OT: Coronavirus XVI: Hey Covid-19, Piss Off Already

[doulos]

Surprised they revealed the name of a sick player. Would have guessed that was illegal, or at best incredibly unethical.

 

[McGoMcD]

Where I live, people locked down for a month and international flights were stopped. Now, we're in phase 5, almost everything is open, there have been no cases of local transmission for over a month, and I spent all day at the beach.

Where do you live? Regardless, it doesn't really matter. It seems that some islands, more remote places are basically immune. New Zealand, and Australia, everyone is going on about it is due to early lockdown. Yet, many countries did exactly the same and have huge outbreaks. Clearly it depends on the density of the population and probably the weather. The bottom line in places that get it, lockdowns don't' stop it from spreading. It is already known it is very mild for most, the case mortality rate is estimated at .2 to .3, so bad flu. Just open it up, hospitals aren't being overwhelmed and you can't stop it.

 

[syz]

One would assume the NHL has mandated some sort of rules for players to follow to minimize risks of infection... either some of them are getting lax or the rules aren't good enough?

Surprised they revealed the name of a sick player. Would have guessed that was illegal, or at best incredibly unethical.

Simmons will report anything for attention.

 

[oobga]

Surprised they revealed the name of a sick player. Would have guessed that was illegal, or at best incredibly unethical.

It's Steve Simmons. One of the scummiest guys in hockey media.

 

[Senor Catface]

Where do you live? Regardless, it doesn't really matter. It seems that some islands, more remote places are basically immune. New Zealand, and Australia, everyone is going on about it is due to early lockdown. Yet, many countries did exactly the same and have huge outbreaks. Clearly it depends on the density of the population and probably the weather. The bottom line in places that get it, lockdowns don't' stop it from spreading. It is already known it is very mild for most, the case mortality rate is estimated at .2 to .3, so bad flu. Just open it up, hospitals aren't being overwhelmed and you can't stop it.

This 'bad flu' needs to stop.

As an example I've stated before, Brazil had a really bad flu outbreak of H1N1 a few years ago and they had about 1,200 deaths that year.

After 3 months of COVID they have 48,000 deaths.

 

[McGoMcD]

This 'bad flu' needs to stop.

As an example I've stated before, Brazil had a really bad flu outbreak of H1N1 a few years ago and they had about 1,200 deaths that year.

After 3 months of COVID they have 48,000 deaths.

Just look at the numbers. Many countries have high deaths above average, some countries have no change. Globally it looks like something 2 maybe 3 times worse than a bad flu year. It clearly is very bad for the elderly and people with complications. It is just as dishonest to spread fear and keep with this Spanish Flu or Bubonic Plague even comparisons. It is what it is, if nothing else we know now how bad it is, who it affects, and likely how many will die. The CMR is not high, it is probably .2 to .3. Thats 2 to 3 times the flu, so call it what you want. I call it a bad flu.

When the locked down started the logic was clear, it was to flatten the curve to stop preventable deaths due to overcrowded hospitals. This just hasn't happened, hospitals are nowhere close to overcrowded. Countries that did nothing don't have overcrowded hospitals. Perhaps the only country that lost preventable lives was Italy. We are suffering huge costs for what? we have to remember the point, to save preventable deaths. If preventable deaths is zero, which is seems to be, then we are doing nothing with the lockdown. The same people will die, we are just saving them a month or so.

 

[DaGap]

Where I live, people locked down for a month and international flights were stopped. Now, we're in phase 5, almost everything is open, there have been no cases of local transmission for over a month, and I spent all day at the beach.

Congrats. But Ill predict one the isolation is over and international travel resumes youll be hit again

 

[awesomo]

Just look at the numbers. Many countries have high deaths above average, some countries have no change. Globally it looks like something 2 maybe 3 times worse than a bad flu year. It clearly is very bad for the elderly and people with complications. It is just as dishonest to spread fear and keep with this Spanish Flu or Bubonic Plague even comparisons. It is what it is, if nothing else we know now how bad it is, who it affects, and likely how many will die. The CMR is not high, it is probably .2 to .3. Thats 2 to 3 times the flu, so call it what you want. I call it a bad flu.

 

[syz]

As someone who now knows like four people my age who now appear to have permanent, chronic lung damage, I'm going to go ahead and vote against "just opening it up" for the time being.

 

[Senor Catface]

Just look at the numbers. Many countries have high deaths above average, some countries have no change. Globally it looks like something 2 maybe 3 times worse than a bad flu year. It clearly is very bad for the elderly and people with complications. It is just as dishonest to spread fear and keep with this Spanish Flu or Bubonic Plague even comparisons. It is what it is, if nothing else we know now how bad it is, who it affects, and likely how many will die. The CMR is not high, it is probably .2 to .3. Thats 2 to 3 times the flu, so call it what you want. I call it a bad flu.

When the locked down started the logic was clear, it was to flatten the curve to stop preventable deaths due to overcrowded hospitals. This just hasn't happened, hospitals are nowhere close to overcrowded. Countries that did nothing don't have overcrowded hospitals. Perhaps the only country that lost preventable lives was Italy. We are suffering huge costs for what? we have to remember the point, to save preventable deaths. If preventable deaths is zero, which is seems to be, then we are doing nothing with the lockdown. The same people will die, we are just saving them a month or so.

What a sour, callous way to look at human life.

Not going to respond to this train of thought.

 

[joestevens29]

Surprised they revealed the name of a sick player. Would have guessed that was illegal, or at best incredibly unethical.

I don't think the NHL itself can say anything about particular players.

Maybe it was leaked from the hospital? Which would be a big no no.

At the same time maybe Matthews himself told the media, if that's the case then you really can't do anything.

 

[McGoMcD]

What a sour, callous way to look at human life.

Not going to respond to this train of thought.

You are looking at human life either way. Thats the point. The lockdown means health deteriorates, people are not building skills, less school, less ability to thrive in their lives, higher suicides, delayed critical surgeries!!!

I can add to the list. People on their high horse about we have to lockdown to save lives are just as callous to other peoples lives!!!! so step of your soap box, people are dying either way.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

You are looking at human life either way. Thats the point. The lockdown means health deteriorates, people are not building skills, less school, less ability to thrive in their lives, higher suicides, delayed critical surgeries!!!

I can add to the list. People on their high horse about we have to lockdown to save lives are just as callous to other peoples lives!!!! so step of your soap box, people are dying either way.

This line of thinking is incredibly self-centered. I want to protect my parents so if I have to inconvenience myself for a bit to ensure their safety I'll do it.

 

[McGoMcD]

This line of thinking is incredibly self-centered. I want to protect my parents so if I have to inconvenience myself for a bit to ensure their safety I'll do it.

It's not self-centered. You don't know me, for all you know I am 90 with an illness. I am not, but in fact, my dad is immunocompromised. This is a reality of looking at the numbers. There is no evidence that lockdown work. People that are vulnerable are no better of if every one isolates. 80% of deaths in Canada are in extended-care facilities. The lockdown are not stopping this. People who are vulnerable need to isolate and wear masks etc. This is just weighting the realistic pros and cons. The costs to society are way too high at this point. It is people like you who are not updating their priors with data. Covid is very contagious, to the point locking down is not stopping it. It is also very mild for most. For all we know the best thing we can do for the vulnerable is let them isolate while everyone else gets Covid and gets immunity. We have no idea what is actually best for the vulnerable, we are just beginning to realize the huge costs for everyone else from lockdown.

I can just as easily say you are being self-centered, that argument is just posturing.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

It's not self-centered. You don't know me, for all you know I am 90 with an illness. I am not, but in fact, my dad is immunocompromised. This is a reality of looking at the numbers. There is no evidence that lockdown work. People that are vulnerable are no better of if every one isolates. 80% of deaths in Canada are in extended-care facilities. The lockdown are not stopping this. People who are vulnerable need to isolate and wear masks etc. This is just weighting the realistic pros and cons. The costs to society are way too high at this point. It is people like you who are not updating their priors with data. Covid is very contagious, to the point locking down is not stopping it. It is also very mild for most. For all we know the best thing we can do for the vulnerable is let them isolate while everyone else gets Covid and gets immunity. We have no idea what is actually best for the vulnerable, we are just beginning to realize the huge costs for everyone else from lockdown.

I can just as easily say you are being self-centered, that argument is just posturing.

How do you know it's not working? Isn't our curve flattening?

And see it's funny you mention "people who are vulnerable". Well, who is that exactly? Do you know if you're vulnerable? I know my mother is, I don't know if I am or not.

You aren't going to stop COVID with "lockdowns", that was never the point. The point is to slow the spread of it. And you know damn well the bolded isn't even remotely true. Because as soon as you get COVID you go into isolation, and if you spread it around, then everyone else has to isolate... Do you see how slippery that slope is?

 

[McGoMcD]

How do you know it's not working? Isn't our curve flattening?

And see it's funny you mention "people who are vulnerable". Well, who is that exactly? Do you know if you're vulnerable? I know my mother is, I don't know if I am or not.

You aren't going to stop COVID with "lockdowns", that was never the point. The point is to slow the spread of it. And you know damn well the bolded isn't even remotely true. Because as soon as you get COVID you go into isolation, and if you spread it around, then everyone else has to isolate... Do you see how slippery that slope is?

I have to believe that we are in fact flattening the curve. But the point of flattening the curve was to stop hospitals from getting overloaded. The point thus was to stop preventable death from an overwhelmed medical system. There is no evidence that by isolating we are stopping hospitals from being overwhelmed. So flattening the curve is doing nothing, we are just delaying the inevitable. Which was not the point? From the outset, health experts full well knew that isolating would cost other people their lives, from bad health, from suicide, from delayed surgery. The attempt at the time was to make an educated guess what would save more lives. That was then, this is now. We have more info....

There is no evidence we are saving more lives by isolating vs not. The evidence is the opposite, yet we can't make the correct decision that health experts at the start agreed was the right decision, that if we are not overwhelming the system to open up.

You can protect the vulnerable, its very simple, most cases are asymptomatic. Just open up, let people get it, of course if you are ill then isolate, I mean you have no choice, you will be sick, you need to rest..... The people who are vulnerable can take actions, only meet people with a N95 mask, stay at home etc. They won't get it, it doest not require all of the world to shut down to save the vulnerable.

 

[McShogun99]

We need another bubonic plague to clean up some of this garbage in the world.

 

[BlackDogg]

Anyone else get the stupid loud ads on here that you can only escape by exiting? Jeez

 

[Skar]

Anyone else get the stupid loud ads on here that you can only escape by exiting? Jeez

I get them on my phone without adblock. Super annoying and intrusive.

 

[WaitingForUser]

This line of thinking is incredibly self-centered. I want to protect my parents so if I have to inconvenience myself for a bit to ensure their safety I'll do it.

I completely get where you are coming from on this. However do you believe we just leave everything shutdown and hide in our houses fo another possible 2 years? We can’t do that at some point we need to just accept the fact that this virus is out there and try to protect the most vulnerable from it. The average age of people dying from covid in Alberta is around 80. Now before everyone jumps all over me for saying that I’m not saying just let all the elderly people die. What I am saying is like it or not people need to accept that we are a long way from a vaccine for this and we can’t allow the world to stop for much longer. We need to do everything we can to protect these individuals but we need to start living again as well. The virus is here for a while but we know a lot more about it now then we did before and we know who is most at risk. Life needs to start getting back to some sort of normalcy with heavy precautions put in place to the elderly and immunocompromised.

 

[oobga]

Hinshaw's conference today was interesting. Glad she went into detail about how some of these case increases occurred. Funerals, parties, general gatherings, people touching common areas in apartments. Outdoors sounds safer by the day which is nice to hear. From the start people were encouraged to still get out and enjoy themselves (although not in large gatherings of course). It's nice to confirm that that is generally a safe thing to do, and it appears that gatherings with people wearing masks outdoors seems to be reasonably safe as well, at least with the current amount of cases we have in our province. Probably not so safe still in some places of the world with loads of infected people, but relative to indoor large gatherings, seems far better based on what's happened in AB these last couple weeks.

Also nice to hear that most of the new cases are traced back to a known source lately. Less mystery cases appearing.

 

[Cloned]

I have to believe that we are in fact flattening the curve. But the point of flattening the curve was to stop hospitals from getting overloaded. The point thus was to stop preventable death from an overwhelmed medical system. There is no evidence that by isolating we are stopping hospitals from being overwhelmed. So flattening the curve is doing nothing, we are just delaying the inevitable. Which was not the point? From the outset, health experts full well knew that isolating would cost other people their lives, from bad health, from suicide, from delayed surgery. The attempt at the time was to make an educated guess what would save more lives. That was then, this is now. We have more info....

There is no evidence we are saving more lives by isolating vs not. The evidence is the opposite, yet we can't make the correct decision that health experts at the start agreed was the right decision, that if we are not overwhelming the system to open up.

You can protect the vulnerable, its very simple, most cases are asymptomatic. Just open up, let people get it, of course if you are ill then isolate, I mean you have no choice, you will be sick, you need to rest..... The people who are vulnerable can take actions, only meet people with a N95 mask, stay at home etc. They won't get it, it doest not require all of the world to shut down to save the vulnerable.

In Alberta, there is a significant portion of people above 40 that required hospitalization, not just above 60 or 80. The lockdown was to prevent that number from being even higher.

There is also an argument for preventing vulnerable people getting it from friends/family/caregivers who are asymptomatic. Nothing they can do when they don't even know they're next to someone who has it, because that person doesn't know they have it yet. The less spread there is, the less this scenario can occur. That's another benefit of the lockdown.

 

[MaxR11]

The same people will die, we are just saving them a month or so.

Wtf? Is this serious? I'm sure there are a significant number of people who have died from covid that had waaay more "than a month or so" left in the tank.

 

[McDrai]

I wonder if the NHL will just cancel the 2020 season after hearing about Matthews testing positive for Covid 19

 

[MaxR11]

Don't think you can apply the false negative to the test results like that.

Just for the sake of argument, say you have 100 people out of 7000 that actually have COVID-19 with the following stages of incubation:

20 are 1 day in
20 are 2 days in
20 are 3 days in
20 are 4 days in
20 are 5 days in

You would get results something like

4 positive of 1 day people
6 positive of 2 day people
9 positive of 3 day people
13 positive of 4 day people
17 positive of 5 day people

that would be 49 positives.

I would guess the people tests that are actually positive would be slanted more towards being later in incubation and with symptoms as well, which would help you actually catch a greater amount of the actual infections among the 7000, so that 100 number of infected in the testing pool could be lower to get 49 positives.

It's really hard to say. Can we trust the studies that say 20% of all tests are neg? Can we trust the other study that gave other numbers which might average out to maybe 50% of tests be false neg? Are the tests now actually fairly sound and accurate? Who really knows. My guess is that there is a decent chance the testing numbers is way off and that i think there are many more positives out there that came back negative. If that's the case, we;; that's a bit of good news as it dramatically decreases the death rate. However, as i mentioned in various posts... it's so early... we have no idead of potential long term effects to those who have been infected and "recovered".