Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 12876068)

I could also catch it at the shopping mall (which are now open) and I don't self isolate when I come back from there.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12876104)

The infection level is hard to compare, because of different testing regimes. On the other hand the death rate is a bit more, shall we say, final...and correlates to the infection level. On this basis, Canada is doing much better at virus control that the UK.

Canada 230 deaths per million
UK 650 deaths per million

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12876193)

I think many people are too busy to consider how this virus got going.
Once upon a time there was one C19 victim, just one, that's right, just one.
Today, the number infected bears witness to just how virulent this virus is, so take notice.
It's insanity to do anything but realise that the 2M plus currently infected in the US won't expand to become 200M plus, and that no matter how much you might try to dampen the extent of the infection it'll take anyone who lets it, and that means in all countries, even those who think they're doing well.

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12876170)

That's total deaths not new deaths though, it doesn't give a picture of how safe a country is currently - Brazil would look only slightly higher risk than Canada using total deaths. Think to make the call on whether a country is low or high risk you've got to look at either daily, weekly or monthly totals (of infection or deaths, I think both have their merits) for the recent past to see what risk that country still presents.

I think I may have said this before but I think death totals are as skewable if not more skewable as they are subjective. trouble is I know at the start Britain was over egging its death totals and do wonder if its under egging them now.

Working pretty closely with this (maintain a fleet of private ambulances that collect the deceased from places outside of hospitals) in mid to late march when everyone was a lot more concerned, the UK didn't have enough tests going round, they wouldn't waste a test on the deceased (in my area at least). So if anyone had rang nhs direct, or a friend or family member had reported they had suffered from covid like symptoms it was a case of recording the cause of death as presumed covid. Whether they had covid or not. (this then meant quarantine of the vehicle until deep cleans had took place etcl

For those deaths of the terminally Ill who have cancer, water infections and covid - what is the cause of death recorded as now (I honestly don't know).

Covid ripping through a large hospice or nursing home - killing 15% of the population. tragic as it llmay be, could throw a countries Death toll out of whack for weeks even if outside of that setting the country is having very few positive cases.

​​​​​​

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12876303)

That's true, the death figures are historic. Without an intensive testing regime it's hard to know the real-time level of infection. Although hospital admissions/tested and associated growth rates is a lagging indicator.

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12876127)

I agree with Shard. You are sitting very close to someone for hours and hours on a plane. You have no idea where any of the other passengers have been. Masks will be removed when eating and drinking. Some will not wear masks for health reasons. IMO you cannot begin to compare walking around a mall to sitting in a plane for hours and hours. My daughter was sat near someone who died of COVID when she came back from the UK in March.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12876120)

The whole point of having a quarantine is to errect a barrier between what is deemed the outside of a defined inside. In this case, Canada is "inside". So your examples of Canadian shopping malls and Canadian flights are totally irrelevant. It may well be that the risk is low if coming from somewhere like Malta, but it's not zero, and therefore there remains a rationale to require quarantine.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 12877437)

Ok, so then someone flying from Vancouver to Toronto should be required to self isolate but they aren't, the line in the sand is drawn at travelling outside the country and that's where it is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 12877437)

Ok, so then someone flying from Vancouver to Toronto should be required to self isolate but they aren't, the line in the sand is drawn at travelling outside the country and that's where it is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 12877440)

And that's where we disagree. I (and my MP) don't agree there is a rationale for quarantine from all countries. Government is just taking a lazy approach, no one is really going to change my mind on that. If the risk is low, then it shouldn't be required. ....

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12877446)

Why would someone travelling internally need to self isolate ....?

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12877448)

Why would someone be travelling anywhere if there isn't a need to do so? :confused: (Where "need" includes for work if you are unable to WFH, for medical treatment, and to obtain food, etc.)

Most days we don't leave our own property and the only "travelling" the three of us (incl my wife and daughter) do most weeks is me making one trip to buy groceries.

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12877447)

At some point last year there were only a few hundred known cases, all of them in China, then in the following weeks almost every country around the world had one person enter carrying the disease, and that person, or another person who entered soon after and carrying the disease, spread that disease to a second person, and a third, and then the disease got passed on to hundreds of other people..

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12877453)

well yes...there is that. :nod: We are like you...we are staying home...if we do go out we mask up. Problem is the young folk...they think they are invincible and are eager to get on with their lives.