All Things COVID-19

[SpringVelocity]

It's not calling them out, it's prioritizing them first as they are significantly more at risk. Not just a little bit more at risk. Not sure what you're missing.

In other news the all powerful government is busy doing what they do best:

COVID-19: Leaked reports show B.C. health authorities withholding data from the public

B.C. doesn’t make anywhere near the same level of detail available to the public as other provinces

theprovince.com

Everyone still trust them?

What are they hiding, I'm confused

Seriously now conspiracy theories.

 

[Dragos]

Seriously now conspiracy theories.

I’ve read the article posted and for the life of me I can’t see where the conspiracy theory is ! It is an article from a reputable source ( the Province) reporting some activities exercised by our provincial government.

 

[Gong Show]

Some of the decisions are being made for medical reasons, others for political reasons. I think it is clear where this one comes from.

The lack of transparency, especially with taxpayer funded data, the government displays and it's decision as to what the public can handle, is infuriating.

 

[Ringo]

It's not calling them out, it's prioritizing them first as they are significantly more at risk. Not just a little bit more at risk. Not sure what you're missing.

In other news the all powerful government is busy doing what they do best:

COVID-19: Leaked reports show B.C. health authorities withholding data from the public

B.C. doesn’t make anywhere near the same level of detail available to the public as other provinces

theprovince.com

Everyone still trust them?

What are they hiding, I'm confused

I do trust the PHO because the alternative is damn scary. I also know where I should keep the science and politics separate in my judgement. Those who don’t know di*k about science, can’t read or understand a simple news article and use the Internet to spread misguiding information are not going to gain my trust.

 

[sly_karma]

We are, just like we are also being forced to live around drug dealers and b&e artists and gang members and other threats to your life and well being, and if everyone had a lot fewer rights and freedoms, we could get rid of those people, and those threats would be gone.

Freedom isn't cheap. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from safety. I still want it and I still encourage everyone to fight for every ounce of it they can get, despite its costs.

I would also be inclined to say that doing what you're told only helps, if the people you're listening to are right about what's best. Hopefully that's now the case but we don't yet really know that it is, and they've already been intentionally wrong in this pandemic, so my level of trust is not especially high.

I would hate to have to say to anyone "I'm sorry some anti-vaxxer got you sick and you're dying from covid" but I think it would be at least as bad to say "I'm sorry we made it a law to get a vaccine that caused some people to develop massive autoimmune disorders ten years down the road, and you're one of them and you're dying."

Either way, life carries risk.

Come on, enough with the dog whistle. Not one vaccine of any kind is mandatory in Canada. Not one government is talking about making any of them mandatory, including covid. All the chest beating about Liberty is just riling up those with tendencies in that direction already. Vaccine passport is a different concept. It might be introduced to facilitate such activities as international travel, but that is optional, not essential.

 

[Sea lyin’]

but, but.....what about the likes?

 

[Kinetic]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. It shows as we already knew that people are divided on politics, religion and freedoms.

 

[walleyes]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. It shows as we already knew that people are divided on politics, religion and freedoms.

Yup,, round, round we go.

 

[RalphH]

It might be hard to convince healthy people under 40 to get a vaccine that may come with serious complications or death when basic risk assessment says they are close.





CDC estimate for IFR (infection fatality rate) if infected with Covid for those under 40:



0.01 percent = 0.0001 x 1,000,000 = 100 deaths/million infections for people under 40.



Of which, if we were to access full transparent data probably 5 of those 100 deaths were truly healthy, not obese, not suffering from underlying health conditions. Let’s assume this is true, 5 in 1,000,000 chance of dying IF you get infected being a healthy person under 40. Add on top of this, you STILL have to get infected, once again lowering the risk of death. Personally I have been taking very little precautions other than wearing a mask because we are being forced to. I have been in close contact with covid-19 multiple times that I know of and have not caught it. Who knows how many times I’ve had close contact without knowing and have still not caught the Covid. Maybe I already had it in early March when I had a persistent cough.

Many people are in the same boat as me in terms of Coivd risk. In these situations, why would anyone get a vaccine that is causing people to drop dead at a comparable rate or higher than risk of Covid? Obviously governments and pharma have a huge bias to underreport adverse vaccine effects. We have 3 confirmed AZ deaths already in Canada. The chance of death by Covid is shown to be extremely low for healthy people under 40. The chance of death from vaccine is also very low. But based on back of the napkin math, it’s a lot closer than everyone promoting “just get the jab” and get covid over with camp. No one is taking the vaccine to protect fellow man. Everyone operates on the “invisible hand” theory. I’m not sitting here telling people to get the jab or not get it. I just think every situation is very unique. People are going to do what's best for them. For me personally, I’d rather get taken out by Covid than by putting something in me intentionally, especially if they are close to equal in chance. There are many people that feel this way.

Don't know where the 100 deaths per million estimate was found but the latest estimates from the CDC (as of March 9, 2021) provides estimates of 150 to 1,700 per million for individuals ages 18 to 49 based on the Ro (contagion rate) which varies from 2 to 4, as we know the new variants appear to be more infectious. (see the attached table from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.htm

They also list the following most common co-morbidities:

1) Influenza and pneumonia 45.8%
2) Hypertension 19.8%
3) Diabetes 16%
4) Dementia including Alzheimer's 13.5%
5) Sepsis 9.6%

note that adds to more than 100% because patients can have more than 1 co-morbidity.

from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm

Actual risk of a blood clot event (not fatality) associated with the astrazeneca vaccine is estimated at 4 to 6 per million:

from: https://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/share/blood-clot-astrazeneca-vaccine-safety/

As of May 3, 2021, the CDC states that the rate of reported deaths after getting any covid vaccine in the US is 0.0017%. All deaths after a vaccine are reported even if the death was likely not caused by the vaccine (ie the result of an accident or previously known medical condition)

[quote}CDC uses the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to closely monitor reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination.

• FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
• Reports to VAERS of death following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.
• CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information to learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or was unrelated.
• CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths. Get the latest safety information on the J&J/Janssen vaccine. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS. [/quote]

from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

[tightlines]

Don't know where the 100 deaths per million estimate was found but the latest estimates from the CDC (as of March 9, 2021) provides estimates of 150 to 1,700 per million for individuals ages 18 to 49 based on the Ro (contagion rate) which varies from 2 to 4, as we know the new variants appear to be more infectious. (see the attached table from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.htm

They also list the following most common co-morbidities:

1) Influenza and pneumonia 45.8%
2) Hypertension 19.8%
3) Diabetes 16%
4) Dementia including Alzheimer's 13.5%
5) Sepsis 9.6%

note that adds to more than 100% because patients can have more than 1 co-morbidity.

from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm

Actual risk of a blood clot event (not fatality) associated with the astrazeneca vaccine is estimated at 4 to 6 per million:

from: https://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/share/blood-clot-astrazeneca-vaccine-safety/

As of May 3, 2021, the CDC states that the rate of reported deaths after getting any covid vaccine in the US is 0.0017%. All deaths after a vaccine are reported even if the death was likely not caused by the vaccine (ie the result of an accident or previously known medical condition)

[quote}CDC uses the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to closely monitor reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination.

• FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
• Reports to VAERS of death following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.
• CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information to learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or was unrelated.
• CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths. Get the latest safety information on the J&J/Janssen vaccine. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.

from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
[/QUOTE]



Thanks – a thought out response and some questions. I’m happy to debate.

Thoughts:

-The R0 has likely dropped since the CDC planning scenario in March given the vaccine rollout and seasonal nature of transmission – is this a fair assumption? This would impact IFR in a downward fashion

-Given presumed lower R0 and 0-40 age cutoff, 100 deaths per million isn’t a reach at this current stage. I would say it’s in the ballpark but it doesn’t change the point of the discussion.

-They are now advocating for young kids to get vaccine – I’m not sure why. If there are vaccine shortages shouldn’t the at risk population get them all and in proper spacing?

-The co-morbidities you stated present very obvious symptoms. People under 40 inflicted know they have them and thus should be taking the vaccine or precaution in line with their personal circumstance and risk.

-Presume very healthy people under 40 are significantly lower risk of death than 0.01% IFR avg. Again healthy people most likely know that they are healthy. They get in the shower, look in the mirror, and don’t puke. They can run, move, lift weights, they eat healthy etc. Do you dispute that?

-Dr Bonnie Henry herself said 1 in 100K chance of blood clot from AZ shot

-I’m not anti vaccine – I’m anti people saying ‘follow the science’ blindly without doing due diligence or basic math

-If you’re a healthy person under 40 are you taking an AZ jab or any others that have shown to cause blood clots? Are you giving your kids the shot? Are you just closing your eyes and following instructions from the Wizard of Oz? I think it’s a very close decision, not sure what side is +EV to be honest.

 

[cracked_ribs]

All the chest beating about Liberty is just riling up those with tendencies in that direction already.

Even if that's the only result, that's still worth it to me. I would much rather be in a place where people with pro-liberty tendencies are riled up, than not.

I have never suggested that the government has made anything mandatory and my comments are generally in the context of people talking about how it should be. I don't agree and I think I should be free to explain why I think that's a bad idea.

I don't try to insist people who think it's a good idea shouldn't voice that opinion. I believe in public discourse and the free expression of ideas both from people I agree with and from those I really disagree with.

I don't have much interest in biting my tongue just because not everyone agrees with me. I think I present my ideas in a pretty calm and polite way and I tend to back up my arguments pretty coherently and I don't need anyone to agree, but I'm not going to be quiet just because you don't like what I'm saying.

 

[CVmike]

What I would like to know is why isn’t B.C. taking a regional approach to COVID restrictions? Our recent COVID numbers have been dominated by the lower mainland, predominantly Fraser Health. Today the Fraser Health region made up 523 of the Provinces 722 cases. Vancouver Island accounted for a meagre 20, out of the 722. What is the sensibility in forcing British Columbians who live in areas with very little COVID presence into the same set of lockdowns and restrictions as the areas with the most exposure? I’m not convinced that the suffering of small business owners in mostly unaffected regions is justified. Certainly the local pub in Woss poses less of a risk than a nightclub in Chilliwack. Why isn’t risk management being dealt with on a community basis?
Shutting down the entire province when the COVID cases are mostly localized is like sanitizing your entire body before you go into a store, because your hands are a little dirty. Or scrubbing down your entire boat because a bird pooped on the windshield. Or shutting down most the coast to Chinook retention because one river system is having bad returns.
......

Well there’s my weekly rant. Feel free to dissect it if I’m out to lunch here.

 

[walleyes]

What I would like to know is why isn’t B.C. taking a regional approach to COVID restrictions? Our recent COVID numbers have been dominated by the lower mainland, predominantly Fraser Health. Today the Fraser Health region made up 523 of the Provinces 722 cases. Vancouver Island accounted for a meagre 20, out of the 722. What is the sensibility in forcing British Columbians who live in areas with very little COVID presence into the same set of lockdowns and restrictions as the areas with the most exposure? I’m not convinced that the suffering of small business owners in mostly unaffected regions is justified. Certainly the local pub in Woss poses less of a risk than a nightclub in Chilliwack. Why isn’t risk management being dealt with on a community basis?
Shutting down the entire province when the COVID cases are mostly localized is like sanitizing your entire body before you go into a store, because your hands are a little dirty. Or scrubbing down your entire boat because a bird pooped on the windshield. Or shutting down most the coast to Chinook retention because one river system is having bad returns.
......

Well there’s my weekly rant. Feel free to dissect it if I’m out to lunch here.

And the answer to all. Because they can and we are letting them !!

 

[RalphH]

from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

tightlines:

Thanks – a thought out response and some questions. I’m happy to debate.

Thoughts:

-The R0 has likely dropped since the CDC planning scenario in March given the vaccine rollout and seasonal nature of transmission – is this a fair assumption? This would impact IFR in a downward fashion

-Given presumed lower R0 and 0-40 age cutoff, 100 deaths per million isn’t a reach at this current stage. I would say it’s in the ballpark but it doesn’t change the point of the discussion.

-They are now advocating for young kids to get vaccine – I’m not sure why. If there are vaccine shortages shouldn’t the at risk population get them all and in proper spacing?

-The co-morbidities you stated present very obvious symptoms. People under 40 inflicted know they have them and thus should be taking the vaccine or precaution in line with their personal circumstance and risk.

-Presume very healthy people under 40 are significantly lower risk of death than 0.01% IFR avg. Again healthy people most likely know that they are healthy. They get in the shower, look in the mirror, and don’t puke. They can run, move, lift weights, they eat healthy etc. Do you dispute that?

-Dr Bonnie Henry herself said 1 in 100K chance of blood clot from AZ shot

-I’m not anti vaccine – I’m anti people saying ‘follow the science’ blindly without doing due diligence or basic math

-If you’re a healthy person under 40 are you taking an AZ jab or any others that have shown to cause blood clots? Are you giving your kids the shot? Are you just closing your eyes and following instructions from the Wizard of Oz? I think it’s a very close decision, not sure what side is +EV to be honest.

I wasn't looking for a debate but more what information was actually on the CDC website. I believe in going to the original source as much as possible. Ditto with whatever Dr Henry is alleged to have said. According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ the death rate for people 44 and younger who developed covid in New York State, the death rate is 1%. That's a risk rate of 1000 times or bigger than what you say Dr Henry has said about the incident of blood clots. That isn't even including what the general incident of those blood clots is.

 

[tightlines]

When you provide a counter argument or counter opinion that's the very definition of a debate.

CFR and IFR are very different. You are almost certainly talking about CFR percentage or you are confused, although the link you provided was dead for me. IFR for those under 40 is significantly less than 1 % according to all reputable sources.

Here's a paper on the difference, and their findings:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346774025_Assessing_the_age_specificity_of_infection_fatality_rates_for_COVID-19_systematic_review_meta-analysis_and_public_policy_implications

Here's the short form video explaining the findings in less mathematical, more succinct way.

2020, Andrew Levin, "The Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19"

www.nber.org

The authors have no financial interests or bias unlike some of the puppets we have delivering daily updates.

Anyone see the spin doctoring going on today from the good Dr? Laughable stuff

 

[sly_karma]

The risks of releasing detailed regional data are victimization of those in hot spots, complacency elsewhere, and travel between these areas changing the situation and outdating the information.

This ties to our PHO's reluctance to use a tailored regional approach - serious travel restrictions and border closures would be needed to make a regional approach meaningful. It has worked in Australia, but they don't **** around; barricades go up in a city within hours of an outbreak being detected, and everyone inside the perimeter has to stay put for a week or two, whether you actually live there or not. Some states closed all borders for >6 months, fly in/out resource workers and business travelers had to choose between family or job. In BC we have neither the legislation nor the desire to go that route.

The approach to pandemic control at the the overview level covers all aspects of society, because contacts between individuals is the heart of the matter. Dr Henry has chosen her approach, and she draws on her experience and training. Part of this goes back to her time in Toronto during the SARS outbreak in 2004 where there were some ugly incidences of victimization stemming from release of detailed neighborhood data. She's been determined from the beginning of this pandemic that there would not be a repeat. BC health officials have been collecting, analyzing and acting on detailed geographic data from the beginning, and have periodically published reports in a look back format. This should not come as a revelation to anyone as she's consistently but politely rebuffed media requests for release of ongoing detailed regional data. There's no duplicity here, just clearly stated policy. Health officials in the regions have the data they need to understand their part in the pandemic response.

 

[islandboy]

The risks of releasing detailed regional data are victimization of those in hot spots, complacency elsewhere, and travel between these areas changing the situation and outdating the information.

This ties to our PHO's reluctance to use a tailored regional approach - serious travel restrictions and border closures would be needed to make a regional approach meaningful. It has worked in Australia, but they don't **** around; barricades go up in a city within hours of an outbreak being detected, and everyone inside the perimeter has to stay put for a week or two, whether you actually live there or not. Some states closed all borders for >6 months, fly in/out resource workers and business travelers had to choose between family or job. In BC we have neither the legislation nor the desire to go that route.

The approach to pandemic control at the the overview level covers all aspects of society, because contacts between individuals is the heart of the matter. Dr Henry has chosen her approach, and she draws on her experience and training. Part of this goes back to her time in Toronto during the SARS outbreak in 2004 where there were some ugly incidences of victimization stemming from release of detailed neighborhood data. She's been determined from the beginning of this pandemic that there would not be a repeat. BC health officials have been collecting, analyzing and acting on detailed geographic data from the beginning, and have periodically published reports in a look back format. This should not come as a revelation to anyone as she's consistently but politely rebuffed media requests for release of ongoing detailed regional data. There's no duplicity here, just clearly stated policy. Health officials in the regions have the data they need to understand their part in the pandemic response.

Exactly why whoever leaked those documents should be fired. Medical information is protected by law.
We are still primates who will destroy those whom we fear will harm us.

 

[sly_karma]

Exactly why whoever leaked those documents should be fired. Medical information is protected by law.
We are still primates who will destroy those whom we fear will harm us.

Yeah it's not unlike wikileaks. High principled believers in truth at all costs, but of course there are consequences they don't - or won't - consider.

There will be a sharp divide on this issue, with those already critical of the pandemic response using it to further discredit and disparage. My own feelings come from a pragmatic place: for better or for worse, this is what BC has decided to do, and this is where I live and therefore these are the conditions under which I'll be living as the pandemic runs its course. I can accept them or just whinge and ***** about it, but the virus doesn't care either way. Healthier/saner for me if I just read and listen and understand why it's being done the way it is rather than fixating on the bits I don't like. BC leadership has been strong on explaining the why, information is all there for those who can get past the what; ie, restrictions, health orders, statistics, etc.

No one likes what is happening, and inside we are all worried and fearful. The wide array of strong responses are all just an expression of these concerns.

 

[RalphH]

CFR and IFR are very different. You are almost certainly talking about CFR percentage or you are confused, although the link you provided was dead for me. IFR for those under 40 is significantly less than 1 % according to all reputable sources.

I am aware of the difference. The comparison is the risk of a blood clot associated with the A_Z vaccine and the risk of death for people <45 not getting a vaccine and contract covid. This is a risk comparison and the difference is more than a 1000 to 1 yet many people see the blood clot risk as the one to avoid. That's not a rational decision yet it is by far the more common one made. People tend to evaluate the bigger risk as the risk associated with an uncommon state. For example it's far easier to accept the risks of driving everyday than it is the risks of being caught in a terrorist attack yet people are generally far more emotionally concerned with the later.

 

[sly_karma]

Airline flights of 4 hours or more carry a 1 in 1000 risk of blood clots and not too many people even know about it, let alone change plans due to the risk.

As already stated, our reactions to the pandemic are often more an expression of our fears and uncertainty than a distillation of available fact. We all do it to some extent, human nature.