.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-did-president-trumps-decision-disband-global-pandemic-office-hinder-response/5064881002/

BTW Trump?s decision to halt supply shipments to Canada is very frankly, by any other name, insulting. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/3m-warns-of-white-house-order-to-stop-exporting-masks-to-canada-163060

That's great and all, but Canada isn't much better based on their reaction. They would be receiving close to the same intelligence and warnings. They also did nothing until Mid March. And then, even at that, it's been a slow crawl to a lockdown. They are so worried about their political lives, for the most part, that they've chosen to sit on the fence instead of being leaders, and leading. Trudeau getting on TV every day at 11 and skirting questions does nothing. Listen to his interviews. It's just regurgitated crap about what they're doing for us. He sounds like a high school class president going for reelection. Talking about all the pizza days he's going to get for everyone.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Differing opinions and some confusion on just who is spreading the Coronavirus:  ?silent spreaders? a.k.a. people who are asymptomatic are at greater risk of spreading the virus.  At least that?s what the science is now showing.

Did many get it wrong?  And why physical distancing has become ever more imperative.

?The best evidence around the virus that we have is that the virus is not contagious when people are not symptomatic."

But a growing body of research indicates they were wrong. In fact, people don't have to appear ill at all to infect others.

Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University in New York, says he is frustrated when people deny that asymptomatic spread can happen.

Shaman and other researchers argue that even two months ago, officials like Tam and Hajdu should have been more open to the possibility of asymptomatic transmission, considering by that point there was a flurry of research being undertaken by scientists racing to understand how the virus was spreading so fast and far. Many of those researchers suspected asymptomatic transmission.

His research found that while undocumented cases ? those with mild or no symptoms who did not have a confirmed diagnosis at the time ? were only half as infectious as symptomatic ones, they were the source for nearly 80 per cent of documented cases. That's because people who feel fine are the ones out and about, travelling and interacting with more people.

Asked whether it's fair to say these so-called silent spreaders are "super-spreaders," Shaman replied: "Yes."

Dr. Allison McGeer, an infectious disease specialist with Sinai Health System in Toronto, argues while Tam's messaging about asymptomatic spread back in January "might not have been ideal," there's a good chance people would not have been onside with major restrictions to their lives before they could see proof of how serious the problem was. After all, Canada only reported its first case of COVID-19 in late January.

"There is evidence that if officials appear uncertain about things, people lose trust. They get angry. They don't follow guidance. So we put this demand on public health people to have answers when there are no answers. And that's just an impossible situation," she said.

Story:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-silent-spreaders-1.5520006

 

[Kin]

They are so worried about their political lives, for the most part, that they've chosen to sit on the fence instead of being leaders, and leading. Trudeau getting on TV every day at 11 and skirting questions does nothing. Listen to his interviews. It's just regurgitated crap about what they're doing for us. He sounds like a high school class president going for reelection. Talking about all the pizza days he's going to get for everyone.

See, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't really help. "Leadership" means different things to different people and whether you fall into the group or not, there are people who think what Trudeau is doing is effective at getting the government's message across and comforting. A lot of people like the economic response.

When it comes time for genuine accountability we're going to have to deal in specifics. Why weren't specific policies implemented at specific times and so on. Talking about "leadership" in the absence of specifics seems destined to fall into typical partisan disagreements where a lot of minds are largely made up before things start.

Also, as much as we might not want to hear it a lot of those questions aren't going to come with easy answers. We'll need to figure out things for next time as much as recriminate here. Do we want the PM to have the power to unilaterally impose a nationwide shutdown? To impose quarantine on asymptomatic passengers? To dictate provincial health policy?

 

[Highlander]

I want to thank Stebro for his message about Sweden, nice to know what is happening there.

 

[Highlander]

Just to let you know that Dutch St.Maarten is going into a complete lockdown as of later this afternoon.  4 people have died on the small Caribbean island in the last 4 days and thats not counting several deaths on the French side.  People are being told to buy enough groceries for 3 weeks and that they are not allowed to leave their homes for the 3 week period.  It's a very draconian measure, but necessary as a degree of lawlessness was setting in.  Knowing the place like I do, they are totally unprepared for any kind of outbreak.  Sad times for the N.E. Caribbean who were in rebuild mode after the completely devastating hurricanes of 2017.  Unemployment was starting to reach 50% and was heading higher.

 

[princedpw]

Much talk has been made about Bill Gates and his philanthropic interest in aiding against the Coronavirus pandemic.  A closer scrutiny of his foundation (& other foundations owned by billionaires such as Warren Buffet)) show enormous conflicts of interest.  Just who are these foundations really helping?


https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/

You need to look at the big picture.  The big picture is that the vast majority of the charity goes to good causes.  Buried deep in the article is this line:

... there is no credible argument that Bill and Melinda Gates use charity primarily as a vehicle to enrich themselves or their foundation...

Ten seconds of googling came up with these facts:

* the bill gates foundation has donated more than $40 billion to the elimination of extreme poverty

* the bill gates foundation recently donated 1 billion to fight malaria

Did Bill Gates give $80 million to the school his kids attend? Yes.  Is that wrong?  No.  When put in the context of him giving $40 billion to fight poverty, it is totally irrelevant.  Critiquing him for giving money to his kids school is like critiquing someone for buying girlscout cookies from a Toronto child.  That money that you used to buy girlscout cookies could have been used to feed a starving child in Africa or buy a mosquito net for an impoverished family.  If you have ever gone out to a restaurant or bought a gift for anyone in Toronto, you are as guilty as Bill Gates of spending money on something that is inessential when there are people around the world dying of starvation or AIDS or other diseases.

When it comes to the article's points about him giving money to businesses, those are also a drop in the bucket. But more importantly, giving to those businesses might be the most effective way to get aid to people in need.  For example, the article states that he gave $19 million donation to a Mastercard affiliate in 2014 to ?increase usage of digital financial products by poor adults? in Kenya.  The article makes no attempt to investigate whether that might be a good thing.  It's easy to imagine it is a good thing -- it gives access to cash to poor people to help develop their economy.  The article is trying to slime him, for what reason, I have no idea (probably clickbait), but the notion that he's somehow trying to make money off by donating to a program that helps get financial products to Kenyans is beyond ludicrous.  If Bill Gates wanted to make money, there are plenty of vastly better ways he could do it than that.

Let's focus our critiques on people that are actually evil -- the Kochs and their network, Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson, Mitch McConnell, the Trumps, the Kushners, DeVos, etc.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

They are so worried about their political lives, for the most part, that they've chosen to sit on the fence instead of being leaders, and leading. Trudeau getting on TV every day at 11 and skirting questions does nothing. Listen to his interviews. It's just regurgitated crap about what they're doing for us. He sounds like a high school class president going for reelection. Talking about all the pizza days he's going to get for everyone.

See, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't really help. "Leadership" means different things to different people and whether you fall into the group or not, there are people who think what Trudeau is doing is effective at getting the government's message across and comforting. A lot of people like the economic response.

In all honesty, though I'm not a Trudeau guy, I for the most part feel like he's handled this quite well. The same goes for Ford. I think he's a bumbling buffoon for the most part but I also can acknowledge that he's handling this quite well.

What I don't appreciate is the political positioning being done across the board. Yes I picked Trudeau in my previous post, but it's being done by Conservatives, NDP, and Liberals. I get it, really I do. They are politicians. Good politicians turn a crisis into a gain. I just don't think that now is the time.

 

[Bender]

We all have to assist wherever we have strengths and excess capacities. We are too interconnected to do it alone. I mean just look at the US threatening 3M for sending us N95s. Pulp from Nanaimo is used for a lot of PPE production, we have nurses crossing into the States etc. Decent countries will remember assistance and will reciprocate where possible. Imo that's far better than trying to do everything in house when no single country has enough resources individually.

 

[Bender]

A second for some perspective here:  Approx. 22,000 Canadians die each month based upon 2019 figures.  I had 6 friends and family die just before Coronvirus arrived in force.  This happened in a 3 week span.  Two died from Cancer, one a heart attack, 3 from old age/dementia.  Yet if they had died after exposure to Coronavirus would they have died from Coronavirus or natural causes?

It really depends on the acute cause.  When we fill out death certificates the form has several things that show up.

The Ontario death certficate has a few lines:

1) Immediate cause of death
2) Antecedent causes that led to death
3) Significant conditions contributing to death but not directly related to the cause of death

So lets say you died from a bad pneumonia

1) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
2) Pneumonia
3) COPD

Line two has a part a, part b, part c kind of list.  So for something like COVID-19.  It would be COVID-19 leads to Pneumonia. 

Now lets say you have COPD but also died from COVID

1) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
2a) Pneumonia
2b) COVID-19
3) COPD

If we take say the dementia patient it would depend on what symptoms they had at the time of death.

If it was someone who was in the end stages of their dementia and they passed away without clear respiratory symptoms but did secondarily test positive for COVID they still could have a cause of death as dementia.  If they died from acute respiratory symptoms their cause of death would be the respiratory failure and not dementia.  So COVID will certainly change the most likely cause of death for some people.

I had a hunch that the issue is yes, people die naturally all the time, sometimes due chronic conditions, something like seasonal flu picks people off also, but Dr. David Fisman also pointed out, COVID kills people because of COVID. I just think to myself I have an underlying condition of asthma. I have had breathing issues when sick previously but I've almost never been scared of the flu and my symptoms are well managed. COVID throws a wrench into all of that. Certain people with underlying conditions could be predisposed to ARDS if they get COVID but under 99% of normal circumstances a lot of these problems are manageable and people can live long lives even with the multitude of illnesses people contract every year, COVID has a much higher probability of killing those same people. Moreover the number of people requiring oxygen/ventilators seem to be a giveaway that this will kill people if we aren't able to deliver pretty drastic medical intervention. Some people would've died anyway with a different illness but my hunch would be a large proportion of the population would still be with us otherwise.

 

[Bender]

In Sweden I think we have 3 deaths under the age of 50, and the ones who seem to worry the most are people under 50. Media is constantly posting articles about young people all over the world that die. So I hold media responsible if mental health issues increase a lot for young people, well the media and unemployment.

I sent critical comments with my perspective to a big paper here, and asked them to inform people that we have 3 deaths under the age of 50 of a population of over 10 million (obviously all of them are not 0-50). Kudos to them since they posted it, and just stating that what I said was correct, and they will try to lift that perspective more.

There's a fine line between being overly fixated on deaths and rates but also getting the message out there that nobody should take things lightly. Again, they are probably hoping to shock people into recognizing that this is a big deal. I agree that it's not accurate to fixate on cherry picking deaths of young people worldwide but I also wouldn't want there to be complacency amongst the young just because you are statistically less likely to die than someone who is older. For example, a 0.1% death rate still isn't a good death rate if we are looking at an illness that could affect 50%+ of a total demographic group.

I think more important data would be what proportion of people under 50 require hospitalization and ICU assistance. In Canada people under 50 make up 50% of confirmed cases and it seems like people under 50 are in the 20% of hospitalizations range. It is true that one of the primary factors of death is age, but it is also likely true that a good chunk of young patients do need medical help to pull out of this. What happens when there aren't enough hospital beds, oxygen masks, ventilators or health care staff? You get Spain. In Spain the death rate ranges from 0.2%-0.5% under 50. Again, that still isn't a good rate. If 1,000,000 get it you're looking at 3,000 deaths, how many would be prevented with stronger measures?

If people under 50 are worrying the most then wouldn't it stand to reason they would be extra vigilant? If they are the unwitting carriers of this disease that then kills a large portion of the older population and subsequently overloading the health care system then wouldn't it make sense for increased cautiousness on their part? Just because you probably won't die doesn't mean it won't have major butterfly effects elsewhere.

And I mean if you're going to use the Netherlands as a comparable they have one of the worst death rates per 100,000 in Europe. Sweden and the Netherlands are not on good trajectories regarding cases or death rates. Its not just about what's happened or what is happening now - this is what got everyone into this mess. It's about recognizing what will happen in 2 weeks, a month, 3 months from now etc. Let's see what the death rates look like when all is said and done. It won't be pretty, even amongst the young, who probably wouldn't die due to illness under normal circumstances anyway unless it was COVID related. We just got the epidemiological outlook for Ontario yesterday - it doesn't paint a good picture unless we really try to clamp down on this.

 

[Bender]

Much talk has been made about Bill Gates and his philanthropic interest in aiding against the Coronavirus pandemic.  A closer scrutiny of his foundation (& other foundations owned by billionaires such as Warren Buffet)) show enormous conflicts of interest.  Just who are these foundations really helping?


https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/

You need to look at the big picture.  The big picture is that the vast majority of the charity goes to good causes.  Buried deep in the article is this line:

... there is no credible argument that Bill and Melinda Gates use charity primarily as a vehicle to enrich themselves or their foundation...

Ten seconds of googling came up with these facts:

* the bill gates foundation has donated more than $40 billion to the elimination of extreme poverty

* the bill gates foundation recently donated 1 billion to fight malaria

Did Bill Gates give $80 million to the school his kids attend? Yes.  Is that wrong?  No.  When put in the context of him giving $40 billion to fight poverty, it is totally irrelevant.  Critiquing him for giving money to his kids school is like critiquing someone for buying girlscout cookies from a Toronto child.  That money that you used to buy girlscout cookies could have been used to feed a starving child in Africa or buy a mosquito net for an impoverished family.  If you have ever gone out to a restaurant or bought a gift for anyone in Toronto, you are as guilty as Bill Gates of spending money on something that is inessential when there are people around the world dying of starvation or AIDS or other diseases.

When it comes to the article's points about him giving money to businesses, those are also a drop in the bucket. But more importantly, giving to those businesses might be the most effective way to get aid to people in need.  For example, the article states that he gave $19 million donation to a Mastercard affiliate in 2014 to ?increase usage of digital financial products by poor adults? in Kenya.  The article makes no attempt to investigate whether that might be a good thing.  It's easy to imagine it is a good thing -- it gives access to cash to poor people to help develop their economy.  The article is trying to slime him, for what reason, I have no idea (probably clickbait), but the notion that he's somehow trying to make money off by donating to a program that helps get financial products to Kenyans is beyond ludicrous.  If Bill Gates wanted to make money, there are plenty of vastly better ways he could do it than that.

Let's focus our critiques on people that are actually evil -- the Kochs and their network, Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson, Mitch McConnell, the Trumps, the Kushners, DeVos, etc.

Hear hear!! Every organization is deserving of scrutiny but I'd rather deal with ones that are overtly awful first rather than worrying about one that, though has flaws, is very likely a net positive for the world.

 

[Bender]

They are so worried about their political lives, for the most part, that they've chosen to sit on the fence instead of being leaders, and leading. Trudeau getting on TV every day at 11 and skirting questions does nothing. Listen to his interviews. It's just regurgitated crap about what they're doing for us. He sounds like a high school class president going for reelection. Talking about all the pizza days he's going to get for everyone.

See, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't really help. "Leadership" means different things to different people and whether you fall into the group or not, there are people who think what Trudeau is doing is effective at getting the government's message across and comforting. A lot of people like the economic response.

When it comes time for genuine accountability we're going to have to deal in specifics. Why weren't specific policies implemented at specific times and so on. Talking about "leadership" in the absence of specifics seems destined to fall into typical partisan disagreements where a lot of minds are largely made up before things start.

Also, as much as we might not want to hear it a lot of those questions aren't going to come with easy answers. We'll need to figure out things for next time as much as recriminate here. Do we want the PM to have the power to unilaterally impose a nationwide shutdown? To impose quarantine on asymptomatic passengers? To dictate provincial health policy?

I understand people want more concrete answers but in some instances it makes sense that he's skirting certain questions. He was baited a few times into slamming the US for their 3M decision yesterday. No PM in their right mind would do that and if he did that would be grossly negligent considering they have swayed the President's advisors in most positions he's taken in the past. Say they need us, say we will ramp up production, give him a couple compliments and letting our politicians do that work vs. slamming the States publicly is exactly what should be done. People love blustery populist tone but I really don't think it makes sense right now. I'm willing to cut him some slack for now in not delving into the actual specifics of each question.

I think at this point I'm honestly less concerned with Federal leadership and more concerned with Public Health Ontario, questionable testing rates, withholding epidemiological info for quite a while, even amongst non-govt epidemiologists etc. Time to look beyond just the political figures.