coronavirus discussion

[SkinnyPupp]

Something to keep in mind when you see coverage of the nutjob protesters

Twitter

There's lots of "gaslighting" going on (that's a new term for me) attempting to make the "movement" look bigger than it is. The question is, who stands to gain from it? If we can answer that, we may know where it's coming from.

Oddly, a lot of the campaign being pushed is done by a single entity in Florida, registering domains for every single state, and starting Facebook groups for all of them. Someone on Reddit figured this out after some of the domains were registered without anonymous enabled. Appears to be people related to a gun lobby group.

So who is behind this group?

If you want to get into conspiracy theories, here's a potentially legitimate one to look into. Instead of blaming Bill Gates and "the rockerfellers" for everything

[welfare]

Originally Posted by highfive

Not defending limp dick jt but Canada is bordered with USA and Australia is on its own.

Plus we have the issues of snowbirds returning home from the USA. That’s the biggest risk i see upcoming.

I don't really think the snowbirds theory holds much water though, considering the states that Canadians travel to for winter don't really have that high a rate of cases.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by twdm

Been on a hiatus from this thread for a while to let things run a bit. Things turned out exactly as I predicted. Millions of jobs lost worldwide. Trillions of dollars wasted and trillions in GDP lost worldwide just to prevent potentially hundreds of thousands of mainly elderly deaths.

Do the math. We refuse to spend hundreds of thousands per patient on novel cancer treatments but we're willing to spend millions per patient and put millions into poverty to prevent deaths of people who are honestly probably going to die within the next 5 years.

There's a reason why most medical workers aren't good administrators. Every life is priceless to them, but in reality there is a price to every life.

So kudos to Sweden for not bowing to the fearmongerers pulling out their projections where everyone is going to be infected and 10% of the population is gonna die. Everyone knows social distancing saves lives. No shit, but at what cost.

Yes healthcare workers can be on their high horse telling people to isolate and do their part. That's cause their livelihood isn't on the line. They don't have to worry about putting food on the table, paying their mortgages etc. Sure they're putting their lives on the line, but don't firemen, policemen, search and rescue people do that too?

I think the main issue though is that there's still a lot that's unknown about this virus.
For instance, recent studies have shown that it's not just the lungs that may incur damage but also the heart and kidneys.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coron...eart-1.5536809
It's just hard to gauge what to do when you don't know exactly what you're up against.

I do agree with some of your points though. And I hope you don't go on another "hiatus".
I value the differing perspectives. Even if I don't agree with them entirely. I'm sure there are many others here who feel the same way.

[Hondaracer]

So 75% of the deaths are over the age of 65 so far...

Gotta day, still like those odds.

During the press conference today with trump Somone mentioned a study where they were theorizing when the virus arrived in the states and the amount of people who were asymptomatic could he incredibly high relative to those who show symptoms and the overall mortality rate. They said the number of deaths relative to the number actually infected could be the same if not lower than the seasonal flu mortality rate.

Again, just some study that was mentioned and they didn’t have much of a follow up but interesting nonetheless. I’ve looked for the study and haven’t found it yet but there are literally dozens of articles published by credible sources that say up to 80% of carriers could be asymptomatic.

[welfare]

That actually wouldn't be that big of a number when put into perspective.
There are nearly 800,000 confirmed cases in the US. Assuming that all of those cases are symptomatic, and that's 20% of all infected, the number of asymptomatic would be 4,000,000. Not much more than 1% of the population.

[westopher]

In Boston a sample of 378 homeless were tested, over half tested positive, and ZERO showed any symptoms.
This brings up a very interesting angle of potential ineffectiveness of the virus I. Some cases, inconclusive numbers, etc.
The other possibility is the tests were just all wrong.

[Teriyaki]

Originally Posted by westopher

In Boston a sample of 378 homeless were tested, over half tested positive, and ZERO showed any symptoms.
This brings up a very interesting angle of potential ineffectiveness of the virus I. Some cases, inconclusive numbers, etc.
The other possibility is the tests were just all wrong.

Could it be possible that this subset of sampled people had stronger immune systems (atleast in relation to this particular strain of covid), stemming from the more harsh conditions they are subject to daily?

[320icar]

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by westopher

In Boston a sample of 378 homeless were tested, over half tested positive, and ZERO showed any symptoms.
This brings up a very interesting angle of potential ineffectiveness of the virus I. Some cases, inconclusive numbers, etc.
The other possibility is the tests were just all wrong.

There are similar tests documented of pregnant women in a study I can’t across

Of the 200 or so tested 20 tested positive but only 2 showed symptoms I believe

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by welfare

I think the main issue though is that there's still a lot that's unknown about this virus.
For instance, recent studies have shown that it's not just the lungs that may incur damage but also the heart and kidneys.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coron...eart-1.5536809
It's just hard to gauge what to do when you don't know exactly what you're up against.

I do agree with some of your points though. And I hope you don't go on another "hiatus".
I value the differing perspectives. Even if I don't agree with them entirely. I'm sure there are many others here who feel the same way.

The issue with the perspective of "see it wasn't that bad, we didn't need to do all this after all"

Is because it "wasn't/isn't that bad" BECAUSE of all the shit we did.

The choice was to partially shut down the economy and pay back for it long term, or literally millions die (and NOT just old people) possibly shutting down not just the economy, but society in general. We chose lives over money, with the knowledge that if we didn't, money would have been fucked even harder in the end.

If someone wants to have the opposite "perspective" fine, we can just disagree. Thankfully those people are a very small minority in Canada at least, and don't have the ability to do anything towards it that would harm the rest of us.

I can't go without saying that I find it rather mindblowing that a purported healthcare worker has this point of view, and literally says there's an inherent value of lives, inferring that some lives are worth more than others. Thank GOD this person has no actual power... Because holy crap.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by Teriyaki

Could it be possible that this subset of sampled people had stronger immune systems (atleast in relation to this particular strain of covid), stemming from the more harsh conditions they are subject to daily?

Absolutely possible in some of the instances, but for it to be across the board of a large sample size, is extremely unlikely, especially with the commonality of immunocompromised folks in the homeless community. I think it's impossible to really even have a stab at why, but it shows a serious need for some research into the situation.

[twitchyzero]

-30usd/barrel...they ran outta storage!

but i filled up chevron 94 for buck 23 today

[twdm]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I can't go without saying that I find it rather mindblowing that a purported healthcare worker has this point of view, and literally says there's an inherent value of lives, inferring that some lives are worth more than others. Thank GOD this person has no actual power... Because holy crap.

So if you were the prime minister of canada, you would think it's good policy to spend billions of tax payer dollars to prolong the life likely short life expectancy of 70-90 year olds.

Alright. Well that's billions that don't go to new hospitals and equipment, providing for the poor, etc. But hey decisions dont have any other collateral damage in skinnypupps mind. All decisions only have one outcome in his world.

Hey if you had the choice to either save a child or a 80 year old with end stage cancer, lets save the 80 year old cause all lives are equal. Why should the child with a bright future be worth any more than the 80 year old who is a year tops from the grave?

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I can't go without saying that I find it rather mindblowing that a purported healthcare worker has this point of view, and literally says there's an inherent value of lives, inferring that some lives are worth more than others. Thank GOD this person has no actual power... Because holy crap.

With limited resources, a choice has to be made, and so you have to put a value on a life in situations like this.

And policymakers do this all the time. You have to put value on things that don't have value.

[SkinnyPupp]

There is so much wrong with putting value on lives based on what identifies them, be it age, race, whatever. I can't even wrap my head around what would make someone think like that.

I'll just leave these stats here though, if you continue to think it's OK for certain groups of the population to die so you can make more money... well keep this in mind before you speak out. I'm not asking anyone to go back on "hiatus" but just gain some knowledge before you write.

It is so, so SO wrong to say what you are saying.



So remember, you're not just "letting all the old people die" (and people don't get into too much trouble for being ageist) but you're letting most black people die as well. I don't know what the stats are like in Canada, but it would likely lean towards poverty. Do we know how many First Nations communities have been hit by it?

This is making my head spin, I gotta go get lunch

[Hondaracer]

Lives have already had a value put on them previously. In fact it’s peoples jobs to do so.

Victims of 9/11 got a $200,000 cheque for their loved ones, and other similar acts, car accidents, negligence, etc. Gets a value assigned

It’s cold, it’s tough to accept. But honestly as time goes by it would be innapropriate to not assign value to one life over another. If it got to the point where it was so bad and you were giving ventilators to 75/80/90 year olds over a 25 year old, hell, even if they were a drug addict. That’s assanine.

And don’t ask me about my own loved ones who are older because my dad who recently just turned 60 went out of his way to say that if push came to shove he’d be willing to be offed if it meant a gain for society as he has always been of the mind that once you become a strain you aren’t much good other than sentimental value lol..

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Lives have already had a value put on them previously. In fact it’s peoples jobs to do so.

Victims of 9/11 got a $200,000 cheque for their loved ones, and other similar acts, car accidents, negligence, etc. Gets a value assigned

It’s cold, it’s tough to accept. But honestly as time goes by it would be innapropriate to not assign value to one life over another. If it got to the point where it was so bad and you were giving ventilators to 75/80/90 year olds over a 25 year old, hell, even if they were a drug addict. That’s assanine.

And don’t ask me about my own loved ones who are older because my dad who recently just turned 60 went out of his way to say that if push came to shove he’d be willing to be offed if it meant a gain for society as he has always been of the mind that once you become a strain you aren’t much good other than sentimental value lol..

It not just based on age it's based on wealth. Some rich people already own ventilators. If you have money age won't mater.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

There is so much wrong with putting value on lives based on what identifies them, be it age, race, whatever. I can't even wrap my head around what would make someone think like that.

I'll just leave these stats here though, if you continue to think it's OK for certain groups of the population to die so you can make more money... well keep this in mind before you speak out. I'm not asking anyone to go back on "hiatus" but just gain some knowledge before you write.

It is so, so SO wrong to say what you are saying.



So remember, you're not just "letting all the old people die" (and people don't get into too much trouble for being ageist) but you're letting most black people die as well. I don't know what the stats are like in Canada, but it would likely lean towards poverty. Do we know how many First Nations communities have been hit by it?

This is making my head spin, I gotta go get lunch

Race isn't the lone factor contributing to those stats.
African Americans also suffer from diabetes at eight times the rate of whites. And cardiovascular disease at six times. While I'm sure there are several others, those are definitely factors that attribute to the fatality rate of this disease.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by welfare

Race isn't the lone factor contributing to those stats.
African Americans also suffer from diabetes at eight times the rate of whites. And cardiovascular disease at six times. While I'm sure there are several others, those are definitely factors that attribute to the fatality rate of this disease.

Yes. They are also more commonly poor on average. That's not really the point though. You're explaining the how.

[yray]

Doctors don't do aggressive treatments with pneumonia if you're over 60 in BC. I think our death rates are lower is due to our experiences with ARDS and large amount of cases of pneumonia with seniors. If you walk into Richmond ER, you will see atleast 7-8 beds with seniors on CPAPs.

Life and death in the ICU

I've seen a drug addict, a well mannered and educated gentlemen, a homeless person and an autistic adult without the ability to talk in the ICU. Doctors and nurses don't care, they treat everyone with respect and the same amount of care. They will use all the tricks in their book and the resources available to try to bring the person back to being healthy.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

There is so much wrong with putting value on lives based on what identifies them, be it age, race, whatever. I can't even wrap my head around what would make someone think like that.

I'll just leave these stats here though, if you continue to think it's OK for certain groups of the population to die so you can make more money... well keep this in mind before you speak out. I'm not asking anyone to go back on "hiatus" but just gain some knowledge before you write.

It is so, so SO wrong to say what you are saying.



So remember, you're not just "letting all the old people die" (and people don't get into too much trouble for being ageist) but you're letting most black people die as well. I don't know what the stats are like in Canada, but it would likely lean towards poverty. Do we know how many First Nations communities have been hit by it?

This is making my head spin, I gotta go get lunch

It's "wrong" but someone has to do it. Again, limited resources is a bitch. This is the basis why economy is a thing. How else do you make decisions with limited resources and saving everyone is impossible?

And how exactly is it wrong, really? Is the life of someone without a job less important? No, money isn't everything, but you do need it to sustain life. It's less apparent, but domestic violence and suicides can be more common. How do you value those lives? Or is it "out of sight, out of mind" for you?

I am not agreeing with open everything fully and just roll the dice. Rather, it's a compromise - you open back up a bit with protective measures so some people can get back to work and feed their families, etc. while we keep casualty at a reasonable level. Remember, we are talking about macro here. As long as we can show it's a net gain for the society, so be it. On a micro level, I don't wish anyone harm, but it is what it is.

Putting values on lives is not only done in this situation. Changes to traffic controls, for example, also have to put value on people's lives and time to determine if there will be a net gain or loss.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

It's "wrong" but someone has to do it. Again, limited resources is a bitch. This is the basis why economy is a thing. How else do you make decisions with limited resources and saving everyone is impossible?

And how exactly is it wrong, really? Is the life of someone without a job less important? No, money isn't everything, but you do need it to sustain life. It's less apparent, but domestic violence and suicides can be more common. How do you value those lives? Or is it "out of sight, out of mind" for you?

I am not agreeing with open everything fully and just roll the dice. Rather, it's a compromise - you open back up a bit with protective measures so some people can get back to work and feed their families, etc. while we keep casualty at a reasonable level. Remember, we are talking about macro here. As long as we can show it's a net gain for the society, so be it. On a micro level, I don't wish anyone harm, but it is what it is.

Putting values on lives is not only done in this situation. Changes to traffic controls, for example, also have to put value on people's lives and time to determine if there will be a net gain or loss.

I might be a bit slow right now, but it doesn't seem like we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about it in principle, which nobody is really arguing against. But maybe go back and read what people are saying, where they said we should let old people just die so the economy doesn't suffer as much. This of course ignores that more old people dying = hospitals completely overwhelmed and there would be literally piles of dead bodies outside hospitals. And also they aren't taking into account that it's not just "old people" who are significantly effected by this, but an extraordinary number of poor people which in the US correlates to black people. In Canada it likely correlates to First Nations, and every other country has their own marginalized people that this person clearly doesn't give a fuck about.

So he's really saying we should let old people die, which is bad enough (because when is it ever good to marginalize a group based on something they can't control?), but specifically old black people in America (and in Singapore this would be old S. Asian people) all die. So he can make more money. Fuck. That.

You can dilute it into meta arguments all you want, I think it's atrocious what's being said.

[twdm]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

So he's really saying we should let old people die, which is bad enough (because when is it ever good to marginalize a group based on something they can't control?), but specifically old black people in America (and in Singapore this would be old S. Asian people) all die. So he can make more money. Fuck. That.

Good lord. I love how you like to twist words. It went from how what we're doing isnt cost effective into saying I want to kill all old people, blacks and south asians.

There is something called QALY. Go google it. The average value of one year of "perfect health" is around $100000. Any intervention that costs under that amount is considered cost effective, anything over the government is unlikely to fund. Sorry, the fact of life is even in public healthcare systems there are limits to how much they are willing to pay before they pull the plug.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by welfare

Race isn't the lone factor contributing to those stats.
African Americans also suffer from diabetes at eight times the rate of whites. And cardiovascular disease at six times. While I'm sure there are several others, those are definitely factors that attribute to the fatality rate of this disease.

That's because they are poor and lack proper healthcare.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

Yes. They are also more commonly poor on average. That's not really the point though. You're explaining the how.

Originally Posted by Manic!

That's because they are poor and lack proper healthcare.

Latinos earn less personal income, on average, than African Americans.
And Asians earn more than whites.
Data doesn't seem to corroborate that theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers..._United_States