Equipment bid

Discuss topics relating to Jazz Aviation LP.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

It seems that the very high transmission rate of this particular virus is going to be a limiting factor in what kind of restrictions we will see lifted, and subsequently what increases we can see in air travel. We also still have to recover from all the economic damage already done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

It has nothing to do with how transmissible it is, but rather how deadly it is to a very specific subset of our society. According to the CDC mortality of 0-49 is .05%. That is virtually nothing. Up to 30% of infected people never even have any symptoms.

The problem we have in Canada is that each province is doing their own thing, with no uniformity between them. New Brunswick is going full North Korea with their measures. And then we have a Federal government that seems incapable of leading. That will hamper us more than demand.

As far as money goes, I am not sure how that $400 was measured, but when you look at the general economic income in Canada, and how it is distributed, it very quickly paints a stark picture. The bottom 50% of households were not the ones traveling to begin with. And most young people, never have any money, but will very happily go travel the world.

U.S. Air Traffic Continues To Show Sequential Improvement: As of June 11, the seven-day rolling average of U.S. air travelers according to the TSA was 410,274 versus 323,753 a week ago (June 4), and is the highest level we have seen since March 25. As well, the TSA reported 502,209 passengers on June 11 which is the highest level we have seen since March 21 and ~5x higher than what we saw in mid-April when air passenger volumes bottomed. That said, U.S. air traffic is still down ~80% Y/Y but this compares to down over 95% in April.

Global Commercial Flight Activity Hits 2.5-month High: Looking at FlightRadar24 data which track the number of commercial flights, on a seven-day rolling average the number of flights hit 43,794 on June 13, the highest level we have seen since March 29. This compares to a week ago (June 6) which saw flights at 40,552.

For some reason we don't have numbers that are nearly as up to date. But travel is increasing and will continue to do so if the government will get out of the way. As far as I am aware, there was never a super spreader even linked to air travel (as in a single passenger or crew member who infected multiple people). Flying in an airplane is safe, and if social distancing measures are kept up, that should be more than enough to keep this think under control.

I do think governments are starting to see the damage they inflicted to the economy, and will be looking to undo it as quickly as possible. But there is a theater to it now, since they scared the crap out of everyone to begin with.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

"For COVID-19, [transmissibility] is at a two or three. That means one person can give the virus to two or three other people," explains Dr. Chen Liang, an associate professor with McGill University's department of medicine. "For SARS, I believe it is one-point-something. It's quite low. So, this really makes COVID-19 a lot worse than SARS."
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:34 am "For COVID-19, [transmissibility] is at a two or three. That means one person can give the virus to two or three other people," explains Dr. Chen Liang, an associate professor with McGill University's department of medicine. "For SARS, I believe it is one-point-something. It's quite low. So, this really makes COVID-19 a lot worse than SARS."
It isn't if it transmits, it is if it kills. SARS had a very high mortality rate. Far higher than the current estimate of this. SARS mortality is estimated at 15% vs COVID-19 which is largely dependent on age groups, 0-49 it is, .05% and for 50 - 54 it is .2% (according to the CDC). That is a big difference.

Just to put that in perspective, the average 40yr old has a .05% of dying in any given year from simply living life.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

truedude wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:01 am
mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:34 am "For COVID-19, [transmissibility] is at a two or three. That means one person can give the virus to two or three other people," explains Dr. Chen Liang, an associate professor with McGill University's department of medicine. "For SARS, I believe it is one-point-something. It's quite low. So, this really makes COVID-19 a lot worse than SARS."
It isn't if it transmits, it is if it kills. SARS had a very high mortality rate. Far higher than the current estimate of this. SARS mortality is estimated at 15% vs COVID-19 which is largely dependent on age groups, 0-49 it is, .05% and for 50 - 54 it is .2% (according to the CDC). That is a big difference.

Just to put that in perspective, the average 40yr old has a .05% of dying in any given year from simply living life.
You’re disputing what the doctor said, but we’re all entitled to our unqualified opinions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

And if that was the only expert, or all experts were saying the same thing, perhaps. But they aren't. In fact lots dispute the seriousness of this illness, and in particular the draconian measures used.

You quoted one person, without giving a link to the entire article, in which the Dr. herself made no reference to any research. When did she say this? On April 1st, or last week, because a lot has changed in the time period.

Over 80% of our deaths, stem from Care Facilities. Do we have a Covid problem, or a care facility problem?

I quoted CDC numbers! And again, for 0-49 the mortality rate is .05%.

But go on, be afraid. Stay in your house. Keep thinking things will never get back to normal. Keep believing a second wave is an absolute. Take quotes out of context or without information.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

truedude wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:25 pm In fact lots dispute the seriousness of this illness, and in particular the draconian measures used.

You quoted one person, without giving a link to the entire article
Ironically you haven’t quoted any doctor or given any article about such disputes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:35 pm
truedude wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:25 pm In fact lots dispute the seriousness of this illness, and in particular the draconian measures used.

You quoted one person, without giving a link to the entire article
Ironically you haven’t quoted any doctor or given any article about such disputes.
When someone posts an unsourced quote, I am not usually inclined to spend too much time responding to that person. Especially when it is clear they don't want to do the research.

First, the R value that Dr. Liang is referring to as no definitive value to date. It is actually a fairly complex calculation, that is dependent on population, living conditions, etc.

I am still not going to do the work for you, but here are a few names to start your journey:

Michael Levitt: He is a Biophysicist and a Professor of Structural Biology at Standford. Also holds a Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
https://youtu.be/vi4j1I_ix_c
Worth a watch.

Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford
https://youtu.be/DKh6kJ-RSMI
Another solid watch

John Ioannidis: Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor, by courtesy, of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.

This is another solid source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I encourage anyone to take a close look at the daily graphs for number of positive tests, and then compare that with daily death rate.

Pick any country at random, including Sweden and Brazil, and you will see that despite having an increase in daily positive test counts, daily death rates are on the decline.

So what is interesting, is that in all countries, regardless of the measures used, there is a similar pattern in how the virus transmits, and a similiar time frame for rise in cases, to decline in daily deaths.

This is a study from a small cruise ship, in which 80% of those that tested positive had no symptoms what so ever.
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/20 ... DAtwv54lmA

Also look up up the average deaths for Sweden of those under 65. There is not major increase this year, as compared to previous years.

In any case, that should keep you busy for a while. I encourage you to go straight to the actual data. When you hear in the news that positive cases are up, look closer. Is that particular area testing more? Are death rates increasing? etc.

Ignore the headlines, go to the data.

Also look up Second Wave Theory. And yes, it is a theory, and not a given. Look up the second wave of the Spanish flu, and other contributing factors (World War I being a big one). Look at the average life span the year before the Spanish flu, and you will discover the Spanish Flu killed healthy young people. In fact the flu tends to kill young people every year. But with Covid-19, it is almost completely those over the age of 65, with underlying comorbidity issues. Kids are almost not affected at all, and the research shows that they do not bring it back into the home, unlike the common cold or the seasonal flu. So kids are not vectors of transmission.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

Okay, so a few doctors are skeptical, but clearly the vast majority are not. It just takes a few more full or overflowing ICU situations to wake everybody up about the seriousness again.

Again, it’s not about the mortality rate. It’s actually about how many sick people the hospitals can handle at once without things overflowing. It’s happened before and it will again if there aren’t at least some kind of restrictions in place. We know the risks. There has to be some kind of protection.

At the end the day, everyone is just arguing an endless moral dilemma about how many sick people is acceptable or not, and what level of economic destruction those people are worth.
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:22 pm Okay, so a few doctors are skeptical, but clearly the vast majority are not. It just takes a few more full or overflowing ICU situations to wake everybody up about the seriousness again.

Again, it’s not about the mortality rate. It’s actually about how many sick people the hospitals can handle at once without things overflowing. It’s happened before and it will again if there aren’t at least some kind of restrictions in place. We know the risks. There has to be some kind of protection.

At the end the day, everyone is just arguing an endless moral dilemma about how many sick people is acceptable or not, and what level of economic destruction those people are worth.
I doubt you actually spent too much time looking at anything I sent you. Science is not a consensus, and a consensus is not science.

In Canada we never came close to having overflowing ICU's. And if you remove the at risk from the equation, there was almost no one in our ICU's. It will absolutely not happen again. We assumed we knew the risks. But the data doesn't support the initial hypothesis about this virus. In fact, everything we learn about it, shows us that it is much less deadly than initially assumed. In Canada, 80% of our fatalities are from care homes. Remove those from the equation, and this wouldn't even represent a bad flu year. In Canada we have a care home problem, not a Covid problem.

But this is exactly why I didn't respond initially. It is clear you have made up your mind, and are clearly not interested in doing the actual reading or research, and have bought into a narrative that the data has never really supported, and supports it less and less everyday.

We entered lock-downs and shutdown the planet on the assumption that the mortality rate was 3% to 5% with a high rate of transmissiblity.

We now know that the actual mortality rate is .3% to .5% for the entire populations, and .05% for those under 49.

Wash your hands, wear a mask when you need to. And life will be just fine.

Kids can go to school. People can fly. The world can move on.

The research will show at the end of the day, that the world made a very costly, and wrong decision on how to handle this. And in the end, likely cost more loss of life. In BC alone, there were more deaths due to overdose in the month of May, than we have total Covid death. A large reason for those death, is that the drugs were mixed with more toxic substances because the boarder was closed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FL101
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:49 am

Re: Equipment bid

Post by FL101 »

It’s a really positive sign about how good all our lives are when we worry about a %0.5 mortality rate. Even for the elderly and vulnerable COVID is only around %4.0

Here’s a few fun facts about life in 1900. These stats are for the US.

Infant mortality; %10-%30 before first birthday.

Maternal mortality; %0.6-0.9. Keeping in mind most women had on average 6 births in a lifetime, meaning our great-great grand mother’s could expect 6 instances in thier lives with a higher risk of death than COVID.

Work related mortality per year in mining industry in the US (1911-1915) %8.0! Imagine facing a %8 chance of death, per year, every year, just to get a pay check.

Factor in risks of food born illness, vehicle accidents and incidences of violence, daily life 120 years ago was far more deadly than COVID.

It’s nice we’re being cautious about COVID, but we need some perspective about how good our lives are.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

Well, we never came close to overflowing ICU’s...because of the lockdowns. Unfortunately, we can’t go back in time and see what would have happened had we done nothing, but it’s very clear that the lockdowns were effective. Maybe we went overboard, maybe not, but we didn’t get to low covid levels in Canada by magic.
Science is not a consensus, and a consensus is not science.
This reminds me of something a conspiracy theorist might say.
It is clear you have made up your mind
Yes, and same for you.
clearly not interested in doing the actual reading or research
Just because I didn’t read your personal thesis of links and articles, doesn’t mean I didn’t do my own research on my own time. In the end, we are just forming our own opinions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
florch
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by florch »

mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:39 pm
Science is not a consensus, and a consensus is not science.
This reminds me of something a conspiracy theorist might say.
I appreciate that you can disagree, and I'm glad that people are having respectful if heated discussions.

This comment might have went further than you wanted though. Science works because it is falsifiable - meaning that every theory is subject to being replaced by a better theory. It is not dogmatic or religious in nature. Real science is done by people who are not afraid to go against the grain. Usually they are wrong, but they're the only ones who discover anything new. The outliers need to be heard, groupthink is dangerous.
---------- ADS -----------
 
dhc#
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: Equipment bid

Post by dhc# »

Has there been any recent communication from Jazz/Chorus management about what AC has in store for Connector routes/scheduling for the rest of the summer/fall/winter ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by rudder »

dhc# wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:28 am Has there been any recent communication from Jazz/Chorus management about what AC has in store for Connector routes/scheduling for the rest of the summer/fall/winter ?
A lot of what AC Commercial has been planning is changing by the day. Third party restrictions. Demand.

I doubt there will be reliable visibility on capacity until the significant third party travel restrictions are lifted. Most current capacity increases planned for July and August are domestic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

Short-term, I don’t foresee the world being eager/able to lift enough covid restrictions to get the aviation industry significantly moving again. Flare ups and re-implementation of restrictions are going to keep things bogged down for a while. The virus isn’t going away, it will spread and freak everyone out again.

Too bad mask wearing (particularly in the USA) has become so controversial/politicized...if they were simply made mandatory in all indoor public spaces across the board, they’d curb transmission like crazy, with less stay-at-home orders. Instead we have America fighting over everything, with rallies, protests, and crowded places becoming new “superspreader” events, and unfortunately in Canada we are right above that circus. So while we may have things seemingly under control here, until America can sort it’s sh*t out and start getting its country organized, I fear the aviation industry for both countries is going be very limited in it’s ability to improve.
---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

[/quote]
mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:39 pm Science is not a consensus, and a consensus is not science.

This reminds me of something a conspiracy theorist might say.
Personally, I find this statement from you to be rather concerning. It gives me the impression you do not understand how science is done. Lets not forget that every single Covid model that has forecast out by more than two weeks, has been staggeringly wrong. This is not good science. In fact, it is abysmal. In Chemistry and Physics, the confidence levels and standard deviations used by epidemiologists, would be none starters. Anything attempted to be published in those fields using the same intervals as epidemiologists commonly use, would be laughed at.

Lets try a more pointed example:

In 1912, a man named Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift. His hypothesis was widely rejected for the mainstream view that the continents were fixed. In 1950, his theory was finally affirmed (20 years after his death). This means, that your grand parents, in a geography class, learned that the continents were fixed.

As for as conspiracy theorist; the links I provided, and names I gave, were from some very intelligent people, at the top of their fields. Two Standford professors, one of which holds a Nobel Prize, and an Oxford professor. These are not individuals wearing tin foil hats. They are all studied in areas that intersect epidemiology. The one thing they all have in common, is they view the current issue from a perspective that does not employ linear thinking.
mixturerich wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:26 pm Short-term, I don’t foresee the world being eager/able to lift enough covid restrictions to get the aviation industry significantly moving again. Flare ups and re-implementation of restrictions are going to keep things bogged down for a while. The virus isn’t going away, it will spread and freak everyone out again.

Too bad mask wearing (particularly in the USA) has become so controversial/politicized...if they were simply made mandatory in all indoor public spaces across the board, they’d curb transmission like crazy, with less stay-at-home orders. Instead we have America fighting over everything, with rallies, protests, and crowded places becoming new “superspreader” events, and unfortunately in Canada we are right above that circus. So while we may have things seemingly under control here, until America can sort it’s sh*t out and start getting its country organized, I fear the aviation industry for both countries is going be very limited in it’s ability to improve.


And as far as this is concerned: The Euro zone is mostly open to other countries in the Euro-zone. Most of these countries have similar covid numbers as Canada, and I can see them opening up to us. People want to travel! I know someone in Italy, and they indicated that they have seen a few German tourists in the area she lives in.

Most of Asia is in a similar position.

People were freaked out, because they were being told again and again, in an authoritative way, they needed to be scared. There has been no super-spreader events linked to the protests as of yet. Again, for the average healthy person, Covid has a very low mortality rate; the average age of the people who have died from it is ~80. Compare that to the Spanish Flu, where the average age was 28.

Aviation is a huge economic driver, it always has been. Countries are eager to repair the damage they inflicted, and will be looking for ways to do it sooner than later.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by TheStig »

truedude wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:40 pm
mixturerich wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:22 pm Okay, so a few doctors are skeptical, but clearly the vast majority are not. It just takes a few more full or overflowing ICU situations to wake everybody up about the seriousness again.

Again, it’s not about the mortality rate. It’s actually about how many sick people the hospitals can handle at once without things overflowing. It’s happened before and it will again if there aren’t at least some kind of restrictions in place. We know the risks. There has to be some kind of protection.

At the end the day, everyone is just arguing an endless moral dilemma about how many sick people is acceptable or not, and what level of economic destruction those people are worth.
I doubt you actually spent too much time looking at anything I sent you. Science is not a consensus, and a consensus is not science.

In Canada we never came close to having overflowing ICU's. And if you remove the at risk from the equation, there was almost no one in our ICU's. It will absolutely not happen again. We assumed we knew the risks. But the data doesn't support the initial hypothesis about this virus. In fact, everything we learn about it, shows us that it is much less deadly than initially assumed. In Canada, 80% of our fatalities are from care homes. Remove those from the equation, and this wouldn't even represent a bad flu year. In Canada we have a care home problem, not a Covid problem.

But this is exactly why I didn't respond initially. It is clear you have made up your mind, and are clearly not interested in doing the actual reading or research, and have bought into a narrative that the data has never really supported, and supports it less and less everyday.

We entered lock-downs and shutdown the planet on the assumption that the mortality rate was 3% to 5% with a high rate of transmissiblity.

We now know that the actual mortality rate is .3% to .5% for the entire populations, and .05% for those under 49.

Wash your hands, wear a mask when you need to. And life will be just fine.

Kids can go to school. People can fly. The world can move on.

The research will show at the end of the day, that the world made a very costly, and wrong decision on how to handle this. And in the end, likely cost more loss of life. In BC alone, there were more deaths due to overdose in the month of May, than we have total Covid death. A large reason for those death, is that the drugs were mixed with more toxic substances because the boarder was closed.
You're cherry picking the data to support your own conclusions. I took a look at the CDC website to see what else it had to say, specifically about air travel. You're using their data but arguing against the CDCs own guidance.

Can traveling to visit family or friends increase my chances of getting and spreading COVID-19?

Yes. Travel increases your chances of getting and spreading COVID-19. Before you travel, learn if COVID-19 is spreading in your local area or in any of the places you are going. Traveling to visit family may be especially dangerous if you or your loved ones are more likely to get very ill from COVID-19. People at higher risk for severe illness need to take extra precautions. For more considerations see the webpage Coronavirus in the United States—Considerations for Travelers.

Should I avoid traveling internationally?

Yes. CDC recommends that you avoid all nonessential international travel because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some healthcare systems are overwhelmed and there may be limited access to adequate medical care in affected areas. Many countries are implementing travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines, closing borders, and prohibiting non-citizens from entry with little advance notice. Airlines have cancelled many international flights and in-country travel may be unpredictable. If you choose to travel internationally, your travel plans may be disrupted, and you may have to remain outside the United States for an indefinite length of time.

---------- ADS -----------
 
truedude
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by truedude »

TheStig wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:33 am Can traveling to visit family or friends increase my chances of getting and spreading COVID-19?

Yes. Travel increases your chances of getting and spreading COVID-19. Before you travel, learn if COVID-19 is spreading in your local area or in any of the places you are going. Traveling to visit family may be especially dangerous if you or your loved ones are more likely to get very ill from COVID-19. People at higher risk for severe illness need to take extra precautions. For more considerations see the webpage Coronavirus in the United States—Considerations for Travelers.
Yes, of course it can increase your risk. Along with going to the grocery store; going to the mall; going to Ikea; going to a restaurant. It still didn't mean that the Ikea in Richmond wasn't busy, that the mall parking lot wasn't full, and that every pub and restaurant along the shoreline in White Rock weren't packed.

Why don't you review the CDC guidance on alcohol consumption.
TheStig wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:33 am Should I avoid traveling internationally?

Yes. CDC recommends that you avoid all nonessential international travel because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some healthcare systems are overwhelmed and there may be limited access to adequate medical care in affected areas. Many countries are implementing travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines, closing borders, and prohibiting non-citizens from entry with little advance notice. Airlines have cancelled many international flights and in-country travel may be unpredictable. If you choose to travel internationally, your travel plans may be disrupted, and you may have to remain outside the United States for an indefinite length of time.


Notice that these recommendations are not based on actual dangerous associated with health. But with the uncertainty surrounding boarder restrictions. Again, the Eurozone is open to other EU members, and you will see more of the same happening around the world, making guidance like this to become more nuanced. Warnings like these are there for the same reason they need to put the warning "Do not iron clothes while wearing" in the documentation for irons. Most people can and will understand the risks of traveling, and that they may need to find different ways home, but some will not understand that, so it is better to provide a blanket statement (also covers them legally). But increasingly, more countries have made firm commitments not to lock down again.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Equipment bid

Post by mixturerich »

TheStig wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:33 am You're cherry picking the data to support your own conclusions. I took a look at the CDC website to see what else it had to say, specifically about air travel. You're using their data but arguing against the CDCs own guidance.
Exactly, everyone is all of a sudden the new CDC director. Let people choose their own moral compass because at the end of the day hundreds of thousands people will still lose their lives in an effort to keep the economy going, and that naturally bothers some people more than others.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Jazz Aviation LP - Air Canada Express”