Next season

[bcspirit]

Actually, I am not downplaying anything. I am suggesting the data isn’t telling the story it is trying to tell. There is way too much confusion regarding hospital beds and ICU usage.

We also need to keep one factor in focus and that is preventing DEATHS. Who cares if people get the virus and recover? I don’t. People get sick all the time.

We need to focus on preventing deaths by prioritizing the shelter of those that are vulnerable.

In my opinion, we cannot stamp out the virus. We may be able to develop a treatment and a viable vaccine may be somewhat of a long shot. Without either of those available, the best we can do is protect the ones most at risk. Let everyone else deal with it if they get it.

The mortality rates outside the vulnerable community are so ridiculously low, it makes no sense to me to continue running from the Virus. I think the data is pretty clear that we are doing as much harm as we are doing good. Deaths above the average far exceed the Coronavirus Deaths. These statistic still require some work to properly present in a clinical paper but the trend suggests there definitely is something to it.

The latest data I read has Canada funding 8 million CERB recipients. That is $16bil per month. Over 6 months of these benefits, that is just under $100bil. That doesn’t include all the other relief for businesses.

Businesses are remaining open for now, mainly because the temporary moratorium on evictions is in place. It will be very interesting to see what happens in September-October when CERB ends and the businesses have to fork over 6 months of back rent.

We’ve had a safety net so far in canada with respect to Government support but at some point that safety net needs to be removed. Right now, we are trying to reduce the numbers as much as possible but if the Virus is as bad as has been reported, you cannot stop it no matter how low the numbers. Remember, the infections in canada started with ONE! We can’t run from it. IT is doubtful a treatment or vaccine will be ready by the fall. The government will have no choice but to do what states like Florida are doing now.

While you are correct we have to find a pathway forward, we are to caught up in just looking at the mortality rate. The long term effects of this virus on the body of healthy young and not so young but otherwise healthy people is the long term problem with this virus. Reports are showing long term loss of lung capacity in recovered patients regardless of age, when you couple that with the damage to your heart and kidneys and it is not just the short term ramifications and current mortality rate that is important. Knowing we cannot just hide from this virus forever we still need to take precautions to reduce the spread until a safe and reliable vaccine can be developed.


What Coronavirus Does to the Lungs

Coronavirus: Kidney Damage Caused by COVID-19

Lifelong Lung Damage: A Serious COVID-19 Complication

 

[AttackBeacher]

While you are correct we have to find a pathway forward, we are to caught up in just looking at the mortality rate. The long term effects of this virus on the body of healthy young and not so young but otherwise healthy people is the long term problem with this virus. Reports are showing long term loss of lung capacity in recovered patients regardless of age, when you couple that with the damage to your heart and kidneys and it is not just the short term ramifications and current mortality rate that is important. Knowing we cannot just hide from this virus forever we still need to take precautions to reduce the spread until a safe and reliable vaccine can be developed.


What Coronavirus Does to the Lungs

Coronavirus: Kidney Damage Caused by COVID-19

Lifelong Lung Damage: A Serious COVID-19 Complication

I think we're all somewhat right. OMG is right that we can't lock down again, its just not viable. I have 7 rental properties, 5 of those have renters who are unemployed right now. I'm not sure that's projectable over the entire Provence, but its not nothing, its significant. We need to get money back into the system or hospitals wont have enough cash flow to stay open.

There's no question that this virus is scary, but not as scary as we initially thought. I believe the CDC recently suggested that the mortality rate is somewhere between .5 and .2 percent of those who get it. Just catching up, Otto linked an article that suggested a small percentage of those who get COVID19 end up with various long term issues like the one you posted, some permanent, most not so much. Not everyone who gets COVID gets these complications. Otto also suggested that we need to take care of all 34 million in the country, and hes right, if 99 percent of the population are going to be ok even if they get this virus, we can't hold them back.

The positive with all this is that it appears as thou we are doing quite well and on the right path. Outside of Windsor most parts of Canada are on a significant downward trend, heck the rest of Ontario had 80 positive cases yesterday. That's incredibly positive and good momentum heading into the summer. Also good news that when we see a break out like what we have seen in Kingston, there's an infrastructure and testing capacity to contain it quickly. We were caught a bit flat footed initially, but seem to be ahead of the curve now.

Its all scary stuff, but at the end of the day we can't live in fear, thankfully it looks like most of us in Canada are doing the right things to ensure this is getting smaller, not larger.

 

[OMG67]

While you are correct we have to find a pathway forward, we are to caught up in just looking at the mortality rate. The long term effects of this virus on the body of healthy young and not so young but otherwise healthy people is the long term problem with this virus. Reports are showing long term loss of lung capacity in recovered patients regardless of age, when you couple that with the damage to your heart and kidneys and it is not just the short term ramifications and current mortality rate that is important. Knowing we cannot just hide from this virus forever we still need to take precautions to reduce the spread until a safe and reliable vaccine can be developed.


What Coronavirus Does to the Lungs

Coronavirus: Kidney Damage Caused by COVID-19

Lifelong Lung Damage: A Serious COVID-19 Complication

We don't know what long term affects could be because it hasn't been around long term.

 

[OMG67]

I think we're all somewhat right. OMG is right that we can't lock down again, its just not viable. I have 7 rental properties, 5 of those have renters who are unemployed right now. I'm not sure that's projectable over the entire Provence, but its not nothing, its significant. We need to get money back into the system or hospitals wont have enough cash flow to stay open.

There's no question that this virus is scary, but not as scary as we initially thought. I believe the CDC recently suggested that the mortality rate is somewhere between .5 and .2 percent of those who get it. Just catching up, Otto linked an article that suggested a small percentage of those who get COVID19 end up with various long term issues like the one you posted, some permanent, most not so much. Not everyone who gets COVID gets these complications. Otto also suggested that we need to take care of all 34 million in the country, and hes right, if 99 percent of the population are going to be ok even if they get this virus, we can't hold them back.

The positive with all this is that it appears as thou we are doing quite well and on the right path. Outside of Windsor most parts of Canada are on a significant downward trend, heck the rest of Ontario had 80 positive cases yesterday. That's incredibly positive and good momentum heading into the summer. Also good news that when we see a break out like what we have seen in Kingston, there's an infrastructure and testing capacity to contain it quickly. We were caught a bit flat footed initially, but seem to be ahead of the curve now.

Its all scary stuff, but at the end of the day we can't live in fear, thankfully it looks like most of us in Canada are doing the right things to ensure this is getting smaller, not larger.

8mil Canadians are collecting the CERB payments. That's one in every 4.5 Canadians, not adjusted for age.

If all 8mil Canadians collecting CERB collect for the full 6 months and at max value, the net cost to each Canadian is $2750.

This does not include subsidies yet to be determined for businesses.

It is not as black and white as I presented it but it is food for thought when considering the cost. Then factor in the reduced tax revenue generated, both in sales tax as well as income.

I read somewhere, the City of Ottawa would have to raise average property taxes next year by $1500 if they don't make budget cuts.

 

[Otto]

There's no question that this virus is scary, but not as scary as we initially thought. I believe the CDC recently suggested that the mortality rate is somewhere between .5 and .2 percent of those who get it.

Maybe someone can explain this too me... When I see these numbers

103,219 confirmed cases in Canada and 8,566 deaths .. that translates to an 8.3% death rate for those who get it... So what am I missing?

https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-CA&mid=/m/02j71&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

 

[AttackBeacher]

Maybe someone can explain this too me... When I see these numbers

103,219 confirmed cases in Canada and 8,566 deaths .. that translates to an 8.3% death rate for those who get it... So what am I missing?

https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-CA&mid=/m/02j71&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

It only includes those who have actually tested positive. Ontario alone probably missed a significant amount of cases in March/April, let alone other provinces/countries. True mortality rate involves all who contracted the virus, not just those who tested positive, hence the projecting and modeling by the CDC and others.

EDIT: Here's a link
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

There's plenty who argue the number, probably justifiable when doing mathematical projections, but it seems to be debating .01 or .02 percent. There seems to be alot of talk of best case 0.2, worst case a 0.4.

 

[AttackBeacher]

8mil Canadians are collecting the CERB payments. That's one in every 4.5 Canadians, not adjusted for age.

If all 8mil Canadians collecting CERB collect for the full 6 months and at max value, the net cost to each Canadian is $2750.

This does not include subsidies yet to be determined for businesses.

It is not as black and white as I presented it but it is food for thought when considering the cost. Then factor in the reduced tax revenue generated, both in sales tax as well as income.

I read somewhere, the City of Ottawa would have to raise average property taxes next year by $1500 if they don't make budget cuts.

If that's the cost across Ontario I know I can stomach it, sadly with 8 million out of work, its going to be hard for many of them to come up with that soon.

 

[AttackBeacher]

Happening across the Greater Toronto Area today. This is great news, it'll only help knock this thing down even more.

 

[windsor7]

Happening across the Greater Toronto Area today. This is great news, it'll only help knock this thing down even more.

Should of been mandatory in the first place. Always a step behind....

 

[Otto]

Happening across the Greater Toronto Area today. This is great news, it'll only help knock this thing down even more.

I'd be surprised if it makes a big difference. Anyone who thought this was necessary was already doing it. It will lead to an increase in viral videos of people disobeying the mandate and being asshats about it.

 

[AttackBeacher]

I'd be surprised if it makes a big difference. Anyone who thought this was necessary was already doing it. It will lead to an increase in viral videos of people disobeying the mandate and being asshats about it.

May not agree, but its not going to make anything worse, I'm sure we can agree with that.

 

[OMG67]

Maybe someone can explain this too me... When I see these numbers

103,219 confirmed cases in Canada and 8,566 deaths .. that translates to an 8.3% death rate for those who get it... So what am I missing?

https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-CA&mid=/m/02j71&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

That's not the accepted way to calculate a mortality rate. The way it is calculated is by using the entire population. That way there is a better baseline from which to compare.

The other big reason to use the accepted mortality rate as a means for measurment is its degree of transmission. Hypothetically speaking, if it spreads easily, it will lead to more deaths, thus a higher mortality rate. Or, alternatively, maybe it doesn't spread very easily but it is very deadly. Either way, it provides a better measurement because even though a virus is very deadly, it is hard to catch so the mortality rate is low.

By doing the basic way you are suggesting, it only factors in those that have tested positve. Using the second example above where it transmits very difficult but kills like crazy, we could have your death rate at 75% but transmission is limited to less than 0.1% of the population. So even though it is extremely deadly, it is difficult to catch. You definitely wouldn't want the media pouring a 75% death rate and excliding the fact it is nearly impossible to contract.

The flu is a prime example. When you are sick and go to the doctor, the doctor will simply diagnose you on the spot and send you home. It isn't recorded or tested. It is recorded when there is a fatality with the flu being the underlying cause. It is represented as a rate against the entire population and is usually represented by the "season."

This pandemic, when it is all over, will probably have a mortality rate assigned based on the entire period of the Pandemic, however long that ends up being.

If you google it, you can see how the CDC calculates the Mortality rate.

You can also sub-divide groups. The biggest division on mortality rate for the Pandemic has been age. Comparing mortality for over 70 to under 70 seems to be a popular comparison.

Keep in mind, as more people die and the relative population stays the same, the mortality rate can only go up if they expand the period used to capture the data. For example, if we have 100,000 deaths to date and the mortality rate is 0.2 but we get another 100,000 deaths, the rate will move to 0.4. So the actual mortality rate will change. It's inevitable.

Anyway, this is why the mortality rate is a better means of measure.

 

[Otto]

That's not the accepted way to calculate a mortality rate. The way it is calculated is by using the entire population. That way there is a better baseline from which to compare.

The other big reason to use the accepted mortality rate as a means for measurment is its degree of transmission. Hypothetically speaking, if it spreads easily, it will lead to more deaths, thus a higher mortality rate. Or, alternatively, maybe it doesn't spread very easily but it is very deadly. Either way, it provides a better measurement because even though a virus is very deadly, it is hard to catch so the mortality rate is low.

By doing the basic way you are suggesting, it only factors in those that have tested positve. Using the second example above where it transmits very difficult but kills like crazy, we could have your death rate at 75% but transmission is limited to less than 0.1% of the population. So even though it is extremely deadly, it is difficult to catch. You definitely wouldn't want the media pouring a 75% death rate and excliding the fact it is nearly impossible to contract.

The flu is a prime example. When you are sick and go to the doctor, the doctor will simply diagnose you on the spot and send you home. It isn't recorded or tested. It is recorded when there is a fatality with the flu being the underlying cause. It is represented as a rate against the entire population and is usually represented by the "season."

This pandemic, when it is all over, will probably have a mortality rate assigned based on the entire period of the Pandemic, however long that ends up being.

If you google it, you can see how the CDC calculates the Mortality rate.

You can also sub-divide groups. The biggest division on mortality rate for the Pandemic has been age. Comparing mortality for over 70 to under 70 seems to be a popular comparison.

Keep in mind, as more people die and the relative population stays the same, the mortality rate can only go up if they expand the period used to capture the data. For example, if we have 100,000 deaths to date and the mortality rate is 0.2 but we get another 100,000 deaths, the rate will move to 0.4. So the actual mortality rate will change. It's inevitable.

Anyway, this is why the mortality rate is a better means of measure.

I based my calculation on the post I quoted which said "of those who have the virus" only way to tell if someone has the virus is to test them. Best way to not die from the virus is to not get it

 

[AttackBeacher]

I based my calculation on the post I quoted which said "of those who have the virus" only way to tell if someone has the virus is to test them. Best way to not die from the virus is to not get it

With all due respect thou, that's not the way that mortality appears to be accepted by doctors or epidemiologist.

 

[Otto]

With all due respect thou, that's not the way that mortality appears to be accepted by doctors or epidemiologist.

With all due respect, it was your quote

 

[AttackBeacher]

With all due respect, it was your quote

If your looking to get into arguments and play semantics, have at it, not really my game.

Looking at the media thats linking to the article, plus how I read it, how OMG reads it, it appears there is a discrepancy



Fact check: CDC estimates COVID-19 death rate of 0.26%

CDC says 35% of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic - CNN

You can look at it how you chose, but I don't see many others coming up with that result. Perhaps they are all incorrect, Id be surprised.

 

[Otto]

I believe the CDC recently suggested that the mortality rate is somewhere between .5 and .2 percent of those who get it.

No argument here... again I based my comment on your quote... that's all I said... for some reason you want to harp on it

 

[AttackBeacher]

No argument here... again I based my comment on your quote... that's all I said... for some reason you want to harp on it

Those links posted should hopefully clear things up then

 

[Otto]

Those links posted should hopefully clear things up then

You already had cleared it up...

 

[AttackBeacher]

You already had cleared it up...

lol, have a good day

 

[OMG67]

I based my calculation on the post I quoted which said "of those who have the virus" only way to tell if someone has the virus is to test them. Best way to not die from the virus is to not get it

EDIT:
I see you already addressed that. So please ignore the reply...

______________________________
Yes but you’d be ignoring its transmission rate by only using that data which isn’t responsible medically. That is why the medical field uses that criteria.

 

[three dog night]

Will the OHL drop the Americans teams this season or will they play out if Ontario.

 

[OMG67]

If your looking to get into arguments and play semantics, have at it, not really my game.

Looking at the media thats linking to the article, plus how I read it, how OMG reads it, it appears there is a discrepancy



Fact check: CDC estimates COVID-19 death rate of 0.26%

CDC says 35% of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic - CNN

You can look at it how you chose, but I don't see many others coming up with that result. Perhaps they are all incorrect, Id be surprised.

The problem is data is used in many ways. Otto is using it one way which in itself is valid to a degree. Then there is the accepted Mortality Rate.

Then there are “projections.” Like I stated, if the current Mortality rate is 0.2% and the Pandemic is not over, it will go up. So if the projected mortality rate is 0.4%, then they obviously expect more deaths in the future for which they are including in their projection.

This is why I suggest using Mortality Rate as the measuring stick. If factors in pretty much all the variables for a Virus like ease of transmission, death rate amongst those that catch it. IT also takes out the need to test and identify it until it becomes a death. YOu aren’t missing anyone because you are only tracking it related to death, not total infections.

 

[AttackBeacher]

The problem is data is used in many ways. Otto is using it one way which in itself is valid to a degree. Then there is the accepted Mortality Rate.

Then there are “projections.” Like I stated, if the current Mortality rate is 0.2% and the Pandemic is not over, it will go up. So if the projected mortality rate is 0.4%, then they obviously expect more deaths in the future for which they are including in their projection.

This is why I suggest using Mortality Rate as the measuring stick. If factors in pretty much all the variables for a Virus like ease of transmission, death rate amongst those that catch it. IT also takes out the need to test and identify it until it becomes a death. YOu aren’t missing anyone because you are only tracking it related to death, not total infections.

I generally try to yield to the medical experts, lord knows im not one. Most seem to follow the Mortality Rate, which it appears they are, then that's good enough for me as well. People can chose whatever they like, I just prefer to follow what the medical people are following.

 

[OMG67]

Will the OHL drop the Americans teams this season or will they play out if Ontario.

I cannot see that happening.

I think there will be certain contingencies in place as well as Standard Operating Procedures.

I’ve said this before, at some point the Government will shift focus to protecting the Vulnerable and move the focus away from Virus spread. Some states currently in the media have already shifted that focus. At some point that focus will be the accepted path. The only question is when will that be and how will that timing impact Sports in North America.

As Otto has said, Ontario has done a great job lowering the overall daily rate. Recent Ottawa numbers have us at 55 current cases and the majority of those in LTC.

I am sure States like Michigan will, at some point, have lower numbers. We have 3 months before the start of the season so loads of time to get numbers down.