CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[ModlrMike]

The reason for caution is not that this virus has 2% mortality. It's that it has 2% mortality when public health measures are in place. Take a look at Mexico and Peru with 8.9% and 9.3% respectively, and ask if we would be comfortable with an additional 840000 dead Canadians. Even if we use the 2% rate, the number of expected additional deaths is 188000. Still not acceptable in my book.

37.6M (population) x .25 (unimmunized rate) x .09 (mortality) = 840000

 

[Altair]

I don't know.

If we don't know the uptake of the polio vaccine, how can we be upset with the uptake of the covid vaccine? What if it's similar? What if there is the exact same level (10 percent t completely opposed, and additional 10 percent in not great rush) of people getting vaccinated?

But, this Sunday morning, out of curiosity, I asked my mother if I ever brought a parental consent form home from school for her or Dad to sign.

She said she was never asked to sign anything.

Get in line. Don't ask questions. Do whatever the kid ahead of you in the lineup does.

Still have my vaccination scar, and remember how sweet the liquid vaccine tasted.

I don't think letting the public make a informed decision is a bad policy.

People,knowing the risks, are still amongst the highest vaccination rates on the planet, because people know that the risk is rare, the benefits are great and this is the best way out of the pandemic.

But if a person is that one in half a million or whatever the odds are for a adverse reaction or death, they assumed those risks.

But once we allow the government to decide that it decides that you will take that risk, that's far too close to what you get in the military, unlimited liability, but for the general public.

 

[FJAG]

Is there that much?

7 out of 10 have 1 dose. We should hit 75 80 percent.

How much were polio rates?

Pretty much 100%. I still recall that in our first year or so in school all of us kids were lined up quite frequently for vaccinations - polio, smallpox, some kind of three disease cocktail, mumps, measles - you name it. I don't recall parental permission slips ever being an issue. And needles were bigger then.

 

[Mick]

You don't have to do BL4 to demonstrate fear. A person wearing a mask outdoors, who steps into a driveway rather than pass me on the sidewalk, is by my standards living in fear. That is well beyond caution.

I agree - wearing a mask outdoors has never made any sense to me.

I haven't had to wear a mask indoors since July 1, other than to comply with my employer's requirements - that said, I have no problem giving people a slightly wider berth for the next little while.

People have been living with mandated restrictions for over a year, so I believe it's understandable if some people take longer to re-adjust to pre-COVID norms. I don't share in that mentality, but I don't begrudge them...it doesn't really affect me.

 

[Altair]

Pretty much 100%. I still recall that in our first year or so in school all of us kids were lined up quite frequently for vaccinations - polio, smallpox, some kind of three disease cocktail, mumps, measles - you name it. I don't recall parental permission slips ever being an issue. And needles were bigger then.

So there were no religious or any other objections?

Interesting.

 

[FJAG]

So there were no religious or any other objections?

Interesting.

To be honest I wouldn't know. In Germany we were mostly Lutherans ... so no. In Canada Protestants and Catholics were in different schools so I don't know what went on in Catholic schools but I doubt that there was a difference. On top of that we were a pretty homogenous society who didn't object to public health measures - maybe the Dukhobors but we didn't have any of those in Toronto.

I don't really see religion as the argument in these things. I see the argument as being between those who favour personal freedom to make their own choice as being the priority and those who believe that social responsibility is the priority. Most of the arguments re religion etc are a sub set of personal freedom to chose over social responsibility.

It was a lot easier in the 50s and 60s to buy into social responsibility because the message being transmitted was loudly in favour of social responsibility. There was opposition but the media distribution channels were very narrow and such objectors rarely got their message out beyond their very limited audience. Yes, there were clearly times when the health care system failed, such as the thalidomide issue of the sixties. (Thalidomide was a drug with several uses including relieving the symptoms of morning sickness but had never been properly tested on pregnant women and when used during pregnancy ended up causing many thousands of severe birth defects.) In general though wide spread vaccinations eliminated or virtually eliminated dozens of major health threats and demonstrably saved the lives of millions of people and so it was relatively easy to see the positive effects of public health measures including vaccination.

Today there is a multitude of information coming out on virtually any topic so that individuals can easily find a message that reinforces their own viewpoints. Individuals can also widely disseminate any information they chose and that includes much information which is quite frankly bull****. On top of that the "Me" generation of the 1970s, which focused on self realization/fulfilment (or self importance) over social responsibility, has spawned numerous spin off beliefs all of which have found mass acceptance in society in general. There are now clear polar opposites as to the way to move forward.

I'm an old bugger so have a lot of social responsibility hard wired into my DNA. For me, the wearing of a mask to help in stopping the spread of a potentially deadly virus and to reduce the risk of getting it myself is a very minor inconvenience and not an issue of constitutional rights. It's a question of reducing percentages of ill effects. Taking a vaccination which has a very low level of side effects but greatly reduces the effects of the virus should I be exposed to it, is also a minor inconvenience. Taking the vaccine is a balance of risks of how the virus would effect me and what the vaccine's side effects are. Under the early versions of this virus I was in a high risk category should I have caught the virus while younger people had a lesser risk so I could understand (albeit I never approved of) the position of avoiding the vaccine. Now that there are versions of the virus which can have a devastating effect on younger individuals and now that the vaccines have been in circulation amongst literally billions of individuals with very minor side effects, and are proven to reduce virus consequences, I simply can't see why any young person would decline free vaccinations or balk at wearing masks.

 

[PuckChaser]

The reason for caution is not that this virus has 2% mortality. It's that it has 2% mortality when public health measures are in place. Take a look at Mexico and Peru with 8.9% and 9.3% respectively, and ask if we would be comfortable with an additional 840000 dead Canadians. Even if we use the 2% rate, the number of expected additional deaths is 188000. Still not acceptable in my book.

37.6M (population) x .25 (unimmunized rate) x .09 (mortality) = 840000

That 2% number is high and only accounts for positive tests vs positive tests leading to a fatality. It also doesn't account for the age skew in COVID mortality which in Ontario has 59 and under as 82.1% of the cases but only 7% of the fatalities.

‘Significant underestimation’: Canada’s COVID-19 case count likely much higher than reported - National | Globalnews.ca

The estimates from researchers in the US say it could be as high as 5 times the number of positive tests actually had COVID-19, but never were tested or were asymptomatic. We cannot simultaneously believe that COVID has a 2% mortality rate and think there's massive asymptomatic spread. Even with a conservative estimate of 1 asymptomatic case undiscovered for every positive case, the mortality rate is cut in half.

There's no question COVID can kill, and kill effectively. However, the hard data shows it's a virus that preys on the elderly and the sick. We should have focused on protecting them, not vaccinating 12 year olds who had a 2 in 1 million chance of dying from COVID.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So they don't die, but instead carry it until we get another variety that has deadly consequences for the elderly and we start all over again.

Why in the friggin' world would we want to be that stupid???

 

[Altair]

So they don't die, but instead carry it until we get another variety that has deadly consequences for the elderly and we start all over again.

Why in the friggin' world would we want to be that stupid???

Let's be fair, most of the globe is unvaccinated and variants will pop up there, and spend regardless of whether we're vaccinated or not.

That said, the more people vaccinated the better.

 

[FJAG]

There's no question COVID can kill, and kill effectively. However, the hard data shows it's a virus that preys on the elderly and the sick. We should have focused on protecting them, not vaccinating 12 year olds who had a 2 in 1 million chance of dying from COVID.

But probably have close to a one hundred percent chance of spreading it throughout their schools and sports activities and families until it gets to someone who dies or has their health seriously impacted. Virtually any virus is heavily circulated amongst younger people and then migrates into the older population.

There are roughly 5 million children under 12 living in Canada, assuming your death rate estimate is accurate, that would mean ten children die. The stats in Ontario show that there were 141 hospitalization for COVID for children 13 and under of which 21 were ICU admissions. Those aren't big numbers, but every one of them is a child and if we can even cut those numbers in half or better through immunization then why not? The aim of the game is not to tough it out; its to protect as many people as possible.

 

[Brad Sallows]

if we can even cut those numbers in half or better through immunization then why not?

The "why not" is "if the sum of the utility of doing so is less". Lives are not infinitely valued.

 

[Altair]

But probably have close to a one hundred percent chance of spreading it throughout their schools and sports activities and families until it gets to someone who dies or has their health seriously impacted. Virtually any virus is heavily circulated amongst younger people and then migrates into the older population.

There are roughly 5 million children under 12 living in Canada, assuming your death rate estimate is accurate, that would mean ten children die. The stats in Ontario show that there were 141 hospitalization for COVID for children 13 and under of which 21 were ICU admissions. Those aren't big numbers, but every one of them is a child and if we can even cut those numbers in half or better through immunization then why not? The aim of the game is not to tough it out; its to protect as many people as possible.

It's not approved for kids under 12, that's why not.

Unless you're talking about those over 12, in which case sure.

 

[FJAG]

It's not approved for kids under 12, that's why not.

Unless you're talking about those over 12, in which case sure.

Absolutely, but the discussion here goes further than that and was focusing on not vaccinating them even once its approved because of low mortality rates.

 

[Altair]

Absolutely, but the discussion here goes further than that and was focusing on not vaccinating them even once its approved because of low mortality rates.

I only saw where you quoted PuckChaser where he said 12 year olds. I supposes I didn't see a over 12 or under 12 but your post definitely said under 12.

As for the need, well, I just view it as a case of diminishing returns. The under 12s are not dying from it in any great numbers and are not very sick with it in any great numbers. If that age cohort is vaccinated, and the odd kid has a adverse reaction that's a kid that would likely have gotten covid and dealt with it just fine, so that's another case where I think it's left to parents to know the risks.

I suppose I'm one for individual liberty, including what one chooses to put into their body, or the body of their children. If approved for under 12s, leave it up to the parents to decide what is best for their children.

 

[Altair]

I'm not anti vax by any means, but I do know that there are the odd case of reactions and the government and pharmaceutical companies have a playbook they follow when these occur.

1)Deny. They deny it had anything to do with a vaccine and say that vaccines are near perfectly safe.

2)Blame anyone or anything else.

3)Take decades to admit any wrongdoing and pay out those affected.

So the calculated risk here is that everyone needs to pray they aren't winning the shitty genetic lottery that says that they are the 1 in a million long shot of having a adverse reaction to any vaccine. Because if they do end up with a reaction that has serious side effects, you just know they are on their own for the next 20-30 years.

Alberta woman dies of complications after receiving AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine | Globalnews.ca

Family confirmed to Global News that the woman who died was 52-year-old Lisa Stonehouse.

globalnews.ca

 

[FJAG]

I only saw where you quoted PuckChaser where he said 12 year olds. I supposes I didn't see a over 12 or under 12 but your post definitely said under 12.

You're right. He said 12-year olds and I interpreted that as 12 and under.

 

[PuckChaser]

So they don't die, but instead carry it until we get another variety that has deadly consequences for the elderly and we start all over again.

Why in the friggin' world would we want to be that stupid???

Oh you've fallen into the COVID vaccine logic fallacy. This is a vaccine that doesn't stop you from carrying it and giving COVID to other people. It only reduces your own risk for serious illness or symptomatic illness. If there's no change to risk of contraction with the vaccine, why did we allow anyone under 60 to get vaccinated before the 60+ cohort was fully covered? We ended up with 80% of the CAF fully vaccinated in a low risk age group before the elderly were getting 2nd shots (remember the 12 week gap debacle).

You're right. He said 12-year olds and I interpreted that as 12 and under.

I meant 12-18 year old group that's currently authorized for vaccination, should have been more clear.

I'm super excited we're on week 80 of 2 weeks to flatten the curve, especially since the curve has been flattened, Ottawa hospitals have no COVID patients, COVID units are being shut down in the GTA but we're still clinging to mask wearing and restrictions despite booming vaccination rates at levels proven in other societies (UK, Israel) to be safe for return to full normal. You only need to look at the UK's example where vaccination delinked hospitalization/mortality from rising case numbers, but Canadian media still is pounding on the case count drum every day. We're never going to stop COVID from killing someone, it's endemic and here to stay. Time to start acting like it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

We're never going to stop COVID from killing someone, it's endemic and here to stay. Time to start acting like it.

So by acting like decent human beings and continuing different stages of lockdowns, masking, etc?? Glad you agree....

 

[Altair]

So by acting like decent human beings and continuing different stages of lockdowns, masking, etc?? Glad you agree....

That's a sad way to live out the rest of our lives if it is endemic.

Eventually the public appetite for this will wane, especially as other jurisdictions live in a fully opened society like Alberta or all of the USA.

I for one will move to a non mask, no restriction jurisdiction if things continued in the way you described in perpetuity

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm just having fun with him....I laugh at those who think the last 18 months have made life a living hell, heavens forbid a real hardship should befall them.