No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Analysis of the scientific basis for Ontario, Canada’s mandatory face masking and physical distancing law, 2020
Abstract
The article is organized into the following sections:
Summary
Purpose and context
Mandatory covering of the “mouth, nose and chin”
Logic of the statutory exemptions from mask wearing
Logic of the statutory general provisions
Schedule 2: Specific Rules, regulatory absurdity in every sector
Increased transmission and disease severity induced by the Regulation, and collateral deaths
Endnotes / References
SUMMARY: I find that the transmission mitigation provisions of Regulation 364/20 of the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 are arbitrary and nonsensical, in light of actual knowledge about transmission of viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. Given hard evidence of harm from the measures themselves, if Ontario was a science-based society, the government would apply the precautionary principle by declaring a moratorium on all transmission-mitigation regulations, until policy-grade studies prove their worth in a rigorous harm-benefit appraisal framework.
---- https://ocla.ca/ocla-report-2021-1-ontarios-mandatory-face-masking-and-physical-distancing-law-reg-36420/
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
We analyzed historic and recent all-cause mortality data for France, and other jurisdictions for comparison, using model fitting to quantify winter-burden deaths, and deaths from exceptional events. In this way, COVID-19 is put in historic perspective. We prove that the "COVID-peak" feature that is present in the all-cause mortality data of certain mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions, including France, cannot be a natural epidemiological event occurring in the absence of a large non-pathogenic perturbation. We are certain that this "COVID-peak" is artificial because it: i. occurs sharply (one-month width) at an unprecedented location in the seasonal cycle of all-cause mortality (centered at the end of March), 2 ii. is absent in many jurisdictions (34 of the USA States have no "COVID-peak"), and iii. varies widely in magnitude from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in which it occurs. We suggest that: • the unprecedented strict mass quarantine and isolation of both sick and healthy elderly people, together and separately, killed many of them, • that this quarantine and isolation is the cause of the "COVID-peak" event that we have quantified, • and that the medical mechanism is mainly via psychological stress and social isolation of individuals with health vulnerabilities. According to our calculations, this caused some 30.2 K deaths in France in March and April 2020. However, even including the "COVID-peak", the 2019-2020 winter-burden all-cause mortality is not statistically larger than usual. Therefore SARS-CoV-2 is not an unusually virulent viral respiratory disease pathogen. By analyzing the all-cause mortality data from 1946 to 2020, we also identified a large and steady increase in all-cause mortality that began in approximately 2008, which is too large to be explained by population growth in the relevant age structure, and which may be related to the economic crash of 2008 and its long-term societal consequences. ---- Résumé en français : Nous avons analysé les données historiques et récentes de mortalité toutes causes confondues pour la France et d'autres juridictions à des fins de comparaison, en lissant une courbe théorique pour quantifier les décès dus à la charge hivernale et les décès dus à des événements exceptionnels. De cette façon, on peut observer le COVID-19 avec une perspective historique. Ainsi, nous prouvons que le « pic COVID » présent dans les données de mortalité toutes causes confondues de certaines juridictions de l'hémisphère Nord à moyenne latitude, y compris la France, ne peut pas être un événement épidémiologique naturel ayant survenu de façon naturelle, en l'absence d'une grande perturbation non pathogène. Nous sommes convaincus que le « pic COVID » est artificiel car : i. il s'est produit brusquement (largeur d'un mois) à une date sans précédent dans le cycle saisonnier de mortalité toutes causes confondues (milieu du pic à la fin mars), ii. il est absent dans de nombreuses juridictions (34 des États américains n'ont pas de « pic COVID »), et iii. l'ampleur de ce pic varie considérablement d'une juridiction à l'autre. Nous suggérons que : • la quarantaine de masse et l'isolement strict sans précédent des personnes âgées malades et en bonne santé, ensemble et séparément, a tué beaucoup d'entre eux, 4 • que cette quarantaine et cet isolement sont la cause de l'événement « pic-COVID » que nous avons quantifié, • et que le mécanisme médical expliquant ce pic passe principalement par le stress psychologique et l'isolement social des personnes vulnérables au niveau de leur santé. Selon nos calculs, ces mesures ont provoqué quelques 30,2 K décès en France en mars et avril 2020. Cependant, même en incluant le « pic COVID », la charge hivernale de mortalité toutes causes confondues pour l'hiver 2019-2020 n'est pas statistiquement supérieure aux charges hivernales habituelles, ce qui nous amène à affirmer que le SARS-CoV-2 n'est pas un virus responsable de maladies respiratoires inhabituellement virulent. En analysant les données de mortalité toutes causes confondues de 1946 à 2020, nous avons également identifié une augmentation importante et régulière de la mortalité toutes causes confondues qui a commencé vers 2008, trop importante pour être expliquée par la croissance de la population étant donné la pyramide des âges, mais qui pourrait être liée à la crise économique de 2008 et à ses conséquences sociétales sur le long terme.
Background
While risk of outdoor transmission of respiratory viral infections is hypothesized to be low, there is limited data of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in outdoor compared to indoor settings.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers indexed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and pre-prints in Europe PMC through August 12 th, 2020 that described cases of human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Reports of other respiratory virus transmission were included for reference.
Results
Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and two described adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.
Conclusion
Existing evidence supports the wide-held belief that the the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is lower outdoors but there are significant gaps in our understanding of specific pathways.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread globally in a few short months. Substantial evidence now supports preliminary conclusions about transmission that can inform rational, evidence-based policies and reduce misinformation on this critical topic. This article presents a comprehensive review of the evidence on transmission of this virus. Although several experimental studies have cultured live virus from aerosols and surfaces hours after inoculation, the real-world studies that detect viral RNA in the environment report very low levels, and few have isolated viable virus. Strong evidence from case and cluster reports indicates that respiratory transmission is dominant, with proximity and ventilation being key determinants of transmission risk. In the few cases where direct contact or fomite transmission is presumed, respiratory transmission has not been completely excluded. Infectiousness peaks around a day before symptom onset and declines within a week of symptom onset, and no late linked transmissions (after a patient has had symptoms for about a week) have been documented. The virus has heterogeneous transmission dynamics: Most persons do not transmit virus, whereas some cause many secondary cases in transmission clusters called "superspreading events." Evidence-based policies and practices should incorporate the accumulating knowledge about transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to help educate the public and slow the spread of this virus.
A group of baboons is scattered across the open plains. Most members of the group are digging up grass corms, while a few rest in the shade of thorny bushes. Several juveniles bounce on the unstable limbs of a dead tree. One female who is resting in the shade looks up as a dominant female approaches. The dominant female stops a few meters away and begins feeding. Suddenly the dominant female lunges at the resting female, who leaps away, screaming and grimacing. The dominant female grunts and resumes feeding.
Measures do not prevent deaths, transmission is not by contact, masks provide no benefit, vaccines are inherently dangerous: Review update of recent science relevant to COVID-19 policy
[2] 2020--Rancourt : "Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: "A growing
body of evidence"". ResearchGate (3 August 2020). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25042.58569 -https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343399832_Face_masks_lies_damn_lies_and_public
_health_officials_A_growing_body_of_evidence
[3] 2020--Rancourt : "Measures do not prevent deaths, transmission is not by contact,
masks provide no benefit, vaccines are inherently dangerous: Review update of recent
science relevant to COVID-19 policy". Rancourt, DG (28 December 2020). Republished,
PANDA (3 January 2021). https://www.pandata.org/science-review-denis-rancourt/.
Supplement to: Bhopal SS, Bhopal R. Sex differential in COVID-19 mortality varies markedly by age
2020--Bhopal : "Supplement to: Bhopal SS, Bhopal R. Sex differential in COVID-19
mortality varies markedly by age". Lancet 2020 (13 August 2020).