Everything COVID19 - PART 4

[maclean]

We don't know that to be the case yet.

We are going to find out how bad it gets next winter. All signs point to a disastrous second wave and that lockdowns have been very effective at limiting the spread.

Just curious what are the signs that point to a disastrous second wave? The disastrous first wave was because countries weren't prepared and a good number of places managed to mostly avoid it. At this point knowing what we're dealing with and with good use of testing and contact tracing there's every reason to believe that a potential second wave would be much less disastrous.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

We don't know that to be the case yet.

We are going to find out how bad it gets next winter. All signs point to a disastrous second wave and that lockdowns have been very effective at limiting the spread.

I don't know....it seems to me, an effective lockdown to limit the spread should (logically speaking) cause the second wave to be closer to a ripple than a tsunami.....wouldn't you think?

 

[dumbdick]

I think there will be a lot of interesting positive health side effects of these lockdowns.

So many communicable diseases clear within a few weeks or spread through transmission because:
(a) a person is pre-symptomic and they spread the disease before they know they have it.
(b) a person is asymptomatic but contagious, and can pass the disease for a while before their body naturally passes it.

Six weeks in lockdown gives a lot of time for these diseases/infections to either resolve or at least present symptoms so people know they're sick and can seek treatment.

The Flu and cold viruses are the obvious ones, but also strep throat, noroviruses, chicken pox, STIs/STDs/VD, etc., etc., etc.

In China, where the lockdowns were strictly enforced, they may have virtually eradicated some of these things, almost by accident.

 

[Upgrayedd]

We don't know that to be the case yet.

We are going to find out how bad it gets next winter. All signs point to a disastrous second wave and that lockdowns have been very effective at limiting the spread.

No we don't, im estimating it to be the case and feel it is virtually a certain bet, I don't believe there will be a massive second wave nor do I believe the pandemic itself was disastrous as far as sickness and deaths alone go, personally.

 

[Rand0m]

No we don't, im estimating it to be the case and feel it is virtually a certain bet, I don't believe there will be a massive second wave nor do I believe the pandemic itself was disastrous as far as sickness and deaths alone go, personally.

Where did you get your Doctorate?

 

[Rand0m]

I think there will be a lot of interesting positive health side effects of these lockdowns.

So many communicable diseases clear within a few weeks or spread through transmission because:
(a) a person is pre-symptomic and they spread the disease before they know they have it.
(b) a person is asymptomatic but contagious, and can pass the disease for a while before their body naturally passes it.

Six weeks in lockdown gives a lot of time for these diseases/infections to either resolve or at least present symptoms so people know they're sick and can seek treatment.

The Flu and cold viruses are the obvious ones, but also strep throat, noroviruses, chicken pox, STIs/STDs/VD, etc., etc., etc.

In China, where the lockdowns were strictly enforced, they may have virtually eradicated some of these things, almost by accident.

This is definitely a "positive" effect of this.

My job (pre-pandemic) was a sales rep often speaking to 30-40 different people each day and traveling around the city. I wasn't always sick, but I often had about 1-2 mild colds per month. Same thing for my kids, they'd often have a runny nose or something. Now, everyone has been in perfect health for the past 3 months. I wonder what kind of effect this might have on the flu since it's transmitted the same way as Covid so everything we do to prevent it's spread will do the same for the Flu. All the barriers and extra focus on hand washing will help the general public health.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

No we don't, im estimating it to be the case and feel it is virtually a certain bet, I don't believe there will be a massive second wave nor do I believe the pandemic itself was disastrous as far as sickness and deaths alone go, personally.

A pastor in Virginia who continued to hold sermons after American authorities urged halting mass gatherings has died of COVID-19. Beliefs only take you so far sometimes.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Where did you get your Doctorate?

Doctorate? None here, just from my past and current research on disease, vaccine and looking at the current numbers compared to past pandemic trends.

 

[Upgrayedd]

A pastor in Virginia who continued to hold sermons after American authorities urged halting mass gatherings has died of COVID-19. Beliefs only take you so far sometimes.

What was their age and health like? Taking what one reads at face value also only takes one so far i suppose. Make no mistake this virus is very deadly to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions and im not disagreeing with that at all, to clarify my initial position, we over reacted but it was necessary imo. I won't get into why it was necessary because that will get me on a long tangent about how idiotic society in general is today...re: my avatar!

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

What was their age and health like? Taking what one reads at face value also only takes one so far i suppose. Make no mistake this virus is very deadly to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions and im not disagreeing with that at all, to clarify my initial position, we over reacted but it was necessary imo. I won't get into why it was necessary because that will get me on a long tangent about how idiotic society in general is today...re: my avatar!

I think its difficult for any individual to look at it completely objectively from the standpoint of someone who has to make decisions for a nation or for a population.
From my personal selfish perspective, I want things to be as safe as possible. There are many sides to this and people are having vastly different experiences and outlooks on going through it. Nothing about it is good. People that have gone through having a serious bout with it and recovered make it sound pretty terrible to go through.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Ontario reporting 428 Cases today on 18,343 tests. Not terrible but highest number in a week.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

What was their age and health like? Taking what one reads at face value also only takes one so far i suppose. Make no mistake this virus is very deadly to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions and im not disagreeing with that at all, to clarify my initial position, we over reacted but it was necessary imo. I won't get into why it was necessary because that will get me on a long tangent about how idiotic society in general is today...re: my avatar!

I think most people would view the phrases "we over reacted" and "it was necessary" as contradictory. I mean to me the term "over reacted" implies a mistake.

Maybe the wording "in hindsight we could have taken less extreme measures" is more in line with what you mean?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Just curious what are the signs that point to a disastrous second wave?

People are going to get fed up with being in lockdown and will start going out more and the seroprevalence of the virus, a measure of how many people in a population have it, is very low: we were hoping that a lot of people actually had the virus but were asymptomatic but we have good reason to believe that that is not the case.

There is also reason to believe people who catch it are not immune to it. We don't know for sure but there are increasing reports of people catching it twice or more.

I don't know....it seems to me, an effective lockdown to limit the spread should (logically speaking) cause the second wave to be closer to a ripple than a tsunami.....wouldn't you think?

This virus is absolutely insanely contagious and is at it's most contagious before someone who has it shows symptoms of having it.

The gradual opening up of the economy means it is going to spread like wildfire.

No we don't, im estimating it to be the case and feel it is virtually a certain bet, I don't believe there will be a massive second wave nor do I believe the pandemic itself was disastrous as far as sickness and deaths alone go, personally.

Almost 90,000 Americans have died from this and the numbers keep going up. The lockdowns were a resounding success: countries who immediately took this very seriously have shown the lockdowns were very effective. A lot of people like to point to Sweden as proof that the lockdowns were unnecessary but it isn't that simple a comparison and it is worth remembering the idiom "the exception proves the rule".

A second wave is almost inevitable for the reasons listed above. I am starting to lose it myself so I totally get that the lockdown can only go so far but this virus is one nasty customer.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I think most people would view the phrases "we over reacted" and "it was necessary" as contradictory. I mean to me the term "over reacted" implies a mistake.

Maybe the wording "in hindsight we could have taken less extreme measures" is more in line with what you mean?

Personally i don't view them as contradictory but can understand likely most do, for example if i get overly upset at my child running near the road, to me this is an example of a necessary over reaction, i would argue a lot of criminal sentences follows this same line of thought, im sure there are many examples out there but i digress.

I guess if i can't have both i will go with we over reacted more so than it being necessary, the example you have provided is likely better worded yes, thanks!

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Knave]

Ontario reporting 428 Cases today on 18,343 tests. Not terrible but highest number in a week.

Apparently Toronto had a lot of positives yesterday they processed after the 2pm deadline. 220 new cases in Toronto Public Health alone vs. 45 the previous day. It's possible we might see a drop again tomorrow because they fell behind in reporting May 13th, caught up on May 14th and went beyond to report an additional ~75-100 cases before the deadline as opposed to the 45 they reported on May 13th. But then again it's possible we might not because it's unclear how many of the 45 reported on May 13th were actually processed that day and how many missed the cutoff on May 12th.

Toronto changing its system in the middle of a crisis has really screwed things up for reporting. I guess the flipside is COVID-19 is quickly becoming a Toronto only problem.

Peel region had 74 cases. Durham had 19. So if we use a broader definition of Toronto... they are at least 313 of our 428 cases on a really bad reporting day because of Toronto Public Health.

Compare that to 25 new cases from Ottawa Public Health. The entire eastern region (which stretches to Belleville, to the Quebec border and includes Ottawa) reported 31 cases.

 

[Masked]

The demographic of the deaths and the rate itself, compared to the subsequent economic impact and probable vast covid related mental issues was not worth it imo, I'm not saying this could be predicted nor were the actions taken unjustified, it is what it is.

None of that is clear. We don't know how things would have turned out had things not been locked down. We don't yet know what the subsequent economic impact will be nor can use "probable vast covid related mental issues" as a barometer as something being clearly overkill.

 

[Upgrayedd]

None of that is clear. We don't know how things would have turned out had things not been locked down. We don't yet know what the subsequent economic impact will be nor can use "probable vast covid related mental issues" as a barometer as something being clearly overkill.

All generalizations of course but do you think the current death demographic is wrong or will change? Do you think the economy will now be stronger than ever both locally and on an international level? Do you think peoples mental conditions have strengthened? If yes to any of these, curious as to why?

Im certainly open to having my mind changed and am no doctor or expert that's for sure, but from everything ive read I believe my statements to be correct.

 

[Masked]

All generalizations of course but do you think the current death demographic is wrong or will change? Do you think the economy will now be stronger than ever both locally and on an international level? Do you think peoples mental conditions have strengthened? If yes to any of these, curious as to why?

Im certainly open to having my mind changed and am no doctor or expert that's for sure, but from everything ive read I believe my statements to be correct.

I'll answer each of your questions in a separate paragraph in order.

If we had gone on as normal, without social distancing, locking down the borders, etc it is possible that hospitals could have been overrun. That would have led to people, who could have otherwise been saved and in a younger demographic, to pass away.

That's a loaded question because it it acts like the pandemic could have been completely avoided. Clearly there would be economic impact as a result of the pandemic. There's no action that could have been taken which would have ensured the economy would be stronger than ever. Now would the economy be in a better shape if nothing had been done? That's difficult to determine because we don't know what would have happened if nothing had been done and how those circumstances would have affected consumer behaviour. I'd wait and see what happens with the economy when this all over before trying to determine the state of it.

Some people's mental health may have strengthened. For many there's no worries about commuting either in gridlocked traffic or the unreliable white elephant known as the O-Train. People may have been more stressed having to go into the workplace when there's a pandemic going on. All we hear from is the whiners about how they're suffering but we rarely hear about the people who happy to self-isolate in the media.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

All generalizations of course but do you think the current death demographic is wrong or will change? Do you think the economy will now be stronger than ever both locally and on an international level? Do you think peoples mental conditions have strengthened? If yes to any of these, curious as to why?

Im certainly open to having my mind changed and am no doctor or expert that's for sure, but from everything ive read I believe my statements to be correct.

This is a debate that doesn't have a solid answer if only because it's hard to show evidence of a thing that never happened. Thankfully, we don't have the metrics to compare lockdown vs. no lockdown effectively. But overkill? I can't get on board with that. Things are not good now, but I shudder to think how much worse they could be.

The current death demographic only is what it is because of the shelter-in-place, so the models we have of what it might have been otherwise are speculative. The economy was never going to be stronger as a result of this, so that's a strawman argument — either businesses were getting shut down or they were losing members of the workforce to death. There's not really an option where people continued to work, didn't get sick and fostered a thriving economy. Mental health... well, two schools of thought here. Sure, heightened anxiety and depression and substance abuse rates are coming out of this. But would the same stresses not have been amplified if people were feeling forced to be out in the workforce every day, scared they might contract the virus and spread it to their families, their friends?

The issue with these debates is that they're so often framed in the context of a world without isolation AND without the virus, which is just not realistic. Hard to prove anything definitely one way or the other, but I have much more faith in our collective ability to rebuild a functional economy and dig ourselves out of a tough spot than I do in our ability to withstand a highly contagious and fatal disease by pretending like it didn't exist. Better to do too much than not enough, always.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I'll answer each of your questions in a separate paragraph in order.

If we had gone on as normal, without social distancing, locking down the borders, etc it is possible that hospitals could have been overrun. That would have led to people, who could have otherwise been saved and in a younger demographic, to pass away.

That's a loaded question because it it acts like the pandemic could have been completely avoided. Clearly there would be economic impact as a result of the pandemic. There's no action that could have been taken which would have ensured the economy would be stronger than ever. Now would the economy be in a better shape if nothing had been done? That's difficult to determine because we don't know what would have happened if nothing had been done and how those circumstances would have affected consumer behaviour. I'd wait and see what happens with the economy when this all over before trying to determine the state of it.

Some people's mental health may have strengthened. For many there's no worries about commuting either in gridlocked traffic or the unreliable white elephant known as the O-Train. People may have been more stressed having to go into the workplace when there's a pandemic going on. All we hear from is the whiners about how they're suffering but we rarely hear about the people who happy to self-isolate in the media.

This is a debate that doesn't have a solid answer if only because it's hard to show evidence of a thing that never happened. Thankfully, we don't have the metrics to compare lockdown vs. no lockdown effectively. But overkill? I can't get on board with that. Things are not good now, but I shudder to think how much worse they could be.

The current death demographic only is what it is because of the shelter-in-place, so the models we have of what it might have been otherwise are speculative. The economy was never going to be stronger as a result of this, so that's a strawman argument — either businesses were getting shut down or they were losing members of the workforce to death. There's not really an option where people continued to work, didn't get sick and fostered a thriving economy. Mental health... well, two schools of thought here. Sure, heightened anxiety and depression and substance abuse rates are coming out of this. But would the same stresses not have been amplified if people were feeling forced to be out in the workforce every day, scared they might contract the virus and spread it to their families, their friends?

The issue with these debates is that they're so often framed in the context of a world without isolation AND without the virus, which is just not realistic. Hard to prove anything definitely one way or the other, but I have much more faith in our collective ability to rebuild a functional economy and dig ourselves out of a tough spot than I do in our ability to withstand a highly contagious and fatal disease by pretending like it didn't exist. Better to do too much than not enough, always.

Not going to argue or disagree with a lot here, for me personally with the statistics im going on we vastly over reacted considering the deaths versus inevitable economic impact that's happening and about to ramp up like we haven't seen before, is there a playbook or way to know this ahead of time? Of course not, im simply Monday morning quarterbacking the situation here, and I didn't mean to imply that I was against these actions from the get go, again it's just what it is.

 

[Rand0m]

Not going to argue or disagree with a lot here, for me personally with the statistics im going on we vastly over reacted considering the deaths versus inevitable economic impact that's happening and about to ramp up like we haven't seen before, is there a playbook or way to know this ahead of time? Of course not, im simply Monday morning quarterbacking the situation here, and I didn't mean to imply that I was against these actions from the get go, again it's just what it is.

You can't just look at death statistics, younger people aren't dying very often, but it doesn't mean that people aren't getting VERY sick from this. From many accounts, it's 2 weeks of hell, even for non-prior condition people. There's also mounting evidence that it's causing some permanent organ damage to a lot of people too. The economy wouldn't look too good either when you have thousands upon thousands of people who are getting sick for nearly 2 weeks while a good part of the older population is dying in tandem.

 

[Micklebot]

Personally i don't view them as contradictory but can understand likely most do, for example if i get overly upset at my child running near the road, to me this is an example of a necessary over reaction, i would argue a lot of criminal sentences follows this same line of thought, im sure there are many examples out there but i digress.

I guess if i can't have both i will go with we over reacted more so than it being necessary, the example you have provided is likely better worded yes, thanks!

The paradox from the start was all the experts said from the start if you get the measures right, it will look like you didn't need them or over reacted.

 

[Upgrayedd]

You can't just look at death statistics, younger people aren't dying very often, but it doesn't mean that people aren't getting VERY sick from this. From many accounts, it's 2 weeks of hell, even for non-prior condition people. There's also mounting evidence that it's causing some permanent organ damage to a lot of people too. The economy wouldn't look too good either when you have thousands upon thousands of people who are getting sick for nearly 2 weeks while a good part of the older population is dying in tandem.

I dont deny many folks are sick from it and that it can be bad, from what i understand though the vast vast majority of folks who caught it didnt get much more sick than a common cold or flu and then further the majority are seemingly asymptomatic, which is good news all around. Glad things are slowly being opened back up!

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Apparently Toronto had a lot of positives yesterday they processed after the 2pm deadline. 220 new cases in Toronto Public Health alone vs. 45 the previous day. It's possible we might see a drop again tomorrow because they fell behind in reporting May 13th, caught up on May 14th and went beyond to report an additional ~75-100 cases before the deadline as opposed to the 45 they reported on May 13th. But then again it's possible we might not because it's unclear how many of the 45 reported on May 13th were actually processed that day and how many missed the cutoff on May 12th.

Toronto changing its system in the middle of a crisis has really screwed things up for reporting. I guess the flipside is COVID-19 is quickly becoming a Toronto only problem.

Peel region had 74 cases. Durham had 19. So if we use a broader definition of Toronto... they are at least 313 of our 428 cases on a really bad reporting day because of Toronto Public Health.

Compare that to 25 new cases from Ottawa Public Health. The entire eastern region (which stretches to Belleville, to the Quebec border and includes Ottawa) reported 31 cases.

Thanks good to know. found this tweet
[