BristolUK

You would argue that the faulty car - the one that was different to the others - should be recalled.

Almost Canadian

You'll have to explain to me how recalling faulty cars has any relevance to the current situation

Almost Canadian

Has anyone died in Canada as a rest of lack of access to equipment? Has anyone in the US?

BristolUK

It doesn't. It's an analogy as you well know. You were questioning whether the small number of deaths in relation to other medical conditions was worth the action.

The analogy is that when a car is known to be dangerous and likely to result in a number of deaths that is small in relation to the number of deaths involving other cars they recall it. They do something.

Don't be expecting any calls from car makers looking for a lawyer

dave_j

Bahhh...
The original argument put forward was that the potential level of C19 deaths is exceeded by the level of deaths caused by heart disease and since we accept heart disease as a fact of life then perhaps we should view C19 deaths with equivalent complacency.
The problem with this argument is that we're comparing apples to oranges. Heart disease is isolated to the patient whereas C19 is an infection looking to infect the world at large.
But we all know this so why make the comparison in the first place?
It's a view that looks past the immediate effects of the virus. It's a view that accepts the fact that the virus will run it's course no matter what is done to restrict it's expansion. It's one that dispenses with emotion and simply recognises C19 and heart disease as mechanisms that kill.
And it's also a view that is as valid as any other.
So why are countries throughout the world not accepting this and opting to attempt to stamp out C19?
Arguably it's been a politically based decision in all cases.
What leadership would survive the accusation that it allowed unrestricted fatalities without doing all it could do to help?
Imagine the social consequences in terms of civil disruption if governments allowed unrestricted C19 growth.
A dispassionate view equating heart disease, that's nobody's fault, to unrestricted C19 deaths, that rebounds on governmental decision making, is valid but carries extreme risk.

caretaker

They don't have to set up temporary morgues for the annual heart disease fatalities. In Iran they're dying and going blind from drinking methanol in a misguided attempt to stave off the virus. There's no comparison to heart disease, regular flu, car accident deaths or any other bullshit analogy.

scrubbedexpat091

Another perspective, COVID in just 2 weeks has killed more people than NYC had in murders last year in 12 months.

NY State data is showing at the current rate when it peaks they will be some 18,000 ventilators short, this is why its important to not get to that point, healthcare systems do not have the capacity for a major outbreak as has been shown several times overs now in various locations, this is what the public health officers in Canada are trying to prevent, Vancouver or Toronto are not special, neither have enough capacity to handle a major outbreak, nor can Calgary, Edmonton or any other city in Canada, its imperative we keep the infection rate low and slow to not overwhelm hospitals, only so many doctors and nurses as well, there isn't unlimited capacity and supplies.

New York Presbyterian hospital has seen the number of patients on ventilators double in just 2 days, at the current rate they will run out of ventilators and beds. Hospital director in Hoboken, NJ expects to run out of ventilators early next week.

demand for medical personnel exceeds currently supply so much, they are asking doctors, nurses, techs and others to come out of retirement to help.

I am glad Canada is doing well so far to keep cases low, we do not need a NY level outbreak, no city or hospital in Canada could handle it.

Almost Canadian

That isn't the argument at all.

The issue is the number of people globally that have died from C19 is tiny in comparison to deaths from other causes. I get that healthcare systems will be overwhelmed. I get that there is a shortage of ventilators. The question is: how many that needed ventilators actually recovered after having been on the ventilator or did the ventilator simply keep them alive for a number of hours/days?

If it made little difference then is tanking the economies of the world worth the benefit that will be achieved?

dave_j

I understand your argument and make no judgement.
However I suggest that a system that allows normal economic activity whilst permitting C19 growth without taking measures to restrict its proliferation risks social unrest as the population, as a whole, realises that their government is content to sacrificie them.
I take your main point and it remains to be seen whether widespread unemployment arising from the current shutdown practice will also provide a basis for civil unrest and economic depression, but I suspect that the fact that so many medical workers are being infected whilst battling C19 may perversely provide a stabilising factor.
We will see.

scrubbedexpat091

In an effort to reduce imported cases into China, China will be restricting airlines flying into China from other countries.

Chinese airlines are permitted to fly one route, once per week to any given country. (this will further hurt YVR)

Foreign airlines will be restricted to one route, once per week as well.

Local COVID cases have slowed in China, but imported cases have risen.

Airlines operating flights into China cannot have more than 75% load factor.

Airlines can operate cargo only flights and not restricted by the new regulations.

When a country has consistent decline in COVID cases and no new cases for 21 days, China may allow more flights to/from said countries.

Almost Canadian

From what I have been able to learn, those that become infected fall into one of 4 categories: those that don't know they have it.; those that exhibit minor symptoms that they don't attribute to C19; those that have symptoms that they realise is C19 and from which they make a full and relatively quick recovery; those that have severe symptoms from which they die.

The first 3 categories are such that, it would appear, sensible people would not concern themselves with. The last category, it would appear, has very few survivors. Clearly, we wish to avoid as many falling into this category as possible and, I would argue, those that are susceptible to being in that category should take whatever action they can to self isolate to limit their exposure (the elderly, those with underlying health conditions).

If I am correct ( and I appreciate I may not be due to the massive lack of data available to non medics) one has to argue that the benefit to society of the economic consequences of shutting life down is worth the benefit that will result. The longer this goes on for, and the more that suffer from the economic fallout, the more difficult it will become to justify the effects of 5he situation and the more difficult it will become to keep peolple on side.

dave_j

Can't argue with your reasoning.
I'm tempted to wonder what reactions would have been had group 4 required extensive medical support but with intervention patients would have recovered. In other words, would we still still be witnessing a global shutdown if fatalities were low but the disease was sufficiently serious to require extensive treatment.
In this case medical resources would still become quickly overrun and it would be the lack of medical response that led to death.
And.. what would have been the likely response if the disease didn't kill at all, but required hospitalisation and simply swamped the healthcare system? Would there have been a kneejerk shutdown that we see today?
I'm tempted to reason that it's not mortality that's prompted the shutdown but the effect C19 has had on healthcare systems and the fear that even at this early stage they've been shown to be inadequate and the need to be seen to be doing something about it. Witness the criticism levelled at Johnson for not enacting a shutdown immediately.

scrubbedexpat091

92 new cases in BC, largest 24 hour increase BC has had so far. Total cases 884, and 1 new death.

45% have recovered so far.

81 in hospital with 52 in ICU.

Percentage rate of growth is at 10% currently.

Dr. Henry say's a severe outbreak is still possible if people don't continue to follow the restrictions in place.


Vancouver Airport expects passenger numbers this year to drop to 1995 levels, 50% lower than the record passenger levels they saw in 2019.
Asking the federal government for relief from the 60 million per year rent they pay.
Suspending construction on the 20 year airport expansion plan, the first phase which was already started includes the parkade expansion, geoexchange and central utilities building, and new terminal addition has also been suspended, the terminal expansion was due to open in June.
Expects trans-border and international traffic to be reduced to nearly nothing within a few weeks, and domestic flights are down to 30% of usual. Airport is seeing 10-20k passenger per day down from the usual 70,000 a day typically seen in March.
Closing off parts of the terminals and condensing operations.

20% of NYC's paramedics and EMT's are out sick, most having COVID or being exposed to COVID and is expected to climb to 30% and is affecting their ability to respond to calls.

dbd33

If the objective is solely to reduce the count of deaths then, no, the shutdown is not worthwhile. I understand (from quality sources but underinformed sources) that half the people in intensive care survive when equipment is available. When equipment is not available them all without ventilators die. We can say that buying very many ventilators would have been cheaper than a stock market crash and a lock down.

That's tip of the iceberg though. The disease is new. We know that people who have it and recover suffer lung damage. We don't know what that does in the long term. We know that people recover but we don't know if they are then immune or susceptible to catching the disease again.

We also don't know what the impact of a disunited approach might be. Suppose we have a country where some areas, we could call them red states, are provided with lots of equipment while other areas, call them blue states, get inadequate supplies. Obviously lots of blue state people die but, later on, people will mingle. Blue state survivors will go to red states (not Indiana, no one goes there, but other ones). Does that set up a second and more forceful wave of disease in the manner of the Spanish Flu?

Too little is known, or can be known, to say whether or not the shut down was worth the cost. It's the price of your loyal but aging dog, innit? Emotionally no price is too high but when it comes to having to sell the Range Rover, maybe not so much.

scrubbedexpat091

The 884 cases in BC, I should add are total cases and not active cases, 45% of the 884 cases have recovered, so active cases is lower, at least the confirmed cases, they are not exactly doing large scale testing.