Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV/COVID-19)

[Tik-Tok]

I wonder if the people who believe it's all an act, and he really is a genius, still think that.

[pheoxs]

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

I wonder if the people who believe it's all an act, and he really is a genius, still think that.

Stupid people do be stupid.

[ExtraSlow]

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

I wonder if the people who believe it's all an act, and he really is a genius, still think that.

He's playing 12D chess bro.

[jutes]

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

Would any checks help given this spread asymptomatically? And people are actively hiding their fever to get on flights?

Given the diplomatic and economic consequences, I think calling lock down by mid March is about right.

We could go back and forth forever on the what-ifs, too late for that now, it's what we do in the future that counts. I just hope we learn from our mistakes and when the next pandemic comes out from that wretched, disgusting country we are act before it spreads. Cutting China off from the world completely would be the solution but not ideal.

[ZenOps]

Dunno. Nations importance can change on a whim. It was just two months ago that Albertans were saying they were better off without the rest of Canada. Now - we will need assistance for sure.

China? We need IMO. USA? Take it or leave it. There may be 5 to 8 US states that should be considering bankruptcy as the summer wears on. If they militarize the border, then that is the USA's decision mostly. The big question to me is not whether Canada should bail on the USA, but if the USA will bail on Canada before we get the chance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investo.../#2df4c32118c2

Its only prudent to let states declare chapter 9. This has been brewing for decades, literally ever since I was born - Corona just is an ok time to "give up" if individual states decide they can't keep running the hamster wheel. The other time that might be acceptable, would be the eventual and inevitable California earthquake.

If you run a deficit for decades, is there even a point to having a positive US dollar balance? Trillion dollars for 100 pounds of moon rock and a flag that probably has already disintegrated to dust from sun exposure. 100 million, and China has cellphones with 5G speeds. The choice is obvious to me.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Misterman]

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

If we use some shitty math it looks like this:
31k positive cases in Bronx with 1.9 million population. Assuming 20% infection rate that would be 380k actual cases or roughly a 12:1 actual to confirmed ratio.

United states as a whole: 870k confirmed cases x 12:1 = 10 million cases. Assuming 75% eventually get infected which a few studies have claimed that gives us 250 million eventually getting infected. We're 1/25 the way there.

The US has 49k deaths so far x 25 for the rest = 1.225 million people.

So just the population of Edmonton left to die in the US if people want to just let things rip and run through the population.

* Assumes death rate is consistent across the population which I'm sure someone will cry about fat people and elderly blah blah I did start with saying this was shitty math.

There was never an intention to prevent it from making its way through the population. Just an attempt to slow it down. That's a pretty key piece of information that seems to continually require reminder.

[Asian_defender]

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

Dunno. Nations importance can change on a whim. It was just two months ago that Albertans were saying they were better off without the rest of Canada. Now - we will need assistance for sure.

China? We need IMO. USA? Take it or leave it. There may be 5 to 8 US states that should be considering bankruptcy as the summer wears on. If they militarize the border, then that is the USA's decision mostly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investo.../#2df4c32118c2

Its only prudent to let states declare chapter 9. This has been brewing for decades, literally ever since I was born - Corona just is an ok time to "give up" if individual states decide they can't keep running the hamster wheel.

I wonder if this is going to translate into cheap real estate

[Misterman]

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

Apparently if you accuse someone born in British Hong Kong and raised in the UK, and now a Canadian citizen, of secretly working against Canada with China......well yeah. But sure, lets pretend it's only if you don't like her.

Well even criticizing her on her merits is racist. So far she has been rather useless, we can read all the WHO incorrect information ourselves, we don't need someone reading them to us.

[Antonito]

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

Well even criticizing her on her merits is racist.

Since when?

[Misterman]

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

Stopping flights wouldn't have done much. In case you didn't notice, containing COVID is basically impossible.

The irony of the stupid here is incredible. The same liberals that keep defending the decisions to not close the border immediately, are the same Karen's going apeshit if anyone leaves the borders of their house, because somehow that will shut the virus down.

[Misterman]

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

Since when?

Reference your fearless leader Trudeau

[Antonito]

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

Reference your fearless leader Trudeau

When? The only thing I've seen was the article posted

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

When? The only thing I've seen was the article posted

Just looking for your perspective, not stating my position. You typically provide quite level responses. I'm basing these questions on my interpretation of the sum of the conversation.

Is it only Conservatives who have suggested she is not competent and that some of her decisions have been pandering to the Chinese Government's "feelings" over national interest?
Is it blatantly racist to suggest she is more concerned about Chinese relations than Canadian citizens and if so, would it still be racist to make that assertion if she were white, black, Hispanic or any other ethnicity? Would it be racist if the person making the claim was also of Chinese ethnicity?
Whether that position is founded or not, would it not be far more constructive to just illustrate the ways the Gov't feels it is invalid criticism by pointing out the factual demonstrative reasons instead of just immediately jumping on the racism button to deflect the conversation from having any possible further validity?

This sentence is a personal thought - I find it ridiculous that a PM who has been repeatedly shown to be culturally insensitive and overtly racist in the past continues to claim his ticket on the "woke" wagon and jump on that button whenever possible. He's had sexist and racist accusations made toward him by his own party members, before they were swept away, if I am not mistaken too. So I find it a little rich that he uses those as deflection to actually answering things.

As a little disclaimer, I have not tried to find the quotes of his exact comments. Also when this thing started I was impressed by her (Dr. Tam). That perception has changed somewhat although I still don't know that anyone else could have done anything markedly better. I also think the MP in question could very likely have made his point in a far more intelligent way but let's face it, MOST MP's shouldn't be allowed to write their own content regardless of party stripe.

[Antonito]

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

Just looking for your perspective, not stating my position. You typically provide quite level responses. I'm basing these questions on my interpretation of the sum of the conversation.

Is it only Conservatives who have suggested she is not competent and that some of her decisions have been pandering to the Chinese Government's "feelings" over national interest?
Is it blatantly racist to suggest she is more concerned about Chinese relations than Canadian citizens and if so, would it still be racist to make that assertion if she were white, black, Hispanic or any other ethnicity? Would it be racist if the person making the claim was also of Chinese ethnicity?
Whether that position is founded or not, would it not be far more constructive to just illustrate the ways the Gov't feels it is invalid criticism by pointing out the factual demonstrative reasons instead of just immediately jumping on the racism button to deflect the conversation from having any possible further validity?

This sentence is a personal thought - I find it ridiculous that a PM who has been repeatedly shown to be culturally insensitive and overtly racist in the past continues to claim his ticket on the "woke" wagon and jump on that button whenever possible. He's had sexist and racist accusations made toward him by his own party members, before they were swept away, if I am not mistaken too. So I find it a little rich that he uses those as deflection to actually answering things.

As a little disclaimer, I have not tried to find the quotes of his exact comments. Also when this thing started I was impressed by her (Dr. Tam). That perception has changed somewhat although I still don't know that anyone else could have done anything markedly better. I also think the MP in question could very likely have made his point in a far more intelligent way but let's face it, MOST MP's shouldn't be allowed to write their own content regardless of party stripe.

I agree with a lot of what you've said. To be honest I wouldn't have cared about this if the original post (and many other subsequent posts) didn't pretend that the only complaint was about her general competency. The MP singled the Chinese looking person out as the one betraying Canada for China. Doesn't take a genius to figure out.

Should Justin have taken the time to point this out? Up to each of us to decide

Would he have been able to do so if the MP had simply called her incompetent? No. Of course not. How?

Which is the same answer to everyone else pretending like questioning her competency would be racist. How? In what possible way?

[A790]

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

Which is the same answer to everyone else pretending like questioning her competency would be racist. How? In what possible way?

Beyond likes to circlejerk the false outrage thing. It's pretty funny to watch.

[The_Rural_Juror]

[Buster]

I think by late summer or the fall, we will have a targeted isolation strategy in place.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthca...otal-isolation

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.

Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent per 100,000. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.

The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.

Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

[ZenOps]

She totally missed the ball on that UV reference. Trump was handing her the ball to explain that UVC light can and is used very effectively to destroy all sorts of pathogens on walls and especially floors. Very few US medical centers use UV, but as long as it is used safely (preferably by Roomba) it has a potential to be a very effective tool.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

I agree with a lot of what you've said. To be honest I wouldn't have cared about this if the original post (and many other subsequent posts) didn't pretend that the only complaint was about her general competency. The MP singled the Chinese looking person out as the one betraying Canada for China. Doesn't take a genius to figure out.

Should Justin have taken the time to point this out? Up to each of us to decide

Would he have been able to do so if the MP had simply called her incompetent? No. Of course not. How?

Which is the same answer to everyone else pretending like questioning her competency would be racist. How? In what possible way?

Now I fully understand your comments, thank you.

(also A790 I wasn't tossing outrage around just in case you thought I was too)

[sabad66]

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

She totally missed the ball on that UV reference. Trump was handing her the ball to explain that UVC light can and is used very effectively to destroy all sorts of pathogens on walls and especially floors. Very few US medical centers use UV, but as long as it is used safely (preferably by Roomba) it has a potential to be a very effective tool.

let me know when scientists figure out a way to engineer UV light to selectively kill coronaviruses but nothing else when applied to the human body.