|
Re: Coronavirus
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.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 12828720)
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.
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dave_j
(Post 12828701)
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. 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? |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12828757)
If it made little difference then is tanking the economies of the world worth the benefit that will be achieved?
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dave_j
(Post 12828761)
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. 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. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12828769)
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.
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12828670)
How many are actually being admitted to hospital? Catching it and being admitted to hospital are not the same thing. Are the crazy effects to the economy proportionate to the benefits gained?
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. |
Re: Coronavirus
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.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12828836)
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. My doctor clients in and around Calgary have informed me that very few of the confirmed cases have been admitted. |
Re: Coronavirus
One of the recovered is a 99 year old in one of the care homes, full recovery, has dementia so apparently not fully aware of the what was going on.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...vers-1.5513820 |
Re: Coronavirus
I posted this on the dark side but it's worth it here too
Surprisingly 'relevant' ;) |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12828769)
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. https://www.theguardian.com/society/...e_iOSApp_Other |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12828988)
Looks like a 50% survival rate in UK intensive care so far.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...e_iOSApp_Other |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12828994)
Thanks. That is encouraging.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which opinion turns against China on this. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...us-resentment/ |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12829085)
It will be interesting to see the extent to which opinion turns against China on this.
As the immediate emergency eases we'll see the blame game emerge in it's full despicable force to drown out those crying out for common sense. This political virus might end up causing more problems than the real thing. |
Re: Coronavirus
So for Canada as a whole as of this article from a day ago:
Hospitalization rate COVID is- 7% 3% have required ICU 1% have died. 30% of those hospitalized are under 40. Looks like BC would start to be in trouble if it got to Italy level, but otherwise seems our system can handle this, Italy is the worst case scenario used in their modelling projections. |
Re: Coronavirus
I've been a fan of John Prine since he first started out, and he's in critical condition with covid-19.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/singer...mily-1.4873506 |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 12829187)
I've been a fan of John Prine since he first started out, and he's in critical condition with covid-19.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/singer...mily-1.4873506 |
Re: Coronavirus
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12829204)
Much of this is already being done down here in Mississippi at our Winn-Dixie supermarket. There has been yellow tape by the registers for over a week now and hand sanitizers at the end of every other aisle, front and back. |
Re: Coronavirus
|
Re: Coronavirus
Germany seems to be so far ahead in managing this...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...w-quarantined/ |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 12829446)
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...virus-11965396 |
Re: Coronavirus
Canada seems to be a little behind other countries with deaths and number of confirmed infected people. Is it because of the various restrictions in place for some weeks now, or that the virus is late developing here and the numbers will be similar to other countries in ‘x’ number of weeks?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12829853)
Canada seems to be a little behind other countries with deaths and number of confirmed infected people. Is it because of the various restrictions in place for some weeks now, or that the virus is late developing here and the numbers will be similar to other countries in ‘x’ number of weeks?
Today's announcement for BC is: 86 new cases, they didn't update Sunday so this includes tests that came back on Sunday and Monday. 2 additional deaths, plus the first community death which I believe means the person died outside of hospital. 106 people now in hospital, with 60 in ICU. 48% of total cases have now recovered, including 80 who were previously in the ICU. 13 care homes now have outbreaks. 19 hospitals are devoted COVID-19 sites now and able to accept COVID patients. 4,233 vacant acute care beds across the province available currently. BC has been receiving orders of medical equipment and supplies including 1 million surgical masks received today. They are also prepping some offsite locations for people who are less sick including 200 beds at the Vancouver Convention center, but doesn't sound like we are at the point where such sites are needed, they are preparing so they are ready if needed. Reports that Air Canada is will laying off 15,000 more workers coming out today as well. |
Re: Coronavirus
Not many still living, but a few older folks who were young children during the Spanish Flu pandemic, this 102 year old survived it, but her father died, she has a simple yet important tip.
"All you have to do is behave yourself and just do what you are told," she said. "I mean try to do something constructive if you can." |
Re: Coronavirus
These guys are heroes. They destroyed the virus.
|
Re: Coronavirus
https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/03...nges-covid-19/
Vancouver not enforcing various parking rules effective now. BC Hospitals will not charge for parking until further notice starting Wed. Have noticed recycling in our building has decreased, people probably don't want to touch the gross and very dirty handles to open the recycling bins, where trash has no lid, just toss the trash in. |
Re: Coronavirus
A thought occurred to me recently.
The other day Trump suggested that he'd like the US to resume normal activity by Easter. I suspect that he hadn't a feel for what that would mean in terms of fatalities and consequencies but others did. One argument against this made by them was that it would mean an acceptance that, since the elderly appear to be at most risk, there would be a acceptable sacrifice of the old to achieve a national aim. But... Don't they do this all the time? How many 70 year olds have the US sent to Afghanistan recently? It is a routinely accepted principle that it is the young that countries sacrifice to achieve their military and diplomatic aims. Logically it would seem that should the C19 generated economic health of the country become an existential threat then I see no difference, and I speak as an oldie here, between the two propositions. There is a paradox here. |
Re: Coronavirus
:blink:
Absolutely unhinged. It really is no wonder that so many people back Trump if this is the kind of bullshit they hoover up.
Originally Posted by Danny B
(Post 12829964)
These guys are heroes. They destroyed the virus.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 12830093)
:blink:
Absolutely unhinged. It really is no wonder that so many people back Trump if this is the kind of bullshit they hoover up. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12829853)
Canada seems to be a little behind other countries with deaths and number of confirmed infected people. Is it because of the various restrictions in place for some weeks now, or that the virus is late developing here and the numbers will be similar to other countries in ‘x’ number of weeks?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12830364)
I am hoping its the latter. We were definitely ahead of the states in putting our restrictions in place and testing, still are. Thankfully much of this was down to the provincial governments. So maybe we won't be as bad as other countries. As I have mentioned here a couple of times, the states will be the worst hit country in the world. Trump's handling of it has been a disgrace, but he still patting himself on the back....not sure what for.
remember the US is a country of approx 360,000,000 million people...not 20/40/60,000,000. So of course the numbers are going to be far greater than the smaller countries. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12830369)
don’t you mean for former? ;)
remember the US is a country of approx 360,000,000 million people...not 20/40/60,000,000. So of course the numbers are going to be far greater than the smaller countries. I realise Canada is a tenth of the population of the US, but even taking that into account even at this early stage you can tell where its going to go... I watched an article on the news last night, asking if Toronto could end up like New York....Toronto is a lot smaller than New York but the cities are often compared. Seoul in South Korea is a lot more densely populated than New York, but their curve reached nowhere near that of New York just because they started testing earlier and had restrictions in place, thankfully Toronto and Ontario have done the same. New York was basically left unchecked, in my opinion other cities in the US will follow the same path as New York as suitable measures have not been put in place earlier enough, many Americans are still not taking it seriously! meanwhile Trump has the nerve to say if we lose under a 100,000 people I think I will still have done a good job. His arrogance knows no bounds. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12830364)
I am hoping its the latter. We were definitely ahead of the states in putting our restrictions in place and testing, still are. Thankfully much of this was down to the provincial governments. So maybe we won't be as bad as other countries. As I have mentioned here a couple of times, the states will be the worst hit country in the world. Trump's handling of it has been a disgrace, but he still patting himself on the back....not sure what for.
Density of the population is the big issue and New York is significantly skewing the figures in the US. If you believe that Canada's success was down to the actions of the Provinces, surely the same applies to the lack of action by the various governments in States in the US too, doesn't it? |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12830431)
Eh? The US put travel restrictions in place way before Canada did. Testing doesn't prevent the spread (unless you know something that I don't) it simply confirms the numbers.
Density of the population is the big issue and New York is significantly skewing the figures in the US. If you believe that Canada's success was down to the actions of the Provinces, surely the same applies to the lack of action by the various governments in States in the US too, doesn't it? I would say testing is important as although it doesn't prevent the spread it tells us how many are infected and in what areas, the WHO stressed this from the start. |
Re: Coronavirus
Isn't it best when comparing countries to compare the rate per 1 million rather than total cases?
While the US is top place for total cases, several European countries have more cases per million and more deaths per million by a fairly large amount in some cases. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12830538)
Isn't it best when comparing countries to compare the rate per 1 million rather than total cases?
While the US is top place for total cases, several European countries have more cases per million and more deaths per million by a fairly large amount in some cases. San Marino isn't doing too well in the cases/million https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:11 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.