Sacrificing Billions to Save Thousands?

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, April 24, 2020

Sacrificing Billions to Save Thousands?

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
– Rudyard Kipling

The way the World Health Organization, our power-hungry politicians, the technocratic boobs with tunnel vision who are our health apparatchiks, and the cheap harlots of the mainstream media talk about it, one would think that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a real life equivalent of the artificially engineered, antibody resistant, superflu which wipes out most of the world’s population in Stephen King’s 1978 novel The Stand and the various adaptations thereof. It is not. Although it is possible that like the weaponized flu strain in the novel, it escaped from a laboratory, that of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is not remotely comparable in terms of lethality. It is basically a normal strain of bat influenza that has jumped species to humans, that has been spreading rapidly due to it being new to the species and thus our having no built up immunity to it yet, but most people are not at risk of anything worse than the ordinary flu from it. Those who are most susceptible to developing the severe and potentially lethal form of pneumonia that it can produce are the same people susceptible to catching pneumonia and dying from H1N1 and the other, ordinary, seasonal strains of the flu.

From the beginning of this pandemic it has been apparent that the WHO’s claims with regards to the lethality of this virus have been greatly exaggerated. Although the press in its daily reports has used “staggering” and similar scare words to describe the rising death tolls, the numbers themselves have not supported the use of such adjectives. Not when taken in context at any rate. COVID-19 has not become the leading cause of death, it is nowhere close to it. The overall number of deaths from all causes for the period of this pandemic has not risen astronomically in comparison with the number for the same period in other years. Indeed, in some areas that have been particularly hard hit by COVID-19 this number has been down from recent years.

In most countries, the epidemiologists’ original projections of expected deaths from this disease have been radically revised downward. At some point the mortality rate will have to undergo a similar radical adjustment. Contrary to the lies of the health authorities and the media, the official death count for COVID-19 is not too low but too high. Even though the vast majority of people who have caught this virus and died have had multiple other conditions that also contributed to their demise these have all been classified as deaths from COVID-19. If deaths from regular influenza were counted the same way the mortality rate for the flu would be much higher than it is. Similarly, the other number that goes into the mortality rate calculation is much too low. Since a large number – as many as fifty percent some estimates put it – of those who contract the virus are completely asymptomatic, the total number known to have been infected is obviously much, much, lower than the true number of infected. Indeed, when we consider that international travel in and out of Hubei province was allowed long after the initial outbreak began there – and long after Red China shut down travel from that province to the rest of their own country – during a period in which Western countries, sick with a liberalism far more lethal than this virus, resisted imposing travel restrictions on China, it is almost certain that the virus had made it into all of our countries long before we noticed that it had arrived.

Since the potential lethality of this virus has been hugely exaggerated, the extent to which the repugnant, totalitarian, Communistic measures being taken almost everywhere are “saving lives” is also exaggerated. In pointing this out I do not wish merely to throw water on those currently engaged in a nauseating orgy of self-congratulatory, backslapping, tripe over their efforts to save lives by sacrificing our freedoms, but to contrast the low number of lives saved with the potentially much higher number of lives endangered by the same measures.

While I am no fan of Karl Marx – Groucho is much more my style – and am of the firm opinion that he was wrong about almost everything, there are a few rare exceptions to this. One such exception was the sentence with which he opened his letter to Louis Kugelmann on July 11, 1868. He wrote “Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish.” With this sentence he introduces an argument that is neither interesting nor relevant to the subject at hand, but the sentence itself states an obvious truth, one very similar to that which is found in the verses by Rudyard Kipling quoted at the beginning of this essay.

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus continues to be remembered to this day for his theory about population size and the food supply. Human beings, Malthus argued, can increase our food supply through improved means of production, but if we do so the natural human response will be an increase in reproduction. The increase in reproduction will be faster and larger than the increase in food production so that the growth in population size will exceed the increase to the food supply and as a result there will be famine, poverty, starvation, disease and death. His essay on the Principle of Population was first published in 1798. He expanded and revised it in 1803, and published several further editions with minor revisions before his death in 1834. From that day to this, it has inspired several prophecies of doom, the most famous of recent times being the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb by Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich which predicted that hundreds of millions of people would die in the 1970s from starvation due to overpopulation. That, of course, did not happen.

There is obviously a flaw somewhere in Malthus’ theory. The question is where. According to the popular Demographic Transition Model, first developed by Warren Thomson in 1929, the problem is with his understanding of human nature. According to this theory, as societies progress towards industrialization they pass through stages and, after they have achieved a certain level of industrial development, fertility rates drop drastically and population size stabilizes. While the demographic history of Western countries and other developed countries such as Japan in the twentieth century would seem to bear this interpretation out, explaining its having passed into conventional wisdom, it has not gone without challenge. Dr. Virginia Deane Abernethy of Vanderbilt University, for example, in her book Population Politics (Transaction Books, 2000) gave several examples of empirical evidence that goes against the theory, making the case that popular late twentieth century progressive efforts to combat Third World overpopulation and poverty with policies based upon the assumption of the DTM, such as foreign relief and liberal immigration to the West as a population safety valve, have not worked as the model would have predicted but have, if anything, made the problem worse. The sharp decline in fertility that developed countries have experienced since the end of the post-World War II Baby Boom is better explained by other aspects of the transition to modernity, such as a severe weakening of the traditional idea that producing posterity is a duty we owe to our ancestors, than by industrial prosperity itself.

The other leading explanation of the flaw in Malthus’ theory is that he vastly underestimated our capacity to improve and increase the food supply. This explanation is also borne out by the history of the twentieth century and much more consistently than that of the DTM.

Now, if this explanation of what went wrong with the predictions based upon Malthus’ theory is the correct one, and I believe it is, then what could potentially happen when we have a global population of 7.8 billion people and we shut down the economy all over the world, jeopardizing out ability to produce food at this improved and increased capacity?

Why, lo and behold, we have just discovered where the potential for a death rate as a high as the one in Stephen King’s book is to be found.

Yes, shutting down the economies of practically every country in the world, is indeed a move that will put the food supply in jeopardy. When those who produce and sell food are almost the only ones allowed to be open they are essentially being asked or told to work for nothing, for nobody else is producing anything with which to pay them. Yes, governments are printing and handing out fiat money by the gazillions, but money has no intrinsic value. Its role in the marketplace is to be a convenient stand-in for real goods. The X number of dollars that you pay someone for Y amount of magic beans, represents the cow that you would have traded in a barter exchange. Perhaps that is a bad example, because both beans and cattle are sources of food, but I think it still gets the point across. If only category of producers are allowed to actually produce anything for sale in the market, the currency that is exchanged in that market will rapidly become worthless, and those producers will become overburdened and start to fail. It is estimated that nine million people in the world die from hunger every year. It is responsible for half of the deaths of children under the age of five. This is over three times the number of people known to have been infected with COVID-19. It is about fifty times more than the number who have died after contracting the virus. As of this writing, the number who have died from hunger in 2020 so far is almost three million. That’s about fifteen times the number who have died after contracting COVID-19, whether the virus was the primary killer or not. The measures being taken to combat COVID-19 will drive the number who die from hunger up and by considerably more than they can bring the number who die from COVID-19 down.

There are those who would say that this is the intentional and deliberate true purpose of the global lockdown. I would not go that far. The problem with the interpretation of events as being the intended outcome of a very powerful and malevolent cabal is that it requires assuming that politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, and the like possess an almost superhuman level of competence. In reality, these are people who think they are Sherlock Holmes, when they are actually Jacques Clouseau – the Jacques Clouseau portrayed by Peter Sellers in Blake Edwards’ Pink Panther films, not the version of the character more recently portrayed by Steve Martin. Unlike the latter, who is able to scrape together enough deductive reasoning to actually solve the case by the end of his movies, Sellers’ classic interpretation of this character was of a bumbling, clumsy, nincompoop whose incompetence is matched only by his vanity and arrogance, and who succeeds only through an extraordinary degree of sheer accidental luck.

That having been said, large scale global depopulation has been one of the chief goals of the environmentalist wing of the United Nations and its ultrawealthy backers like Bill Gates, George Soros, and the late Maurice Strong since at least the 1992 “Earth Summit” at Rio de Janeiro that produced the famous – or, depending upon your perspective, infamous – action plan “Agenda 21.” These people represent the most extreme version of one of the two distortions of Malthus that have been around since his own day. While his detractors, like Victorian novelist Charles Dickens, unjustly accused him of heartlessly wishing upon people the famine, poverty, and death his theory predicted, his supporters, especially those of more recent times, have advocated measures to combat overpopulation that he himself would have found morally repugnant, such as abortion, infanticide, and totalitarian state control of reproduction. Those who want the world’s population reduced by as much as eighty to ninety-five percent are the worst example of this sort. The overlap between the institutions such as the United Nations and individuals such as Bill Gates who advocate this radical agenda and those behind the global lockdown is certainly worth taking note of.

Whether intentional or merely the result of the kind of stupidity that is the unique property of technocratic experts – “I had no idea my solution to Problem X would create the much worse Problem Y because that is not my field of expertise” – the potential lethality of the measures being taken to combat COVID-19, far exceeds that of the disease itself.
Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:14 AM Labels: Agenda 21, Bill Gates, Blake Edwards, COVID-19, George Soros, Groucho Marx, Karl Marx, Maurice Strong, Paul Ehrlich, Peter Sellers, Rudyard Kipling, Stephen King, Thomas Robert Malthus, Virginia Deane Abernethy

Trevor Fleming — the Latest Free Speech Victim at the Hands of the Sinophiles

Trevor Fleming is the latest free speech victim and victim of corporate cowardice. This Lululemon executive posted a link on Instagram to California artist Jess Sluder who designed a T-shirt featuring “bat fried rice.” Lululemon promptly fired him. The shirt’s a joke but the likely source of the Coronavirus pandemic were live bats kept at a filthy Wuhan wet market.

Question Authority! 51,000 Canadians predicted to die from flu pandemic in 1999. Uh, it didn’t happen!

Dear Reader,
Being a book collector for many years I also have amassed a substantial number of MSM Newspapers over past decades. This front page story in British Columbia’s “Province” newspaper from October 21, 1999 is a prime example of what we’re now going through globally as the controlled media finally was able to come up with the Mother of all “viruses” story in their attempt to terrorize and scare the shit out of everyone on the planet.
Over twenty-one years ago they were already predicting a potential 51,000 deaths from a “predicted” global pandemic that  could only be prevented with a “new flu vaccine, made from fertilized chicken eggs.” We can see now that the Gates’s and the WHO and the Fauci’s of the world have come a long way from “fertilized chicken eggs”!
One of the more unsettling things about this massive hoax is how so many of the population, for whatever reasons, are refusing to question the narrative and simply succumbing to “social distancing” and “face masks” and all the rest of the Orwellian regulations being set in place by the criminals behind this incredible scam. Those working in the shadows appear to have judged the make-up of the masses fairly well – at least for the moment.
How long it will take before the resistance begins to manifest is anyone’s guess. In the interim time I suggest that folks get out their old, worn copies of The Monkey Wrench Gang and do a little refresher reading.
Feel free to share this story if you wish. I’m not under any “bail conditions” at this time and who knows when the courts will be returning to work. 
Continue to Question Authority and fight for Justice and Freedom,
Arthur TophamPub/EdThe Radical Press“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”———-

51,000 of us coulddie in the flu pandemic
     A top health official says up to 51,000 Canadians could die in a global flu outbreak predicted to hit within 10 years if Canada can’t quickly mass-produce a vaccine.     “We estimate that, if there’s not a vaccine available, that the next pandemic will cause between 9,000 and 51,000 deaths in Canada,” Dr. John Spika, director  of infectious diseases at Health Canada’s Laboratory Centre for Disease Control in Ottawa, said last night.     “Obviously, one doesn’t want to be fear-mongering, but at the same time it’s something that one needs to prepare for.”     The prediction of a pandemic influenza outbreak sweeping the globe within the next decade is based on data showing three to four flu pandemics – each with a new virus to which no one has immunity – hit the world every 100 years.     Pandemics occurred in 1892, 1918, 1957 and 1968. The pandemic of 1918-19 is believed to have killed up to 40 million. The relatively mild virus of the 1968 pandemic killed about 4,000 Canadians.     It’s estimated such a virus would take about three months to spread to Canada from wherever it originates. The first peak of the disease hitting the population would happen two to four months later.      It takes a minimum of three months to produce the first lot of any new flu vaccine, made from fertilized chicken eggs.     So the virus would be infecting Canadians long before there was enough vaccine to inoculate the entire population. It would take 10 months, using current vaccine production measures to vaccinate all Canadians.     Dr. Allison McGreer, director of infection control at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, asked:     “Do we really want to have 16 million fertilized eggs on hand at all times, or is there some way we’re willing to take a little bit of hit and not spend as much money up front?     “If we thought that the 1918-19 flu pandemic was around the corner, then we would be right to be terrified, but that’s not likely to happen.”– Southam News

Rex Murphy on COVID-19: The power to censor speech and other great ideas from our Liberal overlords

Rex Murphy on COVID-19: The power to censor speech and other great ideas from our Liberal overlords

Let’s tap this serpent of an idea on its little head before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite

Rex Murphy

April 17, 2020
7:35 AM EDT

If there is one positive thing that can be said about this terrible plague we’re enduring, it is that now and then, it gives the Trudeau government some really, really great ideas.

Sure it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Liberals came up with the idea that they — a minority in Parliament, remember — should give themselves the power to tax and spend for the next two years, without having to get parliamentary approval. It was a truly brilliant idea, except that it ignored the fact that approving government spending is one of the most important functions of Parliament. Take away its authority over spending and the House of Commons might just as well be any old bingo hall, or with a little imaginative renovation, a one-of-a-kind Costco store.

Now, compliments of Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, we learned that the Liberal government is contemplating legislation to make it an offence to, as a CBC report put it, “knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people.” In plain language, this government is openly thinking of making itself the official censor of what can and cannot be said about COVID-19. Pure brilliance again, don’t you agree?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, embraces Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc in 2019. Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Well, actually, no. Don’t even think of it. Better still, to borrow a phrase from Greta Thunberg: how dare you? There is already a government that has that power, and in some cases brutally exercises it. That is the government of the Communist Party of China.

And what has it done with that power? It barred telling the truth about COVID-19, and instead told lies about it. On the where it happened, when it happened, how it happened and how it spread, the Chinese government confounded, confused and lied about a plague that has now hobbled the whole planet. And China “officially reprimanded” the doctor who initially tried to warn people about the coronavirus, and who, with dread irony, actually died from it. (A postmortem apology followed from the government. That surely helped.) Admire the Chinese government if that’s your thing, but on this subject, it is not an example to be followed.

So, let’s tap this serpent of an idea on its little head before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite. The problem with government having control over what is said and written, completely aside from it being the utter contradiction of a liberal democracy, is that governments — especially on a matter such as this pandemic — are simply not competent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.

Legislators in the House of Commons convene to give the government power to inject billions of dollars in emergency cash to help individuals and businesses through the economic crunch caused by the coronavirus disease outbreak, on Parliament Hill, April 11, 2020. Blair Gable/Reuters

What is required for a government to pass a law against misinformation? To begin with, it presumes an infallible authority that’s able to make judgments on what is, or is not, correct information. Even worse, it presumes the government has the ability to make judgments on a matter that, incontestably, is not yet fully understood by anybody.

This virus is new. The investigation of its nature, transmission, the best policies to confront it, the extent of the response to it, even the nature of the response — all of these elements are, at best, in an incomplete and early stage of understanding.

Experts have varying degrees of skill and knowledge. If experts disagree, which happens often, will some of them be silenced? In actuality, a divergence of opinions can be seen as a path to the full truth emerging. But this cannot happen if the government gags those who may seem to be wrong at the present moment.

A man wears a mask as he walks past a mural showing a modified image of the Chinese Communist Party emblem, in Shanghai, on Jan. 28. Aly Song/Reuters

On the purely political front, there are equal objections to giving government censorship powers. Governments take to extensions of their power like bears to honey. The more power they get, the more they believe they alone should exercise it. Power swells the ego. Add more power, and if you follow the analogy, a little balloon soon thinks it’s the Hindenburg. And a government swollen with power does not like other voices.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barred the leader of the Opposition from joining talks with other opposition leaders because, in Trudeau’s own memorable words, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer “disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today.”

Yet it is not for Trudeau, or any other prime minister, to determine what is “acceptable speech” from his constitutionally positioned critic, the leader of the Opposition. Nor is it proper for this minority government, which has had enough struggles of its own over misinformation — on masks, on screening at airports, on our relative security from the pandemic — to decide what the rest of us can, and cannot, say or write about this unique crisis.

National Post

Marni Soupcoff: Don’t make free speech the next COVID-19 victim in Canada

Marni Soupcoff: Don’t make free speech the next COVID-19 victim in Canada

As we have seen with this pandemic, the government doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a monopoly on the truth

It’s not difficult to imagine productive things the Canadian government could be doing to respond to a virus that has caused more than 1,000 deaths in the country, infected tens of thousands of Canadians, and shut down the economy.

Passing a law dictating what people can and cannot say about SARS-CoV-2 is not one of those things.

The government could be using its power to secure personal protective equipment for health-care workers, facilitate an increase in testing capacity, and clear regulatory red tape that stands in the way of efficient vaccine research.

There is no question these steps could be helpful, and they are just three examples of many. Then, why oh why are federal politicians instead using their time to make plans to censor online expression about a pandemic that could use more creative ideas, not fewer.

Why are federal politicians using their time to make plans to censor online expression?

A sample of what Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc has to say on the matter of criminalizing the online spread of ideas the government deems dangerously untrue: “This is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of people who are actually actively working to spread disinformation, whether it’s through troll bot farms, whether (it’s) state operators or whether it’s really conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of creating havoc.”

Realizing that the people running the country believe that freedom of speech doesn’t apply — even as a consideration — in cases where they don’t like the speech in question … well, it’s scary, especially in the middle of a frightening crisis that makes government power grabs seem deceptively innocuous.

It sounds great to crack down on dangerous “cranks” pushing “disinformation.” Until you realize that a couple of months ago, anyone who was suggesting COVID-19 could and would spread through community transmission here — a notion Canadian public health leaders were scoffing at — would have been considered such a “crank.” Just a couple of weeks ago, anyone stating that wearing a mask in public was useful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 would also have been deemed a crackpot by the feds’ standards. Thankfully Mr. LeBlanc hadn’t yet come up with a law that would have shut them up.

Dominic LeBlanc is embraced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after being sworn in as President of the Privy Council in Ottawa on Nov. 20, 2019. Blair Gable/Reuters

As we have seen with this pandemic, the government doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth — it’s barely competent enough to recognize the truth when the truth is hitting it on the head. Do you really want that entity to have the power to decide which ideas about COVID-19 are valid and may be voiced and which ones are wrong and must be punished?

It’s not necessary to imagine, in the abstract, what sort of damage this kind of censorship would do. The scenario has already played out in China.

In December 2019, ophthalmologist Li Wenliang tried to sound the alarm in China about a mysterious new virus that was causing SARS-like symptoms. Within days, he was picked up by police and reprimanded for “making false comments on the Internet.” He died of COVID-19 six weeks later.

The scenario has already played out in China

A recent report by researchers at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy showed that a day after Chinese doctors issued their warning about the illness, China’s most widely used social media app, WeChat, quickly blacklisted related terms, including “SARS outbreak in Wuhan” and “Unknown Wuhan pneumonia.” (WeChat doesn’t have a lot of competition since the Chinese government blocks access to Facebook and Twitter.)

While the deadly disease was spreading through China’s Hubei province, WeChat was censoring instructions and advice about wearing face masks and washing hands — information that would have saved lives but was deemed fake news by Chinese authorities at the time.

Doubtless it is obvious that this is an example Canada should not follow. One man’s whistleblower is another man’s havoc-wreaking conspiracy theorist. Allowing one of those men to impose criminal penalties on the other is a damaging way to deal with the difference.

A lone person walks past closed businesses in Toronto’s Kensington Market on April 15, 2020. Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press

It is true that there are scammers out there taking advantage of the fear generated by the pandemic, trying to make a buck by posing as people or institutions they aren’t.

But it is also true that there are already laws on the books to punish and prevent this foul flavour of fraud.

Don’t add on a new law that will leave skeptics — a group that has grown in number as the government’s flubbed response to COVID-19 has become evident — even more distrustful of government than they already are.

This is a matter of free speech. And during a pandemic, free speech and the unimpeded flow of information can mean the difference between life and death.

Let’s hope the federal government finds safer ways to keep itself busy.

• Email: | Twitter:

COVID-19: Small group protests coronavirus restrictions in Vancouver

COVID-19: Small group protests coronavirus restrictions in Vancouver

Author of the article:David CarriggPublishing date:8 hours ago  •  2 minute read

A group protesting COVID-19 restrictions gathered in Kitsilano on Sunday. Susan Standfield is standing on the left in the yellow t-shirt.
A group protesting COVID-19 restrictions gathered in Kitsilano on Sunday. Susan Standfield is standing on the left in the yellow t-shirt. NICK PROCAYLO / PNG

Article Sidebar


Article content

Susan Standfield, inspired by the Operation Gridlock movement south of the border, decided to join a small anti-COVID restrictions protest on Sunday afternoon.

Standfield — who co-founded the Hope in the Shadows calendar that raises money in the Downtown Eastside — said her household income had dropped by 80 per cent since a state of emergency was declared in British Columbia last month to try and curtail the spread of COVID-19 infection.

“I saw something going on in Ohio, and then D.C., with Operation Gridlock. So I thought let’s go,” said Standfield.

Operation Gridlock is a protest movement across the U.S. in which protestors demand the governors of their states lift or loosen stay-at-home and other COVID-19 restrictions in the nation that has seen the most COVID-19 deaths. On Sunday, there were protests in Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Washington.

The protest in Kitsilano on Sunday attracted about 25 people, carrying an array of of placards. Standfield, wearing a ball-cap saying Silenced, had a sign “I don’t want to be an unpaid teacher. No more lockdowns.”

Article content continued

The group was standing in close quarters and did not attract any positive reaction from passersby while Postmedia News was present.

A group protesting COVID-19 restrictions gathered in Kitsilano on Sunday. Susan Standfield is standing on the left in the yellow t-shirt.
A group protesting COVID-19 restrictions gathered in Kitsilano on Sunday. NICK PROCAYLO/PNG

Standfield said she contacted the Vancouver Police Department two hours before the protest to let them know. This was the third anti-restrictions protest in Vancouver. Last Sunday’s protest made use of the #endthelockdown tag in several of its placards.

The following day, B.C. Minister of Health Adrian Dix described the protesters as “marginal” and asked that they be ignored.

Standfield said several police officers escorted the protest group from Burrard and 1st Avenue, south to 4th, west to Yew Street, then north to Cornwall.

Article content continued

She believed countries like Sweden, South Korea and Belarus had done a better job than Canada and British Columbia with managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Lots of countries are doing it more strategically, more surgically, protecting weak people, but keeping the economy going,” Standfield said.

As of April 18, there were 579 active cases of COVID-19 in B.C., of whom 169 were recovering in hospital. Eighty-one people have died from the infection, that is passed through coughing and sneezing.

Last week, provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, said it would be at least three weeks before any restrictions were lifted.

Close to six million people have applied for COVID-19 emergency aid benefits across Canada in the past month.

VANCOUVER, BC., April 19, 2020 - Anti social distancing protesters at Burrard St and 1st Ave during the COVID-19 pandemic, in Vancouver, BC., on April 19, 2020.   (NICK PROCAYLO/PNG)   00061095A ORG XMIT: 00061095A [PNG Merlin Archive]
Anti social distancing protesters at Burrard St and 1st Ave on Sunday. NICK PROCAYLO/PNG