Re: Coronavirus
 

That seems to be more an issue of usage and euphemism than mis-translation. :unsure:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...e4b6e05497.jpg

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you don't know when to stop (similar to banananana) you may have to pay even more extra?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe, but only a hair. :getcoat:

Re: Coronavirus
 

COVID related job losses are slowly recovering a bit, national unemployment is down to 10.9% but still 1.3 million fewer jobs vs February.

419,000 jobs added in July, across Canada however 345,000 of those were part-time.

BC unemployment is 11.1% down from 13.1%.

Kelowna unemployment rate is 10% down from 10.2% in June and Vancouver is 13.3% which actually increased over June.

Slowly recovering a bit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

53 new cases in BC
No new deaths
386 active cases
11 in hospital, 4 in ICU
5 long term care homes now with active outbreaks and 1 acute care facility with an active outbreak

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...date-1.5678930

Re: Coronavirus
 

23 new cases in Saskatchewan,
our 20th death
57 recoveries, active cases down to 168
13 in hospital, 4 in intensive care
total cases so far 1,409
https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatch...-28d00af2855f/

Re: Coronavirus
 

3 Vancouver Police Officers tested positive, appears they linked the infections of the officers to a house party the officers broke up.

2/3 of the 1,500 self isolating in BC are in the Fraser Health Region.

Most new cases are those who are 20 and 40 years old.

Fewer 60+ getting sick, but concern the virus could start to spread to more vulnerable groups again.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/08...health-region/

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is also my understanding of where we are on it. Another interesting point is that not everyone will agree to vaccination, so that even if there is a 100% effective vaccine (as there is with measles) the anti-vaxers will ensure that some instance of the virus remains within the population.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Luckily I believe that even with a 60 or 70% vaccine uptake and a maximum r rate of 2.5 (which is where we were at with no other measures, a fresh population with no natural antibodies) the virus won't really get anywhere.

As each person will on average infect less than one unvaccinated person, so the virus won't grow - add in those anti vaxxers hopefully mixing in their own circles/not mixing, social distancing and greater hygiene it won't even get that far

Danger is those numbers get majorly skewed if the vaccine isn't 100% effective, as the whole thing will snowball as a less effective vaccine gives the anti vaxxers extra traction.
​​​​

Re: Coronavirus
 

From this survey done and reported in CBC

32% said they may hold off on getting a vaccine, while 14% said they dont want a vaccine at all.

Of the 32% who said they would hold off, 76% said they were concerned about side effects from the vaccine.

I personally can't blame people, I go back and fourth on it, should I get it as soon as its offered to me, or wait and see if there are any long term side effects, the speed in which this vaccine is being created does concern me, how can anyone say if there will be issue 2 or 3 or 4 years down the road.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...hows-1.5674394

Re: Coronavirus
 

If we don't take the vaccine, there is a very good chance that we won't have to worry about 'long term' anything...

I went to school with a kid who had had poliomyelitis... that child had been stuck in what my parents called an 'iron lung' and he had terrible, long term, health problems.

We have lived through a period when these terrible problems that ravaged 'our' society virtually disappeared...Africa would have been delighted to have had the 'problem' of worrying whether or not to be vaccinated for many things...

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one, medically qualified or otherwise is going to come right out and give us a written guarantee that the new vaccine is 100% safe and that there will be no side effects or worse in time to come, how could they it's not been fully developed and tested yet let alone had the required number of years to prove itself. Even pro vaxers will be concerned about the ultimate safety of this vaccine that is being rushed through right now in various forms from various countries. I can see large numbers of people agreeing to the concept but holding off until they know more. Or do we all trust the governments advice because that's been a rollercoaster so far.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am not saying don't get the vaccine, but feel people do have valid reasons to be cautious about a vaccine that was developed quickly.

Even polio had some issues in the early day's of the vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Certainly those of us the wrong side of 37 60 and with other risk factors have much less to lose by taking it.


I'm not sure where but I read something about the urgency and rushing it through in two years instead of the usual ten.

Is it reasonable to think that taking ten years normally is playing doubly safe and then extra safe again to make absolutely certain? Depending on the drug is it possible that they know early on in research that some have a greater risk of side effect or a more serious side effect?

Perhaps it might also be the case that 2 years instead of 10 isn't that they've only done a fifth of the testing they normally do, but that they do it much more quickly. Obviously this would still have some risks, but doing it in a fifth of the time doesn't mean it's five times as risky. Especially as they're not coming into it totally blind. It's believed there were already some advances from the work done on vaccines relating to SARS and MERS a few years ago.

I imagine if you live somewhere like NB you won't need to rush into it but if people around you are dropping like flies you may feel differently.