Coronavirus XV: Keep Up the Good Work (no off-topic discussions)

[oobga]

The protests have involved people from around province, and out of province. For instance people from Calgary region, which was harder hit, were at the Edmonton protest.

But don't forget the time latency is a combo of incubation time, symptom time, sufficient for people to want to book a test, getting that test done, AND the results of the test coming back which still takes days. We'll be seeing test results of protest timeframe this week. We wouldn't have been seeing them much yet.

It is interesting thought that a week ago 5-6 times as many were getting tested. Is that sheer hypochondria from people that had attended the protests or people actually experiencing symptoms. Its hard to understand how the numbers requesting a test could spike so quickly in one week. Yet few of those are testing positive.. something seems a bit odd.

I thought I saw that large numbers of people that went to the protests were seeking testing. Something like 11k tests of asymptomatic people were done in the last week I believe Hinshaw said a day or 2 ago.

 

[Bangers]

Just a comment but Edmonton has 175 active cases right now, highest its ever been at any point here in the city. Its reached near what the Active cases are in the much larger Calgary region. Edmonton likely climbs to 200 confirmed today or tomorrow. Understanding that generally speaking population amounts of infected can be 10X that of confirmed this likely means 2k in Edmonton CURRENTLY infected. Which means its still very much time to be careful.

In Millwoods 33/48 of the cases that have ever been positive are active right now. Prior to the current influx the most we had was 8 active cases. Its 4X that right now. Food for thought.

Interestingly chance of Exposure to Covid-19, in Edmonton, has never been greater and yet people completely have their guard down. For sure I'm wearing mask anytime I'm out shopping. For sure I'm not going to restos, gyms, malls etc.

What's the reason for the sudden surge?

 

[Drivesaitl]

I thought I saw that large numbers of people that went to the protests were seeking testing. Something like 11k tests of asymptomatic people were done in the last week I believe Hinshaw said a day or 2 ago.

Why would this even be occurring in such large numbers? Its a waste of resource and services nothing but false reassurance. The tests can often be false negative, the testing costs money, time, resources, and is unpleasant to say the least.

Theres very little benefit to performing the tests to a population of people who specifically attended the mass rally, ignored all health precautions, and will possibly not self isolate even if they get a confirmed positive. Not stretching with that. This was a subset of population actively ignoring health precautions. Now we service their concern they might have it? To what end. This is not a population likely to conform to recommendations. That is established by their presence at the protests.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

What's the reason for the sudden surge?

more testing than ever before (open to whoever wants a test done...not just people with symptoms)
COVID-19 Alberta statistics (click on laboratory testing)

 

[shoop]

There is no connection between the chance of the virus spreading at protests and the amount of people infected in the city the protests are taking place in? Not sure what you're trying to say there.

I didn't say that at all. Please quit trying to gaslight my comments. They can stand for themselves.

Here is what I literally said.

I don't see the connection with the baseline we were working with in Edmonton before the protests started.

What is the connection between the baseline we were working with in Edmonton before the protest and it being 'not unfathomable' that there will be no infections from the protest? I hope you can understand my question. If not please explain why you can't see what I'm trying to say here.

 

[SK13]

What's the reason for the sudden surge?

We opened up, some people did not take it seriously and a couple ill-planned family get togethers became outbreak events.

And yes, to be fair, larger number of asymptomatic testing. It's not accurate to pin it all on testing, though, we did have an outbreak.

 

[bellagiobob]

What's the reason for the sudden surge?

Being linked to two private family gatherings a few weeks ago.

 

[shoop]

What's the reason for the sudden surge?

Phase 1 of reopening?

Timeline wise that surge corresponds with the 2 1/2 to 3 week lag between 'riskier' behaviour and infection if the riskier behaviour took place at the same time as the Phase 1 of the reopening.

 

[bellagiobob]

 

[joestevens29]

Why would this even be occurring in such large numbers? Its a waste of resource and services nothing but false reassurance. The tests can often be false negative, the testing costs money, time, resources, and is unpleasant to say the least.

Theres very little benefit to performing the tests to a population of people who specifically attended the mass rally, ignored all health precautions, and will possibly not self isolate even if they get a confirmed positive. Not stretching with that. This was a subset of population actively ignoring health precautions. Now we service their concern they might have it? To what end. This is not a population likely to conform to recommendations. That is established by their presence at the protests.

This really isn't true at all. You want to identify those people that are infected and have them isolate.

If you are positive and aren't isolating you are breaking the law and I'm pretty sure that will be enforced.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Being linked to two private family gatherings a few weeks ago.

This was noted to be the case in the South Edmonton spikes. Its not clear what is causing the spikes in Castledowns and Clareview now. It has NOT been confirmed that these North Edmonton outbreaks are related to the South Edmonton outbreaks.

Actually the attempt to describe all the uptick as being due to some family gatherings is being called out. Hinshaw is taking a particularly obtuse line in her position on the protests and the health concerns emanating from those. At best an inconsistency.

As many have stated either large gatherings outdoors are allowed or they aren't. Either large gatherings outside propagate Covid-19 or they don't. The stance taken by Hinshaw, and the attempts to explain away the data presently are unfortunate, and double standard confusing. Inconsistent information limits the credibility of that information.

 

[Drivesaitl]

This really isn't true at all. You want to identify those people that are infected and have them isolate.

If you are positive and aren't isolating you are breaking the law and I'm pretty sure that will be enforced.

Enforced?

The mechanism of infection of those attending the protest was attending the protest, which contravened any pandemic health guidelines on gathering. Many were not even wearing mask, many were hugging, having physical contact.

This is the least likely population to self isolate or follow recommendations and guidelines. I would say attending a protest in a packed, confined place with 15k in it during a pandemic kind of spells out "not complying".
Ironically the only fines that have been issued in Edmonton stem from a protest of the shutdown. Dozen people at that protest got the 1200buck fine. None at the larger protest.

 

[shoop]

This is the least likely population to self isolate or follow recommendations and guidelines. I would say attending a protest in a packed, confined place with 15k in it during a pandemic kind of spells out "not complying".

But Hinshaw has said that protesting was critical. So those enforcement rules don't apply to anyone as a result.

The provincial Chief Medical Health officer has publicly stated protesting is critical and by extension legal. That means there is no legal activity that can get the fine. There is no way any fine will stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Dozen people at that protest got the 1200buck fine. None at the larger protest.

That is why none of those original fines will hold up in court.

 

[oobga]

I didn't say that at all. Please quit trying to gaslight my comments. They can stand for themselves.

Here is what I literally said.

I don't see the connection with the baseline we were working with in Edmonton before the protests started.

What is the connection between the baseline we were working with in Edmonton before the protest and it being 'not unfathomable' that there will be no infections from the protest? I hope you can understand my question. If not please explain why you can't see what I'm trying to say here.

I think the reasoning would be simple. There not being many people infected with COVID-19 in Edmonton before the protests started gives a good chance that few if any people taking part in the protests were infected. Hence my comment that it's not unfathomable that no people at the protests were carrying COVID-19. If this protest happened in New Zealand, you could be almost completely certain no one would have had it, beyond fully fathomable The protests in the USA? Can be damn sure there was lots of spread happening.

 

[oobga]

Why would this even be occurring in such large numbers? Its a waste of resource and services nothing but false reassurance. The tests can often be false negative, the testing costs money, time, resources, and is unpleasant to say the least.

Theres very little benefit to performing the tests to a population of people who specifically attended the mass rally, ignored all health precautions, and will possibly not self isolate even if they get a confirmed positive. Not stretching with that. This was a subset of population actively ignoring health precautions. Now we service their concern they might have it? To what end. This is not a population likely to conform to recommendations. That is established by their presence at the protests.

The cost is a bummer for sure, but if people are actively seeking being tested, I'd hope that would also mean they are willing to isolate and ensure they don't spread the virus if they are positive. Personally, I'm happy that people going to these protests would try to make sure they aren't spreaders. Many of them are young, and if they did get COVID-19, likely their role in spread would be as asymptomatic spreaders that never knew they even had COVID-19 if they just went about their daily life.

 

[shoop]

There not being many people infected with COVID-19 in Edmonton before the protests started gives a good chance that few if any people taking part in the protests were infected.

Edmonton had approximately 200 active cases at the time of the protests. About 0.02% of the population of the City.

15,000 people attended the rally. Statistically there would be handful among that 15,000 assuming random distribution of attendees.

If any? Is reckless and draws a conclusion unrelated to the science.

 

[oobga]

Edmonton had approximately 200 active cases at the time of the protests. About 0.02% of the population of the City.

15,000 people attended the rally. Statistically there would be handful among that 15,000 assuming random distribution of attendees.

If any? Is reckless and draws a conclusion unrelated to the science.

You are championing the science of guessing how many people at rally with 1.5% of our cities population had COVID-19 when 0.02% of our population that are isolating themselves are known to be infected? Actually I think we only knew of ~100 active infections at the time of the rally, so let's say between 0.01-0.02% of people in Edmonton known to be infected.

I wish you luck on this battle for science you are on. I will continue however to think it's entirely possible (which can also be phrased as not unfathomable) that very few and possibly 0 people at the rally were actually capable of spreading COVID-19. I know that could be wrong, but I see no harm in guessing it's possible. I hope no one on the forum goes out and starts licking peoples faces and trying to inhale their sneezes and coughs because of my statement, and I will take no responsibility if they do.

 

[AM]

There is no age or health demographic "robust" enough to avoid "bad" symptoms. Asymptomatic infection is rare and a majority of people who develop symptoms will develop awful illness. A quarter of people in the 40 year old range will need to spend significant time in hospital. Others have described it as having razor blades in your lungs.



I can only speak to my experience with the app, but I've never had to "switch back after every text". It just runs in the background constantly and is in my activity bar at all times.

Science says otherwise. There are substantially different affects depending on the contracting population. Your post is the sort of nonsense that people convey whenever trump says anything. Of note, I’m not underestimating the affects of the virus, in fact I’m not saying anything about that.

 

[shoop]

Actually I think we only knew of ~100 active infections at the time of the rally, so let's say between 0.01-0.02% of people in Edmonton known to be infected.

Active cases include both those that have been confirmed by testing and those that have yet to be confirmed. Using the timelines you provided for incubation periods we can add the 100 publicly released active infections plus the 100 or so that were added to the list in the incubation period.

So let's not use artificially low numbers. We'll double that to .o2% to .o4% of the city that we now know was infected at the time of the rally. Plus a conservative addition for untested people. Let's go with 0.6% of the City being infected at the time of the rally

0.6% of 15,000 people is about 100 people at the rally can be reasonably estimated to have been infected. That's a far cry from, "if any".

 

[oobga]

Active cases include both those that have been confirmed by testing and those that have yet to be confirmed. Using the timelines you provided for incubation periods we can add the 100 publicly released active infections plus the 100 or so that were added to the list in the incubation period.

So let's not use artificially low numbers. We'll double that to .o2% to .o4% of the city that we now know was infected at the time of the rally. Plus a conservative addition for untested people. Let's go with 0.6% of the City being infected at the time of the rally

0.6% of 15,000 people is about 100 people at the rally can be reasonably estimated to have been infected. That's a far cry from, "if any".

You are just applying the % to the number of people at the rally, so of course you get a non-zero number. You're assuming every known infection is spread equally through all of Edmonton's population (including the generally young people at the rally), plus that all the infected people are refusing to self isolate, which I certainly hope is not the case. IMO, you are being too free with your assumptions, even more than you are accusing me of being.

You're guessing 100/15000 non-isolating people in Edmonton are COVID-19 carriers? So, ~6500 undetected COVID-19 spreaders are out and about right now in the city?

 

[shoop]

IMO, you are being too free with your assumptions, even more than you are accusing me of being.

Of course. I am basing my numbers on facts and science. You are pulling numbers out of your butt.

The assumption that the numbers are spread evenly throughout Edmonton is irrelevant. The assumption that the numbers are spread evenly throughout the population attending the rally is accurate.

Do you have any science to refute that the infection rate among the population of the city was the same as among the attendees of the rally?

You're guessing 100/15000 non-isolating people in Edmonton are COVID-19 carriers? So, ~6500 undetected COVID-19 spreaders are out and about right now in the city?

Where are you getting your numbers for the number of people isolating in the City? Or non-isolating? It makes zero sense that not one person in the city is isolating. But that's the only way your proportion works.

There is no basis to claim there is the possibility of no infections from the rally. It feels like you are setting the course when the numbers role in this time next week to make an excuse and claim an spike in infections at that point will not be related to the rally.

 

[oobga]

Of course. I am basing my numbers on facts and science. You are pulling numbers out of your butt.

The assumption that the numbers are spread evenly throughout Edmonton is irrelevant. The assumption that the numbers are spread evenly throughout the population attending the rally is accurate.

Do you have any science to refute that the infection rate among the population of the city was the same as among the attendees of the rally?



Where are you getting your numbers for the number of people isolating in the City? Or non-isolating? It makes zero sense that not one person in the city is isolating. But that's the only way your proportion works.

There is no basis to claim there is the possibility of no infections from the rally. It feels like you are setting the course when the numbers role in this time next week to make an excuse and claim an spike in infections at that point will not be related to the rally.

I like how you think it's so scientific to just multiply numbers by %'s.

It's clear you really don't understand what I'm saying here. You are saying that I can't even entertain the possibility that 0 people were at the rally able to spread COVID-19 because a non-zero % of people in the city could have an undetected infection. I just can't agree with you. There are all kinds of ways that that could be true. If you have a population of 1 million people, and say 300 have an undetected infection, and you grab 15,000 people from the 1 million. There are all kinds of ways that you could end up with 15,000 people without having picked 1 from that 300 pool (picked 15,000 from the 999,700 uninfected). Going by pure %'s, yes, 0.03% of 15,000 is 4.5, so if everything was equal, you would end up with 4 or 5 people, but considering all the factors of what parts of town these young people came from, what the infection rates were in their personal circles. How many of those protesters were very careful up until this movement caught their imagination, it's still possible that the conditions surrounding all the people attending lead to there being 0.

If I had to guess, I'd actually bet people that would take the time to go to a BLM rally may actually be some of the more careful and conscientious people in our population. People more likely to buy into the "we are in this together" mentality, which subsequently seemed to lead many of them to get tested to make sure they aren't going to end up spreading the virus if they caught it at the rally. Obviously it's a little careless in general to go to such a rally, but I understand for many of the people involved, they believe they need to promote change for the long lives many of us still have to live beyond when COVID-19 is over.

 

[shoop]

I like how you think it's so scientific to just multiply numbers by %'s.

Absent of evidence to the contrary assuming a random distribution is the scientifically correct way to proceed

You are saying that

Continually rephrasing my argument deceptively is morally wrong. Why do you want to push this narrative despite having no facts available?
.

There are all kinds of ways that you could end up with 15,000 people without having picked 1 from that 300 pool (picked 15,000 from the 999,700 uninfected).

The chance of picking no one from the infected pool is approximately 1 in 50. You are correct there are "all kinds of ways" that you could end up with no one infected among the attendees at the rally because there are a huge number of ways to pick 15,000 people out of a population of 999,700. However, there is only a 2% chance of no one at the rally being infected.

 

[Skar]

I didn't go to the protests, but I signed up for an asymptomatic test. The drive through option was very convenient and took about 30 minutes total. Happy that they did the throat swab instead of shoving a swab into my brain.

Would recommend going for a location with drive through testing if anyone is looking to get tested.

 

[bellagiobob]