![]() |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Piff Poff
(Post 12821300)
so what happens now? Do you all have to isolate, or just monitor yourselves?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821312)
it is clear we are moving away from a scientific based decision making process to what ever the masses feel will help and tit for tat politics. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12821320)
Ahem. Trump refused the WHO test kits and will instead have the government buy newly developed kits from a Kushner enterprise, there's been a delay, perhaps causing deaths, due to the grift. Trump tried to buy the rights to a vaccine so that only people within the US could benefit from it, despite the US not being isolated from the rest of the world. Johnson's approach to the pandemic is to ignore it. We never had a "scientific based decision making process". That's only the fault of the masses to the extent that they voted for conservative parties.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821288)
US centric but finally an article with some context
Here's some context. In the two days since that article was published the number of deaths from the virus in the US has risen by 50%. And if you take away the deaths from that "poorly run" home, they have doubled. Okay, so it doesn't compare to some other deaths. How many of deaths from other causes double in two days? There's some more context. But if a new car was developed and then it turned out that some design fault was responsible for an annual number of deaths that wouldn't be happening if that new car hadn't entered the market and people carried on driving the other available cars would anyone be saying it doesn't matter because X number of the total deaths would die anyway?
Originally Posted by Teaandtoday5
(Post 12821306)
i can’t be the only one sick of hearing this sort of thing. I am not particularly at risk but I don’t understand how throwing the vulnerable under the bus for the sake of the economy can be calmly described as’context’.
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821312)
what good is saving the vulnerable now
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821322)
and retaliation in kind from the liberal Canadian government will help?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821288)
US centric but finally an article with some context
https://newcriterion.com/blogs/dispa...mpared-to-what RWNJ. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 12821328)
I'm not entirely sure but I think I may have heard something similar before. :ohmy:
full quote is ‘what good is saving the vulnerable now if they end of dying anyway from not having the ability to earn a living or lack retirement savings?’ Which is a little more nuanced, don’t you think? |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 12821328)
Okay, so it doesn't compare to some other deaths. How many of deaths from other causes double in two days? There's some more context.
When the numbers double from 11 to 21, like they did in the UK the other day, the numbers are still small. If it doubles from 10,000 to 20,000 that is more significant. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821345)
But this is why the numbers themselves are so important. Using relative comparisons like doubled, 100% more etc. is non helpful and alarmist.
When the numbers double from 11 to 21, like they did in the UK the other day, the numbers are still small. If it doubles from 10,000 to 20,000 that is more significant. It's what a doubling overnight actually conveys in real terms. The maths aren't difficult. Left unchecked, and with a potential exposure to the virus of say only 50% of the population of Canada (38M) say 20M and a conservative rate of death of 1% we arrive at a total number of fatalities of 200,000 and ten times that in the US. This is why there's a worldwide effort to stamp the virus out everywhere, because today's potential availability of extensive travel will ensure that if it isn't stamped out everywhere then it'll recurr again and again. Governments are buying time until a suitable vaccine becomes avaiable. |
Re: Coronavirus
Damn virus is going to cause me to lose a job I bet. My luck is never on the good side....lol
Anyhow I suspect Canada will up the border closings this coming week, I wouldn't expect international flights to continue at this rate, they may hold off on the land border but at this point I am not confident that will even stay open in the coming weeks. Makes me think, should I stay in Canada or go home and be closer to family in the event something happens to my parents, tough decision to make. https://globalnews.ca/news/6680382/c...QYAOR7jSGDpZCg 313 confirmed cases in Canada, with 25,000 tested. BC has done around 6,000 tests as of Friday. |
Re: Coronavirus
Quebec is ordering gathering places like bars, movies, gyms and suck to close. Restaurants can stay open but must reduce capacity 50%.
Quebec premier only wants people to "“We should go out only to work, buy bread, go to the pharmacy, get health care, take a walk or go help people age 70 and up.†|
Re: Coronavirus
Westjet is going to cut 40% of its domestic seat capacity and 60% of its international capacity. They did not confirm how many people would be laid off but flight attendant union seems to think 50% of flight attendants will be laid off.
people are dumb |
Re: Coronavirus
My project which is based in Germany has instructed all non-German people (c.75%) to return and work from home. We're coming toward the end of our project so we're down from 100+ people to <10 people but still need to keep these few key people on board. I literally will be paid for doing nothing but I realise that I am one of the lucky ones. My wife has a part-time job which she does as a hobby (women's fashion shop) and she says she has had literally zero customers in the past few days.
2020 is going to be a year of chaos and heartache. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821342)
Please avoid snipping my quotes in such a way as to take them out of context or misrepresent me. Thank you
full quote is ‘what good is saving the vulnerable now if they end of dying anyway from not having the ability to earn a living or lack retirement savings?’ Which is a little more nuanced, don’t you think? Not to mention that huge assumption regarding lack of resources. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Engineer_abroad
(Post 12821345)
But this is why the numbers themselves are so important. Using relative comparisons like doubled, 100% more etc. is non helpful and alarmist.
When the numbers double from 11 to 21, like they did in the UK the other day, the numbers are still small. If it doubles from 10,000 to 20,000 that is more significant. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:57 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.