Are we in a second wave? — “yes this is certainly a big question for everyone right now. The Public Health Agency of Canada has come out with three models to anticipate what might happen in the fall.”
The question and answer came on the heels of reporter asking about the percentage of cases coming from parties and gatherings. “You talk about a significant number of new cases coming from parties, what is that percentage that you know are coming from parties? Because we are also hearing from epidemiologists that we don’t know where about where 50 percent of the cases are coming from, so how confident are you that it’s only gatherings and parties?
Premier Ford quickly found a reason to call Dr. Yaffi to the podium to answer the question. ” I’ll pass it over to Dr. Yaffi” Premier Ford said before walking away to allow Dr. Yaffi to deliver disturbing information.
“With respect to what percentage of cases are from social gatherings, uhmm, I dont have that specific data, but we are seeing an increase in that as a cause or a contact factor in an increasing proportion of cases.”
In essence, we have no clue as to the percentage that are actually being caused by the gatherings, but its obviously the problem to focus on according to the Ford government.
It got worse — throughout the livestream as they announced the possibility of a second lock-down, Dr. Yaffi announced that predictions and models are being used to justify a possible second lockdown. That’s right, no hard data and known facts —models and predictions are now what’s used to dictate public policy.
Prediction 1 – “A big second wave, which would be a sustained increase of three to four times the size of wave one.”
Prediction 2 – “Another is to have smaller waves but multiple waves.”
Prediction 3 – “Another one is what they call a slow burn with no particular waves.”
Dr. Yaffi then went on to say “At this point in Ontario our numbers are rapidly going up — it is a wave,” she said rather unassured of herself.
“I think when people hear second wave they assume we’re talking big wave and we’re hoping we’re not — but we are in a wave, I hope that clarifies,” Dr. Yaffi concluded.
Well no not really. You gave three different “predictions” based entirely off modelling that is known to be unreliable. You are using the big scary prediction of “bigger than the first wave” to justify another rollback on Canadians rights. So you have three different models that all predict three completely different outcomes Mr. Ford?
Why are we the people of Ontario eating this nonsense up? One prediction says chaos and doom (prediction 1), another says yes there is a wave but it will be manageable (prediction 2), and the third says don’t worry, it will be a “wave” but a slow sustained burn.
Mr. Ford wants Ontarians to focus only on prediction 1 – then he wants you to forget its not based in hard facts but is a modelling prediction.
Forget the other two possibilities, Premier Ford cares so much about our safety that even though the models used predict two other possible outcomes, he is willing to completely ignore that data for your safety.
Why is it that Ford and governments all around the world keep pointing to models?
Suggested Article: Who cares what the models say Doug!
Is it possible they point to models precisely because they aren’t accurate? Is it possible that they prefer models to real data because models allow them to fear-monger the masses?
What do you mean?
Models allow for what is known as GIGO. This means “garbage in, garbage out”. Where are you going with this Staley? PCR tests are not known to be a reliable form of COVID testing for an “infectious” individual. This means that someone who tests positive can be carrying a dead virus with no capability of infecting others, but still be included in the modelling predictions that predict a “second wave bigger than the first.”
The same modelling predictions the Ford government is citing to take away your rights with a second lockdown.
Look at this excerpt from a new study done by Centre For Evidence Based Medicine,
“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.””
This means that although someone may test positive for COVID-19 according to a government issued PCR test, they may not be infectious at all and the test could be picking up dead, non-infectious virus!
We must hold the Ford government and those around the world who continue to misrepresent the facts. The first step in this process is knowing the game that is being played — and make no mistake, they are playing games with numbers.
There is more to come on PCR testing and how these COVID models are completely immoral grounds to shutdown this province or any nation ever again.
Diverge Media doesn’t get media bailout money like the mainstream media, we work hard in our free-time outside of our regular jobs to tell the other side of the story and produce content like this. If you can spare a few dollars, any amount can be selected by donating below or visit the Donate To Diverge page on our site. Thank you in advance.