Coronavirus Numbers

[RippleRock]

I never once mentioned the "worst case scenario", I only quoted the "best case", and we are still at only a fraction of that. This means there was either a gross over-estimation, or they lied.

Given that, the need to address or even acknowledge the possibility of (even past) "extreme scenarios" becomes redundant to the point of being silly.

They should have focused immediate attention on the most vulnerable, meaning the elderly and weak living in close proximity. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where they are. Any elderly individual with an underlying condition should have been immediately isolated. The mortality rate due to "Covid-19 complications" would have plummeted. The Government patently "failed" to protect them from the outset.

No one should have been able to even approach long-term care facilities without gloves and mask.

IMO.

For what its worth, if the Government wanted to be really honest, they would be only reporting mortality numbers due exclusively to the virus, such as "patient X died of chronic heart disease, complicated by Covid-19". Instead the virus is given all the credit as it suits the "fear" agenda.

I seriously doubt that that Hollywood stars leg was amputated exclusively due to Covid-19. The Media is reporting it that way.

[Rockie]

I never once mentioned the "worst case scenario", I only quoted the "best case", and we are still at only a fraction of that. This means there was either a gross over-estimation, or they lied.

Given that, the need to address or even acknowledge the possibility of (even past) "extreme scenarios" becomes redundant to the point of being silly.

They should have focused immediate attention on the most vulnerable, meaning the elderly and weak living in close proximity. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where they are. Any elderly individual with an underlying condition should have been immediately isolated. The mortality rate due to "Covid-19 complications" would have plummeted. The Government patently "failed" to protect them from the outset.

No one should have been able to even approach long-term care facilities without gloves and mask.

IMO.

Exactly, “in your opinion” which risks nothing and is consequence free when you get it wrong. It’s also after the fact making it armchair quarterbacking. Our governments at all levels weren’t the best and not by far the worst. I’m not only happy, but proud of how all levels of government and the Canadian people are dealing with this.

[digits_]

I never once mentioned the "worst case scenario", I only quoted the "best case", and we are still at only a fraction of that. This means there was either a gross over-estimation, or they lied.

Given that, the need to address or even acknowledge the possibility of (even past) "extreme scenarios" becomes redundant to the point of being silly.

They should have focused immediate attention on the most vulnerable, meaning the elderly and weak living in close proximity. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where they are. Any elderly individual with an underlying condition should have been immediately isolated. The mortality rate due to "Covid-19 complications" would have plummeted. The Government patently "failed" to protect them from the outset.

No one should have been able to even approach long-term care facilities without gloves and mask.

IMO.

Exactly, “in your opinion” which risks nothing and is consequence free when you get it wrong. It’s also after the fact making it armchair quarterbacking. Our governments at all levels weren’t the best and not by far the worst. I’m not only happy, but proud of how all levels of government and the Canadian people are dealing with this.

Agreed!

The prairies could probably have gotten away with a more Swedish approach, but for Ontario, Quebec and BC, it's probably a good thing they did what they did. I don't often sympathise with politicians, but for these decisions ("wreck the economy" vs "wreck the healthcare system"), I think they handled it properly. Not perfect, but definitely a pass in my book.

But it isn't over yet...

[mixturerich]

All this tiresome talk about media fear-mongering, yet it’s the government doctors calling the shots or at least making recommendations to the feds.

Are some people implying that the doctors decisions are being influenced by the media? It’s such a dumb argument. Most people aren’t really that scared, they’re just following precautionary steps as instructed.

[digits_]

All this tiresome talk about media fear-mongering, yet it’s the government doctors calling the shots or at least making recommendations to the feds.

Are some people implying that the doctors decisions are being influenced by the media? It’s such a dumb argument. Most people aren’t really that scared, they’re just following precautionary steps as instructed.

Well the media exaggerate to sell more papers or get more views. The people read and see what the media are telling. Even when you know they are dramatizing a bit, if you hear it every day, chances are it starts to influence you. Then you have the government doctors being paid by the government. These doctors might interpret the media dramatization as "the will of the people". The government is afraid to piss off voters, so they have a hard time rejecting any recommendations made by the doctors. It's not that farfetched to expect that the media are influencing the final decisions made.

An aviation analogy could be Transport Canada blindly implementing every single TSB recommendation.

[BTD]

The prairies could probably have gotten away with a more Swedish approach, but for Ontario, Quebec and BC, it's probably a good thing they did what they did. I don't often sympathise with politicians, but for these decisions ("wreck the economy" vs "wreck the healthcare system"), I think they handled it properly. Not perfect, but definitely a pass in my book.

But it isn't over yet...

It’s sad that people don’t realize the false dichotomy of “wreck the economy vs wreck the healthcare”. The Coronavirus would have destroyed the economy without the shutdowns. No doubt shutting down makes it some what worse and a faster impact, but we can’t compare today’s economy with January’s. We need to compare it to what it would have been had we done nothing. Not a simple task as we have only one example to go by.

[doiwannabeapilot]

re: Taiwan
"Looks like the Taiwanese hired experts who knew what they were doing and haven’t had to change their minds."

Is there something I missed in the news?
As far as I know, they are still doing one of the best jobs in the world.

425 cases, 6 deaths, as of April 20.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... -1.4229660

Medical and public health experts change their guidance based on increased knowledge, experience and changing circumstances. Unlike the know-nothing blowhards who pull advice out of their ass which is the only alternative.

When I need medical advice I go see my doctor, not the guy down the street who treats furniture for stain protection.

When I bought new furniture last year I called furniture guy down the street, not my doctor.

When the furniture guy and my doctor go somewhere I'm sure both of them prefer I was up front than either one of them. And if I change plans partway through based on changing conditions furniture guy doesn't yank me out of the chair so the doctor can fly or vice versa.

All three of us seem to know our limitations and who the expert really is.

Looks like the Taiwanese hired experts who knew what they were doing and haven’t had to change their minds.

I guess the medical experts are like pilots, some of them crash and burn. If you are lucky, they don’t take the economy with them.

I applaud the Alberta government for listening to the experts in Europe and US when it comes to testing.

[CaptainKirk]

I think the public won’t put up staying home for much longer. It goes against your civil rights to tell you how many people can gather within your own home.
The prolonged affect of isolation will cause more damage than being infected. We live on an economic planet.
The economy needs to keep moving forward to prevent more severe consequences.

Captain Kirk

[SAExpress]

Even if you stick to the actual numbers showing up in hospitals, we are at only a fraction of the "best case" scenario projected overall.

Who would have thunk that the elderly in "close proximity long term care facilities" would produce the largest mortality numbers, and the most overall cases as a percentage of sub-groups?

Unreal. My 6 year old could have foreseen this before the Trudeau Government did. They are good at "reacting", that's about it.

Is anyone truly surprised?

WTF does Trudeau have to do with your argument? Scheer, Singh and all the other leaders have mostly been in support of how the Liberals have handled this. And that’s something that never happens in politics. I didn’t vote for Trudeau (also not for Scheer) but I would argue that the Liberals (and the other parties in support) have done a decent job of handling this. This is uncharted territory for everyone, including the government. Everyone is learning as they go.

One of the reasons the conservatives lost the last two elections is the Trudeau-hate gets so out of control that it’s hard to take you guys seriously. Somehow absolutely everything becomes his fault.

Maybe the reason that we are only at a fraction of the scary numbers is because this issue has been handled relatively well in our country. We don’t need to look any further than our neighbours to the south to see what happens when you don’t have real leadership.

Sure the media dramatizes everything. So do politicians. I’m happy to let the doctors take the lead on this one. Pretty sure they know more than your 6 year old

[hamstandard]

I never once mentioned the "worst case scenario", I only quoted the "best case", and we are still at only a fraction of that. This means there was either a gross over-estimation, or they lied.

Given that, the need to address or even acknowledge the possibility of (even past) "extreme scenarios" becomes redundant to the point of being silly.

They should have focused immediate attention on the most vulnerable, meaning the elderly and weak living in close proximity. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where they are. Any elderly individual with an underlying condition should have been immediately isolated. The mortality rate due to "Covid-19 complications" would have plummeted. The Government patently "failed" to protect them from the outset.

No one should have been able to even approach long-term care facilities without gloves and mask.

IMO.

Exactly, “in your opinion” which risks nothing and is consequence free when you get it wrong. It’s also after the fact making it armchair quarterbacking. Our governments at all levels weren’t the best and not by far the worst. I’m not only happy, but proud of how all levels of government and the Canadian people are dealing with this.

For those out there who keep us on the path to economic destruction by continuing lockdowns, here is what your ideology is bringing about:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/co ... spartandhp

As someone said, "The cure is worse than the disease".

[Rockie]

Common sense, basic memory and this article it make it explicitly clear world hunger predates the pandemic. The prime concerns right now are money and keeping the supply chains open.

Keeping supply chains open during this pandemic is a preoccupation for governments everywhere and they are for the most part succeeding. My grocery store isn’t short of anything but flour and yeast. Keeping supply chains open in the developing world while more challenging for many reasons having nothing to do with the pandemic, is not impossible during the pandemic and with the health measures in place. As far as money goes that is a question more of priorities than availability which has always been and always will be the case. Pandemic or not.

[schnitzel2k3]

Common sense, basic memory and this article it make it explicitly clear world hunger predates the pandemic. The prime concerns right now are money and keeping the supply chains open.

Keeping supply chains open during this pandemic is a preoccupation for governments everywhere and they are for the most part succeeding. My grocery store isn’t short of anything but flour and yeast. Keeping supply chains open in the developing world while more challenging for many reasons having nothing to do with the pandemic, is not impossible during the pandemic and with the health measures in place. As far as money goes that is a question more of priorities than availability which has always been and always will be the case. Pandemic or not.

Everyone's baking fancy breads - thanks social media

[RippleRock]

Even if you stick to the actual numbers showing up in hospitals, we are at only a fraction of the "best case" scenario projected overall.

Who would have thunk that the elderly in "close proximity long term care facilities" would produce the largest mortality numbers, and the most overall cases as a percentage of sub-groups?

Unreal. My 6 year old could have foreseen this before the Trudeau Government did. They are good at "reacting", that's about it.

Is anyone truly surprised?

WTF does Trudeau have to do with your argument? Scheer, Singh and all the other leaders have mostly been in support of how the Liberals have handled this. And that’s something that never happens in politics. I didn’t vote for Trudeau (also not for Scheer) but I would argue that the Liberals (and the other parties in support) have done a decent job of handling this. This is uncharted territory for everyone, including the government. Everyone is learning as they go.

One of the reasons the conservatives lost the last two elections is the Trudeau-hate gets so out of control that it’s hard to take you guys seriously. Somehow absolutely everything becomes his fault.

Maybe the reason that we are only at a fraction of the scary numbers is because this issue has been handled relatively well in our country. We don’t need to look any further than our neighbours to the south to see what happens when you don’t have real leadership.

Sure the media dramatizes everything. So do politicians. I’m happy to let the doctors take the lead on this one. Pretty sure they know more than your 6 year old

When we are seeing numbers that are a --fraction-- of the "best case scenario", that means the approach was too overbearing. Justin led that approach = he is responsible. We will take --years-- to build up "herd immunity" at this rate, since a vaccine is still the better part of a year off.

Unless you haven't noticed the Economy is a very fragile entity. Shutting down "everything non-essential" is an over-reach. This cost jobs, and puts us further into negative territory. We are falling FAST down the wrong side of a slippery slope. It's Justin's responsibility to --at minimum-- slow that slide. He should be working very hard to identify and open as many "low risk" businesses and manufacturing facilities that he possibly can, as fast as he can.

The numbers show that the elderly and infirm are --by far-- the highest risk demographic. There should have been an --immediate concentrated effort-- to isolate them from the virus. They constitute 95% of the fatalities, and over 80% of the serious cases. He patently failed in this regard.

Businesses and manufacturing facilities that --don't have-- the "at risk demographic", or patronage, should be --open for business-- with safety procedures in place.

JT is the Prime Minister, meaning he holds the reigns. He has everything to do with it.

[TheStig]

As someone said, "The cure is worse than the disease".

ALL CAPS. The POTUS tweeted on March 22nd.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!
323K
11:50 PM - Mar 22, 2020

[Rockie]

He should be working very hard to identify and open as many "low risk" businesses and manufacturing facilities that he possibly can, as fast as he can.

Don't worry RippleRock, I'm sure that very topic keeps him awake at night since he has no desire to see the world end either. Don't take the fact he doesn't consult you on it as evidence he's not doing exactly as you suggest, even if he didn't it's probable somebody in his office thought of this before you did.

[BTD]

When we are seeing numbers that are a --fraction-- of the "best case scenario", that means the approach was too overbearing.

Wtf?

Best case scenario is not a target like that. If you do miss it on the good side by doing what is recommended, that is a good thing not bad. The models were built on incomplete data and assumptions. That is part of the reason they are given a range. They are not a decree that this is what will happen if x y z is done.

With that argument you would be happier if we had all these restrictions in place, but more people were dying.

I do think an argument could be made that the approach was too overbearing. But the above barely even registers as an argument.

[altiplano]

When we are seeing numbers that are a --fraction-- of the "best case scenario", that means the approach was too overbearing.

Wtf?

Best case scenario is not a target like that. If you do miss it on the good side by doing what is recommended, that is a good thing not bad. The models were built on incomplete data and assumptions. That is part of the reason they are given a range. They are not a decree that this is what will happen if x y z is done.

With that argument you would be happier if we had all these restrictions in place, but more people were dying.

I do think an argument could be made that the approach was too overbearing. But the above barely even registers as an argument.

I don't think an argument needs to be made. The projection v. reality speaks for itself.

It's clear that the expert forecast was way off and that projection was what drove policy. We are well under the deaths and cases that were projected. Those big numbers were designed to scare people and justify the overbearing response.

Even with all the good news on the trajectory of this situation, the politicians won't even put forth a plan for what the recovery will look like, let alone tell their bylaw/enforcement minions to back off of their power trips.

I saw my neighbours get reported a couple days ago... Bylaw and fire showed up to put out their BBQ with what appeared to be 5 or 6 30-something adults. Enough is enough.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, where they simply informed their population and ASKED for best practices from their citizens and refused to legislate authoritarian measures against personal rights, or completely close the economy, businesses, schools, they have flattened the curve, not overwhelmed their health care, and are in a better position to rebound off this than the rest of Europe.

[2R]

The lack of infections in the leadership of the source country is suspicious , maybe they already have been vaccinated

[RippleRock]

He should be working very hard to identify and open as many "low risk" businesses and manufacturing facilities that he possibly can, as fast as he can.

Don't worry RippleRock, I'm sure that very topic keeps him awake at night since he has no desire to see the world end either. Don't take the fact he doesn't consult you on it as evidence he's not doing exactly as you suggest, even if he didn't it's probable somebody in his office thought of this before you did.

I know who you are.

Some of us aren't retired. You're likely feeling little inconvenience other than passing on a golf game or two.

I and my contemporaries will be paying for this long after you're gone.

[TG]

Connection issues. Triple post!