Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Coronavirus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • suspenders wrote: View Post

    Correct.
    Not sure.

    Comment


    • i thnk the balance is if a store owner wants to open his her store, they can, and if people want to go into said stores, they can. perfect balance.

      Comment


      • KHD wrote: View Post


        Recent patient characteristic reports from Italy (https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coro...7_may_2020.pdf) showed that of their 28000 deaths, only 66 of them were under 40 and only 320 of them under 50. Furthermore only 3% of deaths had no comorbidities.

        I am not a conspiracy theorist nor a "yahoo" but pragmatically I don't expect you can ask people to sacrifice their livelihood and their children's future to save 80+ year olds for very much longer.
        Right, and I’ll speak for myself here (though I’m sure many feel the same): When I use the 80+ cohort, I don't want to in no way diminish the value of any life. One death is too many, no matter the age. Epidemiologically speaking though, that age is very close to the Canadian life expectancy (US is 78, Canada 82). A huge number of us will get there one day in this country. That is a stage in our lives in which the immune system is quite low, and time has taken a toll on our overall physiology. Therefore many things, even an ordinary influenza, can tilt the balance that will pass us from this world to the next.

        So measuring the severity of a given disease based on hospitalizations/deaths in the 80+ cohort, is beyond unreliable. Alarming the overall population with aggregate numbers that include and are super skewed toward the 80+, reeks of public misinformation. That has nothing to do with the way we regard our elders, it's about how we determine the true severity of disease X Y or Z.

        Imagine you're 82, and someone says "pops, we discovered a bug that's going around and it's harder on the older folks. What would you have us do?"

        A. Improve prevention and sanitation on old-folks home, have everyone wear masks (young and old) and wash their hands more, then do our visits through these magic computers here for while so we don't bring the bug to you.

        B. Take your grandkids and great-grandkids out of school, shut down all their activities, have your kids lose their jobs, then shut down all public parks, gyms, restaurants, prohibit people from travelling, then prohibit people to gather in groups over 20, for months. Then we'll spend 500B+ of public money because of all the people out of work (which is twice as much as what we spend in a whole year to take care of all other diseases combined)

        I know which one I'd pick.
        Last edited by inthepaint; Wed May 20th, 2020, 10:36 PM.
        2019 NBA Champions. Glad to have doubted the doubters.

        Comment


        • inthepaint wrote: View Post

          Right, and I’ll speak for myself here (though I’m sure many feel the same): When I use the 80+ cohort, I don't want to in no way diminish the value of any life. One death is too many, no matter the age. Epidemiologically speaking though, that age is very close to the Canadian life expectancy (US is 78, Canada 82). A huge number of us will get there one day in this country. That is a stage in our lives in which the immune system is quite low, and time has taken a toll on our overall physiology. Therefore many things, even an ordinary influenza, can tilt the balance that will pass us from this world to the next.

          So measuring the severity of a given disease based on hospitalizations/deaths in the 80+ cohort, is beyond unreliable. Alarming the overall population with aggregate numbers that include and are super skewed toward the 80+, reeks of public misinformation. That has nothing to do with the way we regard our elders, it's about how we determine the true severity of disease X Y or Z.

          Imagine you're 82, and someone says "pops, we discovered a bug that's going around and it's harder on the older folks. What would you have us do?"

          A. Improve prevention and sanitation on old-folks home, have everyone wear masks (young and old) and wash their hands more, then do our visits through these magic computers here for while so we don't bring the bug to you.

          B. Take your grandkids and great-grandkids out of school, shut down all their activities, have your kids lose their jobs, then shut down all public parks, gyms, restaurants, prohibit people from travelling, then prohibit people to gather in groups over 20, for months. Then we'll spend 500B+ of public money because of all the people out of work (which is twice as much as what we spend in a whole year to take care of all other diseases combined)

          I know which one I'd pick.
          I've gotta agree with this, being one of the "pops" in the at risk group. Another factor beyond simple age is how many of those over sixty also suffered from obesity, type 2 diabetes, were smokers, did not exercise and/or had other issues that were the result of personal choices. I wonder what the fatality rate is in the over sixty group that eat sensibly, had quit smoking before 40, exercised, etc. Personal lifestyle choices are important.

          Comment


          • inthepaint wrote: View Post

            Right, and I’ll speak for myself here (though I’m sure many feel the same): When I use the 80+ cohort, I don't want to in no way diminish the value of any life. One death is too many, no matter the age. Epidemiologically speaking though, that age is very close to the Canadian life expectancy (US is 78, Canada 82). A huge number of us will get there one day in this country. That is a stage in our lives in which the immune system is quite low, and time has taken a toll on our overall physiology. Therefore many things, even an ordinary influenza, can tilt the balance that will pass us from this world to the next.

            So measuring the severity of a given disease based on hospitalizations/deaths in the 80+ cohort, is beyond unreliable. Alarming the overall population with aggregate numbers that include and are super skewed toward the 80+, reeks of public misinformation. That has nothing to do with the way we regard our elders, it's about how we determine the true severity of disease X Y or Z.

            Imagine you're 82, and someone says "pops, we discovered a bug that's going around and it's harder on the older folks. What would you have us do?"

            A. Improve prevention and sanitation on old-folks home, have everyone wear masks (young and old) and wash their hands more, then do our visits through these magic computers here for while so we don't bring the bug to you.

            B. Take your grandkids and great-grandkids out of school, shut down all their activities, have your kids lose their jobs, then shut down all public parks, gyms, restaurants, prohibit people from travelling, then prohibit people to gather in groups over 20, for months. Then we'll spend 500B+ of public money because of all the people out of work (which is twice as much as what we spend in a whole year to take care of all other diseases combined)

            I know which one I'd pick.
            Yeah, i hope I didn't come off as de-valuing the elderly. That wasn't my intention. I work in cancer care. A huge fraction of what we do can be described as "buying a few more" months or years of decent quality of life in an elderly population.

            But there are practicalities in health care. The system will generally not pay above a certain dollar figure per quality-adjusted life year (QALY - a term you are likely to hear a lot in the coming months IMO) for a drug / treatment. From my perspective this cost/benefit ratio has gone completely out the window with COVID-19.

            Comment


            • KHD wrote: View Post
              Recent patient characteristic reports from Italy (https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coro...7_may_2020.pdf) showed that of their 28 000 deaths, only 66 of them were under 40 and only 320 of them under 50. Furthermore only 3% of deaths had no comorbidities.
              Interesting that no one aged 10-19 died.

              Comment


              • Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                i thnk the balance is if a store owner wants to open his her store, they can, and if people want to go into said stores, they can. perfect balance.
                Ok but what about everything else?

                Comment


                • Apollo wrote: View Post

                  Ok but what about everything else?
                  i agree with the travel restrictions across borders, i think it could be managed with temp scans, hard on new york, but as long as business is mostly traveling through it's fine. every business will set its own protocols. i don't wear a mask in a store that doesn't say i have to, and i do when it has a sign that says i do. i am in their store.

                  if you are afraid of going out(not you specifically), you can stay home. hopefully the unemployment doesn't keep getting extended. this week it was extended until at least september, and the next day i found out it was too dangerous for my kid to go back to school, until at least september.

                  Comment


                  • I think the government will mandate masks if/when a second wave hits. There's something fishy about how the whole mask thing was handled. On the surface masks seemed like a no brainer to significantly slow the spread but government and media both came out saying they didn't do anything for regular people and in fact it might be more dangerous to use them. Then all the medical masks were bought up and after that point the government and media came out and said, hey you know what? Masks do make sense. Now its progressed to hey, you know what? You should wear a mask in public.

                    Comment


                    • Apollo wrote: View Post
                      I think the government will mandate masks if/when a second wave hits. There's something fishy about how the whole mask thing was handled. On the surface masks seemed like a no brainer to significantly slow the spread but government and media both came out saying they didn't do anything for regular people and in fact it might be more dangerous to use them. Then all the medical masks were bought up and after that point the government and media came out and said, hey you know what? Masks do make sense. Now its progressed to hey, you know what? You should wear a mask in public.
                      I think they realized that masks were more important to HCW's then to normal folk. So they probably didn't want regular joes to buy up all the masks, and then kill the health care industry.

                      Then public pressure for their dumb comments probably made them change their stance.. only then there were no masks to buy putting pressure on companies like 3M to produce more.

                      Then finally now that the crisis has calmed down, they are asking everyone to use masks.

                      I don't think it was complete stupidity (although it could have been). I think it was more about telling the public a lie to avoid a potential crisis somewhere else.

                      Comment


                      • Exactly why I'm saying it looks fishy. The general public isn't stupid, we're all paying close attention to this and many other things. It is instances like this where they lose face and future measure will be less effective unless they use the law to enforce them. It also causes the media to lose face because they assisted in this possible lie.

                        Comment


                        • Also, the focus was almost entirely on the death rate when it came to the virus. You had to really dig outside of Canadian government and press to find anything about the long term damage risks that are involved with the virus and now finally months later your starting to see traces here and there of people discussing it. Its pretty damn pathetic that you need to look to press outside of Canada to places like communist China to get the most recent information and facts about COVID19. Think about that for a moment.

                          In some places in the world they worry about food security for various reasons but one is globalization. Canada and the Canada press say don't worry about it. Maybe they're telling the truth and not holding anything back, who knows? You won't know for sure until it doesn't happen or you're shit out of luck when it comes to certain staples like rice.
                          Last edited by Apollo; Thu May 21st, 2020, 12:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Also, the focus was almost entirely on the death rate when it came to the virus. You had to really dig outside of Canadian government and press to find anything about the long term damage risks that are involved with the virus and now finally months later your starting to see traces here and there of people discussing it. Its pretty damn pathetic that you need to look to press outside of Canada to places like communist China to get the most recent information and facts about COVID19. Think about that for a moment.

                            In some places in the world they worry about food security for various reasons but one is globalization. Canada and the Canada press say don't worry about it. Maybe they're telling the truth and not holding anything back, who knows? You won't know for sure until it doesn't happen or you're shit out of luck when it comes to certain staples like rice.
                            Like Mixx said: let’s be real here, the NBA was way ahead of Canada. The frickin capitalist NBA. Trudeau deliberately kept all travel open because Trump started shutting down flights early..... and that’s xenophobic and Un-Canadian.

                            Comment


                            • golden wrote: View Post

                              Like Mixx said: let’s be real here, the NBA was way ahead of Canada. The frickin capitalist NBA. Trudeau deliberately kept all travel open because Trump started shutting down flights early..... and that’s xenophobic and Un-Canadian.
                              I read that millions of people are still entering America from China and Europe right now.

                              Trudeau doesn't dictate what is Canadian. Canadians do and he may feel bold in his minority final term government but if he doesn't watch it the Liberals won't be in power after he's retired and a lot of the things he's done will be undone.

                              Comment


                              • Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X