Reality vs. CBC: was this Manitoba hospital OVERWHELMED with COVID-19 patients?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/C3Canada/permalink/2402345656577687/ A recent report by the CBC sent shockwaves across the country. But was any of it true? CBC published that the Bethesda Regional Health Centre in Steinbach, Manitoba, had been so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that nurses were forced to triage people in their cars in the parking lot!
But we’re well aware of the blatant lies and mistruths regularly peddled by our state-broadcaster, so I decided to go and see for myself. What I found will surprise you:
According to Manitoba’s official numbers, the day we showed up at the hospital there were just 300 COVID patients across all 58 Manitoba hospitals. That’s five people per hospital! Even less when you consider that only 52 of those people are in ICU. Is that all it takes to overwhelm Manitoba’s healthcare system? Of course not.
But it hasn’t stopped Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister from inflating the perceived risk of this virus to give himself more authority over the lives of Manitobans. Why does the mainstream media continue to push this narrative and support this tyrant? This isn’t a crisis. It never was. The only crisis is that people continue to fall for CBC’s hysterical reporting.
“Do we want to live in a country where people are not free to gather?” MPP Randy Hillier ticketed for organizing a rally. Welcome to Medico-Stalinist vengeance. “If you follow unjust laws, you’re an asshole.” “I’ll go to court & I won’t be wearing a mask.” https://facebook.com/MikeySchweinst
People want GoFundMe to stop hosting fundraiser for Adamson BBQ
Stay in the loop
Sign up for our free email newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime or contact us for details.
The GoFundMe to back Adamson BBQ owner Adam Skelly, who is facing steep fines after famously hosting diners inside one
of his Toronto restaurants last week despite lockdown measures, has
raised nearly $300,000 since it was launched four days ago, and many
are pretty sickened by the show of support.
Skelly has become a hero for anti-lockdowners everywhere,
ranging from those who feel for small businesses on the verge of
certain demise due to pandemic closures to those who think COVID-19 is a
complete hoax.
In response to the hundreds of thousands that Skelly has received
from fans, people have started calling for GoFundMe to take down
his campaign before it becomes any more lucrative for the rule flouter,
who some feel put public health at risk for permitting indoor maskless
dining for not one, but three days in a row at his Etobicoke location.
The 33-year-old restaurateur was arrested
outside his restaurant at the QEW and Royal York last Thursday after a
dramatic confrontation between throngs of his supporters and police, and
now faces multiple charges that include operating without the business license authorities seized from him after his first day of illegal opening on Tuesday.
He may also be convicted for violations of the province’s emergency
orders amid the health crisis, including defying indoor dining
regulations and hosting a prohibited gathering, which could bring
penalties of more than $100,000 plus jail time.
The fundraiser
initially started to pay Skelly’s legal fees “for violating
unconstitutional and draconian COVID ‘public health orders'” — which has
become the site’s top crusade — now has a counter petition asking for its removal, as well as growing opposition online.
But, members of the public are justly able to crowdfund for “just about anything” they want, as the platform itself states, and those donating to the Adamson page presumably know exactly what they’re backing.
Still, others have aptly pointed out the countless other small businesses and causes that residents can direct their money toward instead during a time when so many are floundering (and still following the law).
Skelly headed to an anti-lockdown protest at Yonge-Dundas Square
on Saturday — where he encouraged other businesses owners to contend
the rules and open their doors — after being released on $50,000 bail
the day prior.
Should Penguin Random House give so much as an inch on the cardinal idea of free expression, let it get out of the book tradeRex MurphyPublishing date:Nov 25, 2020 • Last Updated 4 days ago • 4 minute read
Employees
at Jordan Peterson’s publisher, Penguin Random House Canada, have
objected to the publication of his new book, a followup to his
best-selling 12 Rules for Life. Photo by Hollie Adams/Newspix/Getty Images
Axiom
1. The purpose of an enterprise is not to assuage or submit to the
immature predispositions of its most self-centred and querulous
employees.
Rule 1. Any employees at a publishing house who break
down in tears when they hear a certain book is to be published should be
kept far, far away from the author’s promotional tour. [Penguin Random
House – take note.]
OK. Enough is enough. Who let the toddlers run the day care?
In the unlikely event you haven’t heard, there has been a woke-monsoon at Penguin Random House Canada. Tears were shed. People wept.
Who let the toddlers run the day care?
Details I’ll come to, but first some general principles.
The
inanity, silliness, indulgence, narcissism and anti-rationality of the
woke mobs have been tolerated and coddled far too long. They should not
be listened to. They should be laughed at. And they should never be
given the slightest influence or leverage in the major decisions of the
company that pays their salaries.
Advertisement
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content continued
The
woke mindset brings nothing to the table. Its principal identifiers are
but two: weeping and whining. Both infallibly accompanied by “demands”
for the weird thing they call a “safe space,” which may most easily be
defined as anywhere they can break out their toys and stage their
incessant tantrums.
It is degrading to adult dignity and
intellectual integrity to allow a woke mob sway or say over anything.
And most emphatically over what may or should be written or said.
The woke mindset brings nothing to the table
The
most prominent Canadian intellectual of our day, Jordan Peterson, has a
followup book to his incredibly successful, international best-seller,
12 Rules for Life. It sold millions. 12 Rules had an impact that no
other book of its kind can pretend to. It rocket-shot Dr. Peterson into
world prominence and influence, and was a King Solomon’s mine for its
publishers.
And now (this makes the teeth to grind) we hear that
Penguin Random House (PRH) has endured one of those Mao-like
“thought-sessions” that wokesters put on whenever they sense a wisp of a
thought, or a fragment of opinion that injures their eggshell
sensibilities, or threatens a dent to their highly-inflated and
unendurably fragile self-esteem. The princess and the
pea-under-the-mattress is the woke template.
It is reported that staff at PRH held a meeting
at which — and this from international headlines the day after —
“staffers broke down in tears over release of (a new) Jordan Peterson
book.”
Advertisement
Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content continued
What it is, really, is just vanity holding hands with folly
The
staff meeting at PRH was described — it is disgraceful to learn this —
as a “tearful town hall.” There was an “emotional outcry” from staff and
“an effort by employees to pressure the company into cancelling” the
release of Dr. Peterson’s new book.
Ah yes, this makes sense;
employees at a book company clamouring for a censorship veto over
forthcoming books. A little like bread-makers protesting dough. Or
dogwalkers allergic to barking.
Emotional outcry? Tearful? People
were weeping. Did somebody die? Was a favourite pet run over? This
precious bunch whined they “were ambushed” by the news. Ambushed mind
you — a very animated verb in this context. Were they lured into the
Canyon of Dangerous Books and bombarded from above with blurb-heavy dust
jackets? Perilous business this, working at a publisher’s.
What
it is, really, is just vanity holding hands with folly. If there are
people in full employment at a respected publishing house crying over a
book yet to be published, and if there are actual tears rolling down
social justice cheeks, because the company they work for has the gift of
Jordan Peterson as one of its authors, it is probably too late: but
send in the therapists. By the bus load.
What are the
accomplishments of the would-be censors compared with Dr. Peterson’s?
What are their intellectual attainments compared with his? What have
they written, what audiences have they attracted? How many books have
they sold?
Advertisement
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content continued
Biggest question of all: Who do they think they are that they should judge him?
By what standards, intellectual or moral, do those who do not like what Dr. Peterson writes claim the right to shut him down?
Who do they think they are that they should judge him?
Here’s a few more questions I’ll guarantee didn’t come up at the “town hall.”
Do
they know more? Have they read more deeply, more widely? Are they as
educated as he is? Have they produced work of equal range and force? Do
they over-match his intellect?
Just what, besides adolescent
cowardice and bluster in the face of notions different from their own
shielded and limited half-thoughts, do they have to offer the world?
It
is time to be direct about these adolescent displays. The lachrymose
venting at Penguin Random House was a pathetic and embarrassing display
of over-indulged “activists” and cause-addicts.
Should Penguin
Random House give so much as an inch on the cardinal idea of free
expression, or bend a knee, so much a single centimetre, to still the
clamours of the jejune Pharisees whose salaries it pays, then let it get
out of the book trade and go into something honourable like
refurbishing used tires.
Despite the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns, a Toronto Star editor caused the closing of a Toronto eatery because of “cultural appropriation.”
So much for “we’re all in this together” right?
The Toronto Star’s Evy Kwong went on Twitter to complain about the owner of Ripe Nutrition, a white woman, because she dared to sell food from another culture.
Seriously.
Have you ever cooked food from another culture? Did you ever think you were committing “cultural appropriation?” Of course not.
I’m so tired of cancel culture. This is why True North will never hesitate to call these social justice warriors out – especially when they’re targeting small businesses at a time when so many Canadians are struggling to stay afloat.
Legacy media outlets like the Toronto Star receive thousands of taxpayers’ dollars courtesy of the federal government to pursue their leftist pet causes.
The province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada, one of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth Realms, is my home. We
have seen two types of protests directed against the provincial government in
recent months, both objecting to the province’s response to the spread of the
Wuhan bat flu. One type of protest, such as that which took place
in Steinbach on the 14th of November, expresses opposition to
the public health orders as trampling all over our basic freedoms of
association, assembly and religion and our prescriptive and constitutional
civil rights. The other type of protest expressed the views of the
socialist opposition party, its leader Wab Kinew and his health critic, and
their far left echo chamber in the media which features such automatons as the
CBC’s Bartley Kives and the Winnipeg Free Press’s Dan Lett and Ryan
Thorpe. Those involved in this type of protest take the position that the
government’s public health orders have been too few, too light, and too slowly
enacted, and that the government by not imposing a harsh lockdown the moment
the case numbers started to rise in the fall, is responsible for all the deaths
we have seen since September.
My sympathies are entirely with the first group of protesters, as
anyone who has read a word I have previously written on the subject already
knows. I should say that my sympathies are with the protesters’ basic position. I don’t much care for the rhetoric of civil
disobedience, rebellion, and populism in which that position is often expressed
at those protests.
While the second group of protesters are certainly entitled to
their opinion and the free expression of the same, a freedom that I note many
if not most of them would prefer to deny to me and others who take my side of
the issue, their position is easily debunked from an ethical point of view.
When a virus is spreading, government is not required to do
everything in its power to slow or stop the spread. Indeed, it has
a moral obligation NOT to do everything in its power to slow or stop the spread
of the virus. This is because the government has the power to do
tremendous evil as well as good.
Let us agree that saving lives that are at risk from the virus is
in itself a good and worthy goal. Stopping and slowing the spread
of the virus may be a means to that end, but whether it is a good means to a
good end or a bad means to a good end is debatable. Slowing the spread of
the virus increases the total length of the pandemic, stretching out the time
we have to deal with this plague over a much longer period than would otherwise
be the case. That can hardly be regarded as desirable in
itself. Quite the contrary in fact. Whether this is an
acceptable evil, worth tolerating in order to achieve the end of lives saved,
depends upon a couple of considerations.
First it depends upon the effectiveness of the method of slowing
the spread of the virus in saving lives. If the method is not
effective, then the evil of artificially lengthening the period of the pandemic
is much less tolerable.
Second it depends upon the means whereby the stopping or slowing
of the virus, considered as an end itself, is to be accomplished.
If those means are themselves bad, this compounds the evil of stretching out
the pandemic.
Neither of these considerations provides much in the way of
support for concluding that a longer pandemic is an evil made tolerable by a
good end, such as saving lives.
With regards to the first consideration, it is by no means clear
that any lives have been saved in this way at all. Indeed, at the
beginning of the first lockdown, back when everyone was repeating the phrase
“flatten the curve” ad naseum, the experts advising this strategy told us that
it would not decrease the total lives lost but merely spread them out so
that the hospitals would not be overwhelmed at once. This, in my
opinion at least, was not nearly as desirable an end as saving lives and not
one sufficient to make the lockdown measures acceptable.
This brings us to our second criteria. The means by
which our government health officials have tried to slow or stop the spread of
the virus are neither morally neutral nor positively good. On the
contrary, they are positively evil. They inflict all sorts of unnecessary
misery upon people. Advocates of the lockdown method sometimes maintain
that the damage inflicted is merely economic and therefore “worth it” to save
lives. This would be a dubious conclusion even if the premise were
valid. The premise is not valid, however, and it is highly unlikely
that those who state it seriously believe what they are saying.
Telling people to stay home and avoid all contact with other
people does not just hurt people financially, although it certainly does that
if their business is forced to close or their job is deemed by some bureaucrat
to be “non-essential”. It forces people to act against their nature as
social beings, deprives them of social contact which is essential to their
psychological and spiritual wellbeing, which are in turn essential to their physical
wellbeing. Mens sana in corpore sano. The longer people
are deprived of social contact, the more loneliness and a sense of isolation
will erode away at their mental health. Phone, e-mail, and even
video chat, are not adequate substitutes for in-person social contact.
All of this was true of the first lockdown in the spring but it is
that much more true with regards to the second lockdowns that are now being
imposed. The first lockdown was bad enough, but the second
lockdown, imposed for at least a month, coming right before Christmas in the same
year as the first, will be certain to pile a sense of hopelessness and despair
on top of the inevitable loneliness and isolation. The government has
kept liquor stores and marijuana vendors open, even though the combination of
alcohol and pot with hopelessness, loneliness, and despair is a recipe for
self-destructive behaviour, while ordering all the churches, which offer, among
other things, hope, to close. This is evil of truly monstrous
proportions. It can only lead to death – whether by suicide,
addictive self-destruction, or just plain heart brokenness.
The protesters who accuse Brian Pallister and the government he
leads of murder for having re-opened our economy from the first lockdown and
not having imposed a second one right away when the cases began to rise are
wrong-headed about the matter as they, generally being leftists, are
wrong-headed about everything. The government does not become
morally culpable for deaths because it refrains from taking actions which are
extremely morally wrong in themselves in order to achieve the goal of saving
lives. Not imposing a draconian lockdown does not translate into
the murder of those for whom the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus becomes
one health complication too many.
Where Pallister does bear moral culpability for deaths is with
regards to all the people who will kill themselves, or perhaps snap and kill
others, drink themselves to death or accomplish the same with drugs, or simply
give up on life in hopeless gloom and despair because he has allowed Brent
Roussin, once again, to impose these totalitarian public health orders.
Roussin has been going on television as of late, showing pictures
of people who have died, and lecturing Manitobans on how these are not just
numbers but people. This is a kind of sleight-of-hand, by which he
hopes to distract the public from all the harm he is actively causing, and he
knows full well that lockdowns are themselves destructive and lethal for he
admitted as much a couple of months ago thus compounding his guilt now, by
manipulating their emotions.
Does Roussin realize that this street runs both ways?
What about the young man, Roussin, who would otherwise have had
decades of life ahead of him, much more than those whose deaths you have been
exploiting to justify your bad decisions, but who killed himself because you
cancelled his job as “non-essential”, took away his social
life, and left him with the prospect of long-term isolation? Do you
not realize that he is a person as well?
In the end, those who die from the lockdown may very well turn out to outnumber by far those who succumb to the bat flu. In which case all that Roussin will have accomplished will have been to exchange a smaller number of deaths for which he would not have been morally responsible for a larger number of deaths that leave his hands permanently stained with blood. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 1:30 AM
From
what I can tell from the numbers William Briggs provides, this point
has already, several months since, been surpassed in the UK; and the
toll continues to mount.
Plus the severity of intense and
chronic human misery – perhaps especially nasty among children, teens
and young adults – is clearly appalling but the extent is only known to
the immediate circle of neighbours and family.
…As would be
expected from an illness with such a modest mortality rate – even
accepting all the inflated and false counting – such as including all
influenza deaths, and many other dishonest methods to numerous to list
the inflated-rate seems to be considerably less than 1 in a 1000 and
very concentrated among the old and already ill who would have a short
life expectancy anyway.
(The non-Christian’s terror of his own
death, and the desire to delay it a short while at any price, has a lot
to do with this.)
Here in the UK many of the most basic aspects
of medical care, such as actually meeting a doctor, diagnosing and
treating lethal cancers etc, have been almost abandoned.
However,
nonetheless, there is a widespread passive acceptance and even embrace
of the response – and there is no doubt that poeple-as-a-whole deserve
what they are getting – since they keep asking for more of the same; and
most of those who don’t like it have ne better justification for their
objection than hedonism – which does not sustain courage, and offers no
motivating alternative.
This has been long coming, long
building (pervasive and worsening sub-fertility among the most
intelligent, wealthy and high status people being an index) – but we are
now seeing an accelerating process of civilizational suicide – caused,
obviously, by the denial of God (denial of any God – not only the true
God).
Even without our extraordinarily evil and psychopathic
global leadership our civilization would be doomed (as I wrote in
Thought Prison, 2011) – just more slowly than is happening now
Men
cannot live without God/s – even at the basic biological level; since
all human societies evolved with religions, and depend upon religion for
much that is basic to survival. ReplyReplies
Gerry T. NealNovember 27, 2020 at 6:37 AMBruce,
that we have long ago passed the point where the numbers dead from the
lockdowns exceeds those dead from the virus is my understanding as well.
I worded it more cautiously here because I was focusing on the local
situation in Manitoba where the statistics about deaths from causes such
as suicide for this year are suspiciously difficult to obtain.
We
have the same situation with regards to basic medical care here. My
father has had to come into Winnipeg annually to see specialists for
several years now, but both visits were cancelled this year. One of
the specialists was able to do a kind of online videochat examination
through the small rural hospital closest to him, but the other just
postponed the visit since it has to do with an eye condition that
requires an in-person examination. Someone I know who had been waiting
for important surgery for years which had finally been scheduled had it
postponed due to the virus. I could mention several other specific
examples of this sort.
