COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[piratemonkey]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

I suggest looking up your country's plan, I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Canada it's going to be the elderly and caretakers/health professionals first, then there's going to be a general population vaccination drive.

 

Not sure why we would need to retest everyone for the vaccine?

Do you know the time frame at all? Is health Canada (I think that's the agency) saying when they're going to meet to approve a vaccine

[WkdPaul]

9 minutes ago, piratemonkey said:

Do you know the time frame at all? Is health Canada (I think that's the agency) saying when they're going to meet to approve a vaccine

They already have orders for the current vaccines announced, but Canada didn't pay the "premium" fee to be first in line, so the government is saying we're not going to get it quick and be the firsts, they say we will see general population vaccines around next summer / fall.

 

 

EDIT

 

Source ;

https://ca.reuters.com/article/idCAKBN28726Z

Edited December 2, 2020 by wkdpaul

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

They already have orders for the current vaccines announced, but Canada didn't pay the "premium" fee to be first in line, so the government is saying we're not going to get it quick and be the firsts, they say we will see general population vaccines around next summer / fall.

 

 

EDIT

 

Source ;

https://ca.reuters.com/article/idCAKBN28726Z

To be clear, government officials and vaccine manufacturers (I believe it was Moderna, specifically), are saying that Canada will be getting a batch of vaccines within the initial manufacturing run.

 

This whole "we're not first in line" thing is very misleading at best. Canada will be among the first countries to get their hands on a vaccine. We won't be #1 - but we'll likely be like... #5.

 

Out of what... 200 countries? I can live with that.

 

Also, the whole summer/fall thing - that's in line with places like the US too. I believe we will be getting about 6 million doses of Moderna's initial batch. Given that you need 2 doses, that means that in December or maybe early January, we'll be able to vaccinate about 3 million Canadians. 3 million out of 38 million is around 8% of the population. Vaccinating 8% of the population within the first batch of deliveries is damn good if you ask me.

 

So assuming the big 3 all get approved by end of December, we could be seeing a significant portion of Canada getting vaccinated in Winter 2021 (Jan-March).

 

What that article is saying is that by September, most Canadians will have gotten (or will have access to) the vaccine.

 

The issue isn't about "premium fees". It's about the fact that US and UK and Germany and other countries have mass wide scale vaccine manufacturing facilities. Canada does not (We do have a few facilities, but none currently can handle the mRNA vaccine manufacturing without upgrades - and upgrades take time). So, it's logical that a local manufacturing of a vaccine will give more precedence to the country it's manufactured in.

 

Canada is working on massively expanding a vaccine manufacturing facility that could eventually produce mRNA vaccines, but that kind of expansion and construction takes time.

[WkdPaul]

14 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

*snip*

yeah, I left out lots of details.

 

And honestly, the "we're not going to be the first in line" argument might just be political BS at this point? I don't know, I've been very busy recently and mostly skimmed the news and didn't go to much in depth.

 

My point is, it's a lot more complex than what I (or the news headlines) are mentioning. I'm aware of that and my intention wasn't to lie by omission, I just didn't have time to go much in depth.

 

We're getting vaccines in early Jan (from what the gov said a few times already), but as you mentioned, it'll be only enough for some of the frontline workers.

 

I personally just hope doctors, nurses and orderly around the country are going to get vaccinated fast.

[Blade of Grass]

2 hours ago, Lii said:

dunno it depends on the vaccine, some can be safely used on the infected, some others cannot

also if you don't take precautions you could potentially agevolate the shedding of it

 

by consequences, if you don't know who is infected and who's not, you cannot just vaccinate everyone without precautions

 

unless they don't have in mind to just vaccinate everyone, and who cares about some complications, just like most of the states did (and are) act

At least for the mRNA vaccine(s), it should be safe to give to people who are currently or were previously infected--atleast judging from how the biology of the vaccine works.

 

A basic description for how it works is: the vaccine contains nanoparticles with mRNA inside, cells absorb the particle, the cell's ribosome transcribes the mRNA to create the spike protein for COVID-19, the cell displays the spike protein on itself, and then the immune system learns to recognize the spike protein. 

 

Image Source: Duke University

 

The mRNA vaccine is skipping that initial DNA -> mRNA transcription step that naturally happens in the cell (since you don't have COVID-19 in your DNA), and then trains your immune system to recognize/react to the COVID-19 spike. 

 

If the person is already quite sick then they probably shouldn't give it to them (but I doubt they would).

19 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

yeah, I left out lots of details.

 

And honestly, the "we're not going to be the first in line" argument might just be political BS at this point? I don't know, I've been very busy recently and mostly skimmed the news and didn't go to much in depth.

 

My point is, it's a lot more complex than what I (or the news headlines) are mentioning. I'm aware of that and my intention wasn't to lie by omission, I just didn't have time to go much in depth.

 

We're getting vaccines in early Jan (from what the gov said a few times already), but as you mentioned, it'll be only enough for some of the frontline workers.

 

I personally just hope doctors, nurses and orderly around the country are going to get vaccinated fast.

Roll out likely won't be wide scale anywhere until atleast end of Q1/Q2, even for the "front of the list" countries. I wouldn't worry too much about it tbh. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Blade of Grass
Clarified some details

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

yeah, I left out lots of details.

 

And honestly, the "we're not going to be the first in line" argument might just be political BS at this point? I don't know, I've been very busy recently and mostly skimmed the news and didn't go to much in depth.

 

My point is, it's a lot more complex than what I (or the news headlines) are mentioning. I'm aware of that and my intention wasn't to lie by omission, I just didn't have time to go much in depth.

No worries, I wasn't implying that you were intentionally lying by omission - but I figured I would nip that in the bud before it got out of control with misinformation.

Quote

We're getting vaccines in early Jan (from what the gov said a few times already), but as you mentioned, it'll be only enough for some of the frontline workers.

It's a good start though. A very good start.

Quote

I personally just hope doctors, nurses and orderly around the country are going to get vaccinated fast.

That's up to each Province - the feds are currently trying to organize with the Premieres on how each province will distribute the vaccine and determine priority. At this point it's pretty much guaranteed that frontline healthcare workers will be among the first priority.

[Rocketdog2112]

On 12/1/2020 at 12:28 PM, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

The actor for Darth Vader in the original Star Wars Trilogy is the latest big name lost to Covid-19.

Source: https://vancouversun.com/entertainment/movies/darth-vader-actor-david-prowse-died-of-covid-19/wcm/2683288c-5db1-4560-bb06-8aaa6ca338b5?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR048pIr1YGHQBikCjf9MfWevuTNQRsMT2S2ocv2S-wbB8xjBPZSbyNDics#Echobox=1606760471

 

 

 

So says his daughter. The linked article stops short of stating he was hospitalised due to Covid. Every other news source reports he died after a " short unspecified illness" which could be anything. He was not a healthy man... "In October 2016, Prowse announced his retirement from all public appearances and events, later attributing the decision to ill health and the wishes of his family."

[WkdPaul]

5 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

So says his daughter. Every other news source reports he died after a "short illness" which could be anything.

She said complication due to COVID, are you implying she's liying?

[Rocketdog2112]

21 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

She said complication due to COVID, are you implying she's liying?

Why is she the only credible source? The linked article never states he was admitted because of Covid. Stating death by Covid is too easily associated and thrown about these days. I'll wait for the medical examiners report before I accept her statement.  "In October 2016, Prowse announced his retirement from all public appearances and events, later attributing the decision to ill health and the wishes of his family." The man was diagnosed and suffering from Alzheimer's.

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Why is she the only credible source? Stating death by Covid is too easily associated and thrown about these days. I'll wait for the medical examiners report before I accept her statement.  "In October 2016, Prowse announced his retirement from all public appearances and events, later attributing the decision to ill health and the wishes of his family."

Do medical professionals regularly publish a death examination report in the public?

 

Either way, there is no reason for her to lie.

 

Aside from that, there doesn't seem much credibility to the idea that doctors are marking deaths as COVID related when they aren't. Outside of the US (because most countries don't have primarily profit driven healthcare) there would be little to no benefit of doing so.

[Rocketdog2112]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do medical professionals regularly publish a death examination report in the public?

 

 

Not so much publish a complete medical record, but taken that he was a high profile individual, and doctors could and would use a Covid related death of a public figure to heighten attention to to the Covid pandemic, I would expect a statement from a public health official stating cause of death before a family member.

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Not so much publish a complete medical record, but taken that he was a high profile individual, and doctors could and would use a Covid related death of a public figure to heighten attention to to the Covid pandemic, I would expect a statement from a public health official stating cause of death before a family member.

Except, when death is due to sickness, it's always the family or the person's agent that publicly announce the death and it's cause.

 

Not sure what's going on here.

[Rocketdog2112]

2 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Except, when death is due to sickness, it's always the family or the person's agent that publicly announce the death and it's cause.

 

Not sure what's going on here.

I just find it odd that the man was practically a recluse and contracted covid?

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

I just find it odd that the man was practically a recluse and contracted covid?

And? His underlying health conditions made him extremely vulnerable to COVID. Likely it was one of his carers or a family member that infected him.

 

Same way that Long term care facilities have been hit hardest, even though most of those folks never leave the facility or even their rooms for long stretches.

 

It just seems like you're trying to attribute some conspiracy like ulterior motive to his death or the fact that his family were the ones that said he died from COVID. There's nothing unusual about that - we've seen plenty of instances where a celebrity or otherwise well known figure died from COVID and it was the family who informed the media - I can't think of a single instance in which public health officials announced a COVID death like that.

[Rocketdog2112]

16 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

Aside from that, there doesn't seem much credibility to the idea that doctors are marking deaths as COVID related when they aren't.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics/florida-covid-19-fatalities-data-included-man-who-died-in-motorcycle-accident.html

[WkdPaul]

3 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics/florida-covid-19-fatalities-data-included-man-who-died-in-motorcycle-accident.html

He tested positive for COVID and died, so it seems like it was a clerical mistake (human errors do happen), but they confirmed he was removed from the COVID death count, as per this article clarifies.

 

So again, not sure where you're going with this?

[dalekphalm]

38 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics/florida-covid-19-fatalities-data-included-man-who-died-in-motorcycle-accident.html

As stated, this was a clerical mistake that was corrected. Sometimes that happens. That doesn't make it a grand conspiracy.

 

Also the "Marking deaths as COVID so hospitals can make more money" thing - which I've also seen parroted - is 100% an American Healthcare problem. Most countries don't have a for-profit driven healthcare system (even if they do offer some private healthcare options).

 

Hospitals in Canada, for example, don't "make more money" just by marking a death as COVID related.

[Rocketdog2112]

41 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

He tested positive for COVID and died, so it seems like it was a clerical mistake (human errors do happen), but they confirmed he was removed from the COVID death count, as per this article clarifies.

 

So again, not sure where you're going with this?

You have just twisted the facts. Where does the article state the motorcycle rider tested positive for Covid? The problem lies in the statement  quoted in the article... "The Florida Department of Health said COVID-19 can be listed as the immediate or underlying cause of death...". Yes, the actual cause of death was finally modified, but only after a huge uproar and the hospital being called out on the policies. Where am I going with this you ask? Covid as bad as it may be has been blown so out of proportion to the point of numbers of infections and such being falsely stated to ramp up public fear. Just yesterday it was reported that 100,000 people in the U.S. are hospitalised due to covid. Sounds horrible and scary doesn't it? Now lets break that down... There are 7,247 hospitals in the U.S. as of 2020.  That works out to less than 14 persons under care for covid per hospital. But the media won't break that down like that because 100,000 sounds more scarier than 14. 

Lets look at the total deaths in the U.S. "associated" to covid as of this morning... 269,763.

Current population of the United States as of this morning? 330,660,226.

The current death rate due to covid currently works out to less than 0.08% of the U.S. population.

But a reported 0.08% doesn't sound as scary or make headlines like 269,763 deaths screaming out your tv speakers.

People are sheep and have no problem hearing the scary big numbers without putting them into perspective and media knows this.

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

You have just twisted the facts. Where does the article state the motorcycle rider tested positive for Covid?

There are multiple articles about this, you're taking only one source that has barely any details ... so I'm twisting facts by looking at multiple source ?

 

right ...

 

Quote

The problem lies in the statement  quoted in the article... "The Florida Department of Health said COVID-19 can be listed as the immediate or underlying cause of death...". Yes, the actual cause of death was finally modified, but only after a huge uproar and the hospital being called out on the policies. Where am I going with this you ask? Covid as bad as it may be has been blown so out of proportion to the point of numbers of infections and such being falsely stated to ramp up public fear. Just yesterday it was reported that 100,000 people in the U.S. are hospitalised due to covid. Sounds horrible and scary doesn't it? Now lets break that down... There are 7,247 hospitals in the U.S. as of 2020.  That works out to less than 14 persons under care for covid per hospital. But the media won't break that down like that because 100,000 sounds more scarier than 14. 

Lets look at the total deaths in the U.S. "associated" to covid as of this morning... 269,763.

Current population of the United States as of this morning? 330,660,226.

The current death rate due to covid currently works out to less than 0.08% of the U.S. population.

But a reported 0.08% doesn't sound as scary or make headlines like 269,763 deaths screaming out your tv speakers.

People are sheep and have no problem hearing the scary big numbers without putting them into perspective and media knows this.

Now, how's twisting facts? Jesus ...

 

Death rate isn't calculated by the total of the population, but by the total infected. That's how death rate for any illness is calculate ; if you get it, what are the chances of you dying.

 

If you go by total death vs the whole population, then a LOT of other illness (contagious or not) fall into the fractions of a percent also.

 

 

Also, dividing the amount of people in ICUs by the total amount of hospital is disingenuous at best. Population density plays a role in that, some hospitals will be over capacity, while others won't see any COVID patient.

 

If you're not willing to discuss this in good faith, then there's no need to reply...

[Rocketdog2112]

15 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

There are multiple articles about this, you're taking only one source that has barely any details ... so I'm twisting facts by looking at multiple source ?

 

right ...

 

Now, how's twisting facts? Jesus ...

 

Death rate isn't calculated by the total of the population, but by the total infected. That's how death rate for any illness is calculate ; if you get it, what are the chances of you dying.

 

If you go by total death vs the whole population, then a LOT of other illness (contagious or not) fall into the fractions of a percent also.

 

 

Also, dividing the amount of people in ICUs by the total amount of hospital is disingenuous at best. Population density plays a role in that, some hospitals will be over capacity, while others won't see any COVID patient.

 

If you're not willing to discuss this in good faith, then there's no need to reply...

It's being discussed in good faith. You just won't accept the facts when the numbers are broken down, simplified and don't look so scary anymore.

[WkdPaul]

2 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

It's being discussed in good faith. You just won't accept the facts when the numbers are broken down, simplified and don't look so scary anymore.

Except you're not breaking down the numbers, you're twisting them and making things up. There's a difference.

[Sarra]

So, it's literally possible to die in a car wreck, and have it be actually caused by COVID.

 

I watched a video that a Towing and Recovery specialist put up on Youtube of him recovering a pickup truck that was totaled, and the wreck happened because the driver passed out while driving, due to a coughing fit caused by COVID. The driver survived, in this case, but if he died, the main cause of death would have been 'blunt force trauma', but the root cause would have been COVID.

 

Nobody on the planet at this point should ever assume that anything is just 'cut and dry' anymore, because it's not.

[Rocketdog2112]

Just now, wkdpaul said:

Except you're not breaking down the numbers, you're twisting them and making things up. There's a difference.

How am I twisting them? I take the population number, than the number of covid-19 related deaths reported by the CDC and come up with a percentage. How is that twisting the facts? You just don't want to accept them because it removed the scare tactic.

[WkdPaul]

1 minute ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

How am I twisting them? I take the population number, than the number of covid-19 related deaths reported by the CDC and come up with a percentage. How is that twisting the facts? You just don't want to accept them because it removed the scare tactic.

thanks for the laughs.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

How am I twisting them? I take the population number, than the number of covid-19 related deaths reported by the CDC and come up with a percentage. How is that twisting the facts? You just don't want to accept them because it removed the scare tactic.

Partly because that stat is only meaningful when compared with other comparable stats.

 

For example: in 2018, 655,381 people died of heart disease.

 

Population of the US in 2018: 327.2 million.

 

Therefore 0.2% of people in the US died from heart disease.

 

However, that doesn't tell us, for example, how deadly heart disease is (if you develop it, what are your chances of survival). It also doesn't give us any comparison against other issues.

 

FYI before you say "LOOK! COVID IS LESS DANGEROUS THAN HEART DISEASE!", Heart disease is literally the number one cause of death in the US, so yeah.