OT: Everything COVID19 - PART 6

[Cosmix]

not as much as you may think. 1) what elderly does not participate in mass media. My Mother is 83 and has her smart phone, texts and uses facetime, etc. As do many of my even older relatives.

An 80 year old, was born in 1940, grew up in the 1960's, would have been a Rolling Stones fan. Wears jeans. And, is as up to date as you can imagine. This image that 80 year olds are some pre-historic creatures listening to classical music, wearing suits and ties is not accurate, nor reflective of society. It is media driven. We have been presenting this image for 100 years and don't know how to move off of it. So imagine a person in his seventies and how up to date he is. Or in their sixties...A person in his sixties is a Michael Jackson fan.. or possibly an M&M fan if he tuned into him a tad later. Most people in their 60's and 70's are way more computer literate and "gadget" conscious than you can imagine.

The young and I will add to my troubles, many women, generally preoccupy themselves with their immediate circle. Politics is not on the radar, nor are many issues. A dollar in their pocket is for a good time, Tuesday at 6 in the evening is not for Wolf Blitzer, but for video games. It is why 51.25% of society is female and only a small percentage of all lawmakers are female. It is why 74 year old Trump, lost to 78 year old Biden..while ~ 25% of the voting public is younger than 40 and another 12% is between 40 and 50. While a mere 16% is above 65. Both candidates should have been younger than 50.

Power is with the Grey Hairs..until the young mobilize (and I say near zero chance) it will remain. And it will grow, People are living longer and above 65 will only increase.

Do you know why "51.25% of society is female"?

I suspect it might be because males are higher risk-takers. Amortization tables reveal that females live longer than males.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

The majority in science has been routinely wrong for hundreds of years while outliners are proven right in time again and again

Proven right by whom?

The Illuminati?

Yes, just those special few that can see through everything and see the conspiracy that others cannot see.

 

[Cosmix]

The majority in science has been routinely wrong for hundreds of years while outliners are proven right in time again and again

Where are your facts to back this statement up?

 

[DrEasy]

If the vaccine makes you 100% immune (which remains to be seen), I have absolutely no problem with anti vaxxers. If they want to spread diseases between each others, die or have long lasting effects, I mean it's in their right. Not everybody cares about life ad health equally. So as long as they can't hurt people who care, then no problem.

I heard today in a survey that 39% of respondants in France were against getting the covid vaccine lol. It was 16% in Canada, which is much more reasonable. Not surprising for France, always revolting against everything

I tended to think that way, but the problem is that there may be people who genuinely can't have the vaccine due to some severe reaction (mind you, I'm not sure if there are any contra-indications for the COVID vaccines that have been approved), and so their lives get endangered by people who don't want to get vaccinated for ideological reasons and who catch the disease.

The other issue is that when anti-vaxxers catch the disease, they will use hospital resources that everyone needs, and in Ontario as well as many other places on the planet, these resources have been proven scarce.

 

[Sens]

Its as if the National Enquirer and WWE put their minds together and created a new reality they could form a political tribe around. And sadly it was large. I keep thinking about how they were saying Fox news was losing viewers to more right wing networks. And Im thinking – more right wing? Really? That’s the best way to describe that? We have become pretty loose in our terms lately.



Proven right by whom?

the earth is round and for hundreds of years all talk to the contrary was met with laughter

 

[Xspyrit]

I tended to think that way, but the problem is that there may be people who genuinely can't have the vaccine due to some severe reaction (mind you, I'm not sure if there are any contra-indications for the COVID vaccines that have been approved), and so their lives get endangered by people who don't want to get vaccinated for ideological reasons and who catch the disease.

The other issue is that when anti-vaxxers catch the disease, they will use hospital resources that everyone needs, and in Ontario as well as many other places on the planet, these resources have been proven scarce.

I don't know all the implications yet as we're still discovering but that would mean the 100% I was talking about will be unattainable, at least not for everybody. In the end, everybody should respect other people desire to live. If someone wants to live and protect his family, it's totally within his rights. People who don't want to do certain things in the name of "freedom" might not be respecting others freedom.

"The freedom of somebody ends where the freedom of others begins"

People freedom to be alive and healthy is much more important than someone's freedom to wear a mask or get a vaccine. But hey, maybe I'm crazy.

And also like you said, if people who could have prevented being sick by just taking a simple vaccine end up beign sick for years, there will be a major cost for that (ressources+)

Life could be much simpler if everybody was rowing in the same direction

 

[BankStreetParade]

I get where you're coming from but what happens when professionals have conflicting views? Which view is dogshit and why? Its not always so black and white.

It's between the professionals to present their arguments. The big problem we have today is someone reads a headline or a snippet of an article and suddenly thinks their opinion matters on whatever the subject is.
Not to mention, it depends what type of professionals you have.
Let's say we look at the professionals who have opined on the issue of climate change. There's still a number of scientists who disagree on how severe climate change is and what the driving force is behind it. If you polled 1,000 climate experts and scientists - 900 of them would say the danger is real and humans are accelerating the effects through carbon pollution.
100 of them disagree and present their argument.

Well, of that group of 100 who argue against it, 90 are paid by lobbyists, energy companies and fossil fuel special interests groups. They are paid to present evidence in a way that muddles the argument.

Historically, we've seen this happen many, many times. The tobacco industry, the sugar industry, the GMO industry, the defense industry, etc. All these industries pay people to author reports that support their businesses.

Personally, I'll take the word of the 900 who tell me something is dangerous over the word of the 100.

If I saw 90 people run around a corner telling me there was a guy with a gun coming you bet your ass I'm not gonna be the one to stick around and find out if it was true or not.

 

[JD1]

It's between the professionals to present their arguments. The big problem we have today is someone reads a headline or a snippet of an article and suddenly thinks their opinion matters on whatever the subject is.
Not to mention, it depends what type of professionals you have.
Let's say we look at the professionals who have opined on the issue of climate change. There's still a number of scientists who disagree on how severe climate change is and what the driving force is behind it. If you polled 1,000 climate experts and scientists - 900 of them would say the danger is real and humans are accelerating the effects through carbon pollution.
100 of them disagree and present their argument.

Well, of that group of 100 who argue against it, 90 are paid by lobbyists, energy companies and fossil fuel special interests groups. They are paid to present evidence in a way that muddles the argument.

Historically, we've seen this happen many, many times. The tobacco industry, the sugar industry, the GMO industry, the defense industry, etc. All these industries pay people to author reports that support their businesses.

Personally, I'll take the word of the 900 who tell me something is dangerous over the word of the 100.

If I saw 90 people run around a corner telling me there was a guy with a gun coming you bet your ass I'm not gonna be the one to stick around and find out if it was true or not.

And who pays the 900? Their views are 100% snow white clean?

 

[GCK]

And who pays the 900? Their views are 100% snow white clean?

I was just going to post the same. I am not a climate change denier, but there are green energy companies who stand to make 100s of billions from the transition and are very anxious to rush the process.

 

[Qward]

I was just going to post the same. I am not a climate change denier, but there are green energy companies who stand to make 100s of billions from the transition and are very anxious to rush the process.

There is also a reason gas companies are pushing solar plants. You have to run natural gas plants when the sun is down.

 

[GCK]

There is also a reason gas companies are pushing solar plants. You have to run natural gas plants when the sun is down.

True, not all areas have the ability to leverage wind and hydro like we do in Canada.

 

[BankStreetParade]

And who pays the 900? Their views are 100% snow white clean?

Universities, non profits, government, etc.

There is certainly a percentage of the 900 who might be presenting influenced information but it’s no where as close to the 100 who seem to contravene the vast majority.

Like I said, I’ll take the word of the majority who are made up mostly of people who work in their fields without the lure of money.

If you guys want to believe the pharmaceutical and fossil fuel lobbyists, that’s your imperative. Just don’t be surprised when you end up wrong.

 

[thinkwild]

There definitely are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money from the coming change in our energy model. Texas apparently has one of the largest wind energy capacities right now. There are many more green energy jobs than coal, and coal is now more expensive. Oil will soon be too. Many high tech companies are running green buildings and of course Seattle’s new arena might be built in a way that will allow them to save a lot on energy costs too. Car manufacturers are planning for expansion of their electric car lines. Retrofitting buildings and creating new electric car charging stations across the country is in sight. There is billions of dollars in new economic opportunity that is already getting shareholder buy in and may well be one of the key drivers leading us out of this recession into the new economy . A lot of this is happening because governments have put in place the policy levers that are incentivizing that direction of business. Incentivizing a huge economic driver that will lead to cleaner energy and lower costs. Makes you wonder why we wouldn’t do this even if it had no effect on climate change.

 

[GCK]

There definitely are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money from the coming change in our energy model. Texas apparently has one of the largest wind energy capacities right now. There are many more green energy jobs than coal, and coal is now more expensive. Oil will soon be too. Many high tech companies are running green buildings and of course Seattle’s new arena might be built in a way that will allow them to save a lot on energy costs too. Car manufacturers are planning for expansion of their electric car lines. Retrofitting buildings and creating new electric car charging stations across the country is in sight. There is billions of dollars in new economic opportunity that is already getting shareholder buy in and may well be one of the key drivers leading us out of this recession into the new economy . A lot of this is happening because governments have put in place the policy levers that are incentivizing that direction of business. Incentivizing a huge economic driver that will lead to cleaner energy and lower costs. Makes you wonder why we wouldn’t do this even if it had no effect on climate change.

We would and should be doing it. Economic drivers are definitely what is leading to the green energy revolution, the fear mongering is just politics.

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

There definitely are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money from the coming change in our energy model. Texas apparently has one of the largest wind energy capacities right now. There are many more green energy jobs than coal, and coal is now more expensive. Oil will soon be too. Many high tech companies are running green buildings and of course Seattle’s new arena might be built in a way that will allow them to save a lot on energy costs too. Car manufacturers are planning for expansion of their electric car lines. Retrofitting buildings and creating new electric car charging stations across the country is in sight. There is billions of dollars in new economic opportunity that is already getting shareholder buy in and may well be one of the key drivers leading us out of this recession into the new economy . A lot of this is happening because governments have put in place the policy levers that are incentivizing that direction of business. Incentivizing a huge economic driver that will lead to cleaner energy and lower costs. Makes you wonder why we wouldn’t do this even if it had no effect on climate change.

This sounds pretty sweet. I think there will be some pain in the transition (stuff like carbon taxes) but it should make for a sweet lifestyle once some of these technologies become better and more used in everyday life.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

FUREY: Retail sector makes up less than 0.1% of Ontario cases, new data says | Toronto Sun

 

[Stylizer1]

FUREY: Retail sector makes up less than 0.1% of Ontario cases, new data says | Toronto Sun

Fake news.

 

[Knave]

That's a misguided take. Aren't 1/3 to 1/2 of cases not traced at all? And what does "directly linked" mean? COVID-19 didn't just magically spawn in these retirement and longterm care homes. The people in these places didn't travel to China and bring it back.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

That's a misguided take. Aren't 1/3 to 1/2 of cases not traced at all? And what does "directly linked" mean? COVID-19 didn't just magically spawn in these retirement and longterm care homes. The people in these places didn't travel to China and bring it back.

Yup. There's a reason this is an opinion column and not a news story.

Equally salient, IMO, is these two paragraphs:

“I think it’s reasonable,” says Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious diseases specialist, of the CFIB’s request. “We already have grocery stores open.I think it is arbitrary to have closed small retailers.”
Rau also says it’s important the government looks carefully at its planned four-week, strict lockdown of Toronto and Peel Region at the two-week mark, which would be on Dec. 7, to determine if it’s actually been effective.

It seems strange to me that a scientist could be quoted in one breath as saying it's a good idea to re-open, then in the next to be saying that we need to examine the data before making a decision. It leads me to believe the first quote was taken out of context.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Yup. There's a reason this is an opinion column and not a news story.

Equally salient, IMO, is these two paragraphs:


It seems strange to me that a scientist could be quoted in one breath as saying it's a good idea to re-open, then in the next to be saying that we need to examine the data before making a decision. It leads me to believe the first quote was taken out of context.

Whats so strange about it?

He said its reasonable and I assume that his statement is based on the current data. The second sentence doesn't seem strange at all, re-evaluation should happen at intervals

 

[Knave]

Whats so strange about it?

He said its reasonable and I assume that his statement is based on the current data. The second sentence doesn't seem strange at all, re-evaluation should happen at intervals

He said it's a reasonable question to ask. Not a reasonable thing to do.

It's a nothing statement and interview. A "yeah we should look at the data and make adjustments" which is what is already happening.

 

[Micklebot]

FUREY: Retail sector makes up less than 0.1% of Ontario cases, new data says | Toronto Sun

The problem we have is not all settings are equally easy to tie a case to. If your looking at LTC settings, it's a pretty straight forward process to link a case to another, people are there for extended periods, you know ever person who comes in and out, testing can be done when a case is suspected and this part is me speculating but i think people in LTC whether staff or residents, are far more likely to get tested when they have mild symptoms than the average person.

On the flip side, tying your case to the trip you took to the mall is far, far more difficult. A two hour period where you likely were in the proximity of hundreds of people, most likelythe vast majority have no registration of them being there, relying on people who did test positive self reporting that they did go to the mall, potentially have to admit doing so knowing they should not have if they were symptomatic,

The reality is that while stats from contact tracing are helpful, the public health professionals understand the limitations on the data and need to take that into account when recommending policy. Then we get people who aren't experts in the field claiming the experts aren't following the science when in reality, they just have deeper understanding of all the variables and need to take into account not only what we know about transmission, but also what we know we don't know.


Edit; to put the challenge into a bit of a visual analogy, looking at cases in LTC is a bit like looking at a mountain, its big, but you can see the whole of it.

Looking at cases transmitted in public spaces is a bit more like looking at an iceberg, you see the tip poking out of the water but have no idea how much is hidden beneath the water.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

He said it's a reasonable question to ask. Not a reasonable thing to do.

It's a nothing statement and interview. A "yeah we should look at the data and make adjustments" which is what is already happening.

The adjustments have been piss poor.

An outbreak at one restaurant/gym results in a cascading affect of shutting down ALL related businesses. How does that make sense?

You close down the small shops to only funnel customers to the big box stores. What happens at that point? You get a slew of people going into one contained area. Despite the protocols in place when you have that many people in one setting there is bound to be "rule breaking" where people aren't or can't social distance.

 

[Beech]

FUREY: Retail sector makes up less than 0.1% of Ontario cases, new data says | Toronto Sun

I might as well get myself into more trouble...

if you are 65 and over, or younger than 65 but have underlining health issues. You are and have been in great fear of this. You want safety and security. You want everything shut down, bubble wrapped, sealed, etc. So that you are safe.

If you are connected to such people (and they are ~15%, possibly closer to 20%, the above 65 age group is swelling). You are slightly less afraid, but still concerned enough that you support this notion of: zero tolerance. So, add another 15% to 20%

making about 30-40% of society living in fear and want extreme measures..I am one of them.

The remaining 60-70% are less afraid and so less demanding of extreme measures.

I have posted on this before....Power in this country is in the hands of that 30-40% and so, guess which actions will be taken.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

That's a misguided take. Aren't 1/3 to 1/2 of cases not traced at all? ....

The story actually provides some specific data, for a single day last week:

'...The data breakdown for Nov. 29 reveals 81 new cases announced that day that can be directly traced back to specific locations, it also includes 726 cases simply attributed to community spread."

That is, the ratio of untraced cases to traced cases is 9:1.

Which means that their headline stat of "less than 0.1%" is tremendously flawed. The real number is certainly much much higher.

It's the equivalent of looking at the Sens scoring stats over a 9 game stretch and writing a headline like "Mark Borowiecki accounts for 34% of Sens offence!"