Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV/COVID-19)

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please show me the AB statistics where this is not the case.

You are literally the epitome of emotion/fear-based thinking by spouting this, instead of logic/numbers-based thinking.

Turn off the mainstream media, look at the numbers, and apply common sense.

Which group is suffering the most?

It does mostly kill people over 60.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which group is suffering the most?

The group that doesn't want to get hit with this and suffer long term effects. Death is simple.

Once hospitals are overwhelmed, other deaths will also ramp up. Sweden's number of ICU admission had grown 10 folds in 2 months.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/fashi...mass-cull-over

Interesting article. Have no idea if SCMP = Calgary Sun

SCMP has turned a lot more friendly to CCP ever since July 1st and now mostly reporting fluff.

That said, fake news or not, China definitely got a handle on this and has proven that you can't have an economy if you can't stop a pandemic.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/why-...fter-covid-19/

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...covid-n1243898

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-g...owth-1.1518058

And China now part of the world's biggest trading bloc, with it are our allies of South Korea/Japan/Australia/NZ.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54949260

Now we can probably take this one to another thread but cancelling TPP was the best thing ever happened to China in the trade front.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The group that doesn't want to get hit with this and suffer long term effects. Death is simple.

Which age group is suffering - ie. being hospitalized the most - including ICU? You will never see that on mainstream news.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which age group is suffering - ie. being hospitalized the most - including ICU? You will never see that on mainstream news.

All I am saying is I won't draw conclusion on based our data when Europe is giving us a preview what's coming for us soon.

[ExtraSlow]

Supply Chain Management Professionals?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which age group is suffering

This, this is the question you should be asking (and educating yourself on).

Less talk about deaths.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All I am saying is I won't draw conclusion on based our data when Europe is giving us a preview what's coming for us soon.

we are not europe - we have over 6 months of knowledge, numbers and experience to draw from - C19 (as per many standard airbone viruses) is not exactly the same c19 as we have here.

Again, which age group in the EU is suffering the most (I dont actully know, but I would wager a guess).

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This, this is the question you should be asking (and educating yourself on).

Less talk about deaths.

Exactly - the 0-60 age group is profoundly suffering from the effect of the C19 shutdown bs, both from the media and the government (who govern based on karens yelling at them on twitter). Our 0-60 age group is what makes the econonmy work - without the economy, everything stops.

The 60+ age group is by far, the most affected group in terms of actually suffering from the actual disease. But the number of deaths, is still low. 350-some odd deaths is about what we have in terms of motor vehicle deaths in AB in a bad year.

In an actual pandemic, having 35,000 people die of it in AB - would be serious.

This is not even in the realm of a bad flu season - where 1/3 of the office is actually home sick.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This, this is the question you should be asking (and educating yourself on).

Less talk about deaths.

Suffering is a term left to context. People seem to put their blinders on when it comes to this Covid issue. The over 60 age group is without a doubt suffering the most in direct relation to covid and it's side effects. However, every age group is suffering due to controls in place because of covid.

[Buster]

covid related deaths are only part of the problem of covid.

I realize that hanging onto the idea that this is only a minor inconvenience for those that don't die helps people sleep at night, but it's not the reality.

As Marlo Stanfield says...you want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

we are not europe - we have over 6 months of knowledge, numbers and experience to draw from - C19 (as per many standard airbone viruses) is not exactly the same c19 as we have here.

Again, which age group in the EU is suffering the most (I dont actully know, but I would wager a guess).

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly - the 0-60 age group is profoundly suffering from the effect of the C19 shutdown bs, both from the media and the government (who govern based on karens yelling at them on twitter). Our 0-60 age group is what makes the econonmy work - without the economy, everything stops.

The 60+ age group is by far, the most affected group in terms of actually suffering from the actual disease. But the number of deaths, is still low. 350-some odd deaths is about what we have in terms of motor vehicle deaths in AB in a bad year.

In an actual pandemic, having 35,000 people die of it in AB - would be serious.

This is not even in the realm of a bad flu season - where 1/3 of the office is actually home sick.

There isn't conclusive research for long haulers. But there is report that 5% "recovered", never recovers from symptoms of C19 after 3 months.

So in AB perspective (if 5% holds true), 15K people has not truly recovered from C19 even if virus is gone from their systems and they didn't die.


For couch potatoes, probably not a big deal. But for active go getters, it's a huge mental challenge that you may never get your old life back or seemingly impossible to get back to it. Also, if you use CDC's premature data, it's 35%, not 5% and other survey's are anywhere from 50-80%. So like Buster said, you don't want this shit mostly because even if you survive, there is no consensus what the long term impact is yet.

Like I said, death is the easy part.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In an actual pandemic, having 35,000 people die of it in AB - would be serious.

This is not even in the realm of a bad flu season - where 1/3 of the office is actually home sick.

It's amazing what physical distancing, regular hand washing, working from home, and wearing masks can do, isn't it? Reduces the number of cases of flu and COVID.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There isn't conclusive research for long haulers. But there is report that 5% "recovered", never recovers from symptoms of C19 after 3 months.

So in AB perspective (if 5% holds true), 15K people has not truly recovered from C19 even if virus is gone from their systems and they didn't die.


For couch potatoes, probably not a big deal. But for active go getters, it's a huge mental challenge that you may never get your old life back or seemingly impossible to get back to it. Also, if you use CDC's premature data, it's 35%, not 5%.

Like I said, death is the easy part.

When all is said and done, I suspect it will be higher than 5%...but we won't have any firm ideas for a while.

Here is a review and discussion from the NIHR.

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedre...-with-covid19/

[finboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There isn't conclusive research for long haulers. But there is report that 5% "recovered", never recovers from symptoms of C19 after 3 months.

So in AB perspective (if 5% holds true), 15K people has not truly recovered from C19 even if virus is gone from their systems and they didn't die.


For couch potatoes, probably not a big deal. But for active go getters, it's a huge mental challenge that you may never get your old life back or seemingly impossible to get back to it. Also, if you use CDC's premature data, it's 35%, not 5%.

Like I said, death is the easy part.

If memory serves you did post a study a while back on long term (over 3 months post infection) impacts, but I believe the average age of the participant in the study was 49 with no indications on general health of participants. I really want to see some data around the 3 month and up symptoms broken down by age category to truly get an understanding of the non-death risks. Buster has a take that seems to be an abundance of caution due to the type of disease this is (if I’m taking the right message from his posts), but I’m not clear if anyone has posted data similar to above that could correlate age or physical condition to severity of infection or long term impacts.

I am sure that 8 months into this that there has to be some kind of study around this, but getting through the noise in most media sources that harp on anecdotal examples is quite challenging. I understand that the idea behind governments and media taking a scare approach is to help protect the elderly, immune compromised and convince the average person to go along with whatever expert they wheel out says, but I’d really like straight forward numbers to draw answers from. It really seems that the message is “a human is impacted by COVID in this way if they don’t die” rather than “this group is impacted this way, this group is lower risk for impact in this way, etc.”

Edit: buster just posted a link, reading now

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When all is said and done, I suspect it will be higher than 5%...but we won't have any firm ideas for a while.

Here is a review and discussion from the NIHR.

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedre...-with-covid19/

There is a widespread perception that people either die, get admitted to hospital or recover after two weeks. It is increasingly clear that for some people there is a distinct pathway of ongoing effects. There is an urgent need to better understand the symptom journey and the clinical risks that underlie that. People, their families and healthcare professionals need realistic expectations about what to expect.

I hope people stop the binary thinking that you either get it or you don't OR you either die from it or you don't.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Buster has a take that seems to be an abundance of caution due to the type of disease this is (if I’m taking the right message from his posts), but I’m not clear if anyone has posted data similar to above that could correlate age or physical condition to severity of infection or long term impacts.

I'm just making decisions on what I think based on the data that is available to us. Sometimes you have to make decisions based on imperfect data, and that is certainly the case here. I'm as data driven as anyone - but being data driven also means that you know when you are data-limited and have to make judgement calls. This is definitely one of those circumstances. We won't know what the quantitative aspects of the Covid long term syndromes will be. We can't know because the time with the disease is still short. I have changed my mind numerous times on the disease itself, the impact, and the policy right within this thread. Changing your mind when presented with fresh information is critical. The people here who are refusing to do that are doing it out of the fear of what it could mean if long covid is actually an issue....so head in the sand they go.

The impact that this virus has on the body is unusual, it impacts numerous organs, it has neurological effects which are well documented in some cases (loss of smell), and becoming more clear in other cases (cognitive issues).

As tragic as death is, it's not my primary worry right now when it comes to covid - and people who are too focused on death stats just simply aren't keeping up and are stuck back a few months ago.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

covid related deaths are only part of the problem of covid.

I realize that hanging onto the idea that this is only a minor inconvenience for those that don't die helps people sleep at night, but it's not the reality.

As Marlo Stanfield says...you want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

It is ironic that you keep mentioning this...................... in an attempt to matter because you think it should, even though it doesn't. You want it to be this way, but it's not.

I'm not hanging on that idea. It's just a simple matter of considering the whole picture and weighing options. There is 3 ways to approach the issue at hand, which is Covid. 1) Fuck it all, live life. 2) Protect the vulnerable of immediate consequences(ie protect the healthcare system). 3) Full controls to try and prevent spread.

Option 1 has the most immediate and detrimental disease related effects. Option 2 can potentially curb some of the immediate deaths and hospitalizations, and decrease the final body count when this is all over. Option 3 has the same end result but spreads it out over a much longer period.

In all these options, if you add in the potential of long term effects it changes nothing. If you cannot prevent people from contracting this virus over time, then the long term effects become irrelevant. The only major differences between the 3 options is the levels of economic effects, and covid side impacts like mental health, suicide, domestic abuse, substance abuse, poverty, etc, etc It makes no sense to place controls that knowingly increase these side issues, when the controls do not address what you actually want them to.

Again, it all comes back to the fact that you can't make the cure worse than the disease. And these long term health effects you keep bringing up that no government agency is considering, do not change this. The current "cure" we are employing is still worse.

If you're going to give up living in an attempt to live longer, you're already dead. There is no question that this boils down to personal risk aversion. If people are scared enough of these long term health effects, they have every bit of freedom to stay home and avoid the risk. The problem right now is they're attempting to remove the freedom of people that do not find this personally risky. They're losing the freedom to travel freely, run their business, earn a living, etc.

[Buster]

- #2 in your post is almost certainly much larger than you think (deaths are only part of the picture)
- A vaccine is coming shortly, so treating covid like an inevitability is no longer necessary.

[finboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hope people stop the binary thinking that you either get it or you don't OR you either die from it or you don't.

I get that, but I find surprising the lack of detail on anything between that. Even the summary report buster posted mentions numbers associated post hospitalization or self reported non-hospitalized, but any further information on the breakdown of those datasets by population characteristics isn’t made available. That article does mention this..

The steering group recognised that service provision is mirrored by the fragmentation of research studies, with much of the commissioned research looking at a single symptom or physiological system rather than the whole experience, although there are notable exceptions such as the Defence Services/University of Oxford M-COVID study, which is investigating the complications and outcomes of Covid19 infection in a young/middle-aged physically active population (in this case, a military population).

That kind of study would be illuminating (I can’t find it on a 2 second google) on impacts to a certain age and fitness category, both of which would be useful pieces of the puzzle to understand if the risk of long term factors are impacted by either. Understanding if being in good physical shape has some correlation to countering more severe COVID long term symptoms would be a pretty important thing in my mind.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm just making decisions on what I think based on the data that is available to us. Sometimes you have to make decisions based on imperfect data, and that is certainly the case here. I'm as data driven as anyone - but being data driven also means that you know when you are data-limited and have to make judgement calls. This is definitely one of those circumstances. We won't know what the quantitative aspects of the Covid long term syndromes will be. We can't know because the time with the disease is still short. I have changed my mind numerous times on the disease itself, the impact, and the policy right within this thread. Changing your mind when presented with fresh information is critical. The people here who are refusing to do that are doing it out of the fear of what it could mean if long covid is actually an issue....so head in the sand they go.

The impact that this virus has on the body is unusual, it impacts numerous organs, it has neurological effects which are well documented in some cases (loss of smell), and becoming more clear in other cases (cognitive issues).

As tragic as death is, it's not my primary worry right now when it comes to covid - and people who are too focused on death stats just simply aren't keeping up and are stuck back a few months ago.

I get that, and I also understand the position of politicians to say “we are making science based decisions” (you and I agree they only are when it’s convenient) rather than “we don’t know, so let’s be overly cautious until we know more.” But I think where we might align is on that credence of an abundance of caution might not be best enacted by policy makers who only seem to know how to use the bluntest of instruments.

[pheoxs]

20 deaths in the last 24 hours ... ouch

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

- #2 in your post is almost certainly much larger than you think (deaths are only part of the picture)
- A vaccine is coming shortly, so treating covid like an inevitability is no longer necessary.

No it isn't larger than I think. Even if assuming these long term effects, the amount of people that get them doesn't really change. So it's a moot point. I would bet my 3rd nut that the potential economic damages from our healthcare system dealing with long term health effects of covid would be far less than anything we have artificially forced ourselves to endure to date. And even if it was comparable, it would be better to spread that societal cost out over time instead of slamming it all on us in one year.

It's great to have 100% faith in a new unknown vaccine. But in reality covid is still considered a virtual inevitability until a vaccine is released and proves to be effective.