covid-19

[nwt 131]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Masking policy is

No shit...

[nwt 131]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There are not as many deaths with the current wave.

Compared with what?

 

[gowlerk 1,905]

5 minutes ago, nwt said:

Compared with what?

 

Sorry. On a per case basis was what I meant. I am largely basing it on what has been happening here. An unprecedented number of new cases daily, but not a corresponding increase in ICU occupancy or deaths. The need for ventilators is simply not at the scale of the Delta or earlier waves. Although I suppose that may be strongly influenced by our over 80% vaccination rate.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Sorry. On a per case basis was what I meant. I am largely basing it on what has been happening here. An unprecedented number of new cases daily, but not a corresponding increase in ICU occupancy or deaths. The need for ventilators is simply not at the scale of the Delta or earlier waves. Although I suppose that may be strongly influenced by our over 80% vaccination rate.

That's not true either. Canada's deaths per day and 7 day average below:

Edited February 16, 2022 by SkyDekker

[gowlerk 1,905]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That's not true either. Canada's death's per day and 7 day average below:

You would need to know the cases per day to make the comparison. BTW, where is that chart from?

 

[billvon 2,394]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Fifty thousand deaths a day from covid 

Nope.  Read the graph a little more carefully.

If this is the level of attention you pay to data - that actually explains a lot of your posts.

[nwt 131]

56 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The need for ventilators is simply not at the scale of the Delta or earlier waves. 

What are you talking about?

44 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You would need to know the cases per day to make the comparison.

Nobody is disputing that the case fatality rate is much lower, but where are you going with that? Total number of severe cases/deaths (and therefore need for ventilators) is comparable with previous waves.

[gowlerk 1,905]

23 minutes ago, nwt said:

What are you talking about?

Nobody is disputing that the case fatality rate is much lower, but where are you going with that? Total number of severe cases/deaths (and therefore need for ventilators) is comparable with previous waves.

I would have to say that is not the case in our local ICUs. We have still quite a few, but not as many as in the past wave. And the number is already slowly declining as are deaths. The Omicron wave began here about New Years and of course deaths are a lagging indicator. Many of the active hospital cases we have are Delta patients. Also the total cases considered active, but not necessarily in the hospital at the moment are over 10% of the number for the whole epidemic. The test positivity rate is over 20% and we are not really testing everyone. Omicron is still very present yet the number of hospitalizations is declining. If it was as virulent as Delta we would be completely snowed under. And even in the areas with less vaccinations there is not nearly the same level of distress. It is very clear that Omicron is not making people as sick as the other variants.

Where am I going? I guess I am just trying to make sense of the fact that there is a large difference in this wave. And I'm struggling to understand where we are going. But I can say for sure that where I live the death numbers are going down while the case numbers 4 weeks ago were exploding. And with death being a trailing indicator my main point is that Omicron is not causing as much SARS. It is causing distress, but not destroying lungs like the earlier variants.

Edited February 16, 2022 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

You would need to know the cases per day to make the comparison. BTW, where is that chart from?

 

You originally said there aren't as many deaths in the current wave. That is simply not true. Yes the death rate per infection is lower, but the number of infections is significantly higher. End result, pretty much the same number of people dead.

Chart is from this site.

[gowlerk 1,905]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

You originally said there aren't as many deaths in the current wave. That is simply not true. Yes the death rate per infection is lower, but the number of infections is significantly higher. End result, pretty much the same number of people dead.

Chart is from this site.

Thanks for the link. And yes, I apologize for the lack of clarity and error.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I would have to say that is not the case in our local ICUs.

This link from the Winnipeg Free Press seems to show that isn't true either. At least not for your province. I don't have numbers for your local hospital(s), but all indicators show that total numbers are pretty similar to previous waves.

[gowlerk 1,905]

8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

This link from the Winnipeg Free Press seems to show that isn't true either. At least not for your province. I don't have numbers for your local hospital(s), but all indicators show that total numbers are pretty similar to previous waves.

Look again. I see that it shows a huge spike in hospitalizations, far more than other waves, yet less in ICU than in other waves even in absolute numbers.

Edited February 16, 2022 by gowlerk

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

52 minutes ago, nwt said:

What are you talking about?

Nobody is disputing that the case fatality rate is much lower, but where are you going with that? Total number of severe cases/deaths (and therefore need for ventilators) is comparable with previous waves.

Hi nwt,

I have to agree with Ken; at least here in Oregon, the need is going down.  We simply have less people in our ICU's.  

I base this upon what I am currently seeing on the local news.

Also, again according to my local news, the Oregon governor has said that should the trend continue downward that she will remove all masking req'ments, except for large groupings, on 1 Apr 22. *

Jerry Baumchen

* I tried to find a cite for this info, but could not.

 

[headoverheels 291]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You would need to know the cases per day to make the comparison. 

 

Canada has had an Omicron peak of verified new cases ~10x that of Delta, with ~5x as many deaths.  So in the range of half as deadly (combination of less virulent, more people vaccinated and more people previously infected).

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

10 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Canada has had an Omicron peak of verified new cases ~10x that of Delta, with ~5x as many deaths.  So in the range of half as deadly (combination of less virulent, more people vaccinated and more people previously infected).

 

Those numbers are very likely heavily skewed. Pretty much all provinces gave up on testing about a month into the Omicron wave. New case numbers are significantly higher than reported.

[headoverheels 291]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Those numbers are very likely heavily skewed. Pretty much all provinces gave up on testing about a month into the Omicron wave. New case numbers are significantly higher than reported.

Yep, and I have to wonder how many home tests are positive, and the sick person just stays home a few days, never reporting that result.

[billeisele 122]

An interesting article is linked at the bottom. It discusses how experts that went against the narrative were silenced, and how the science was not followed to the determent of overall public health. 

Make sure to click on the link to the Great Barrington Declaration. The list and qualifications of the 43 co-signers along with the three authors is significant. A small excerpt is:

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-former-harvard-prof-martin-kulldorff-science-and-public-health-are-broken_4270247.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-02-17&utm_medium=email&est=SLbKCcHiWa0Ls%2FZo8LXwVAMEfIMqItCbUUVWzgYj3IByZneYGjdlngnPREA%3D

[lippy 771]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

An interesting article is linked at the bottom. It discusses how experts that went against the narrative were silenced, and how the science was not followed to the determent of overall public health. 

Make sure to click on the link to the Great Barrington Declaration. The list and qualifications of the 43 co-signers along with the three authors is significant. A small excerpt is:

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-former-harvard-prof-martin-kulldorff-science-and-public-health-are-broken_4270247.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-02-17&utm_medium=email&est=SLbKCcHiWa0Ls%2FZo8LXwVAMEfIMqItCbUUVWzgYj3IByZneYGjdlngnPREA%3D

I've clicked enough links to Epoch Times articles to know that no good lies there.  

As far as The Great Barrington Declaration, I've seen this held up a few times before and I don't understand how anybody can consider it relevant today.  This was basically a bunch of doctors - back in October 2020, before vaccines were available - saying that they wanted everything to go back to normal.  A quote from 'The Declaration':

Quote

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. 

Again, this was from October 2020.  No vaccines, but far enough into COVID to know that asymptomatic transmission was a major deal.  So:

A - Nobody's advocating for widespread lockdowns today, which seems to me to make 'The Great Barrington Declaration' not applicable to the current COVID mitigation measures.

B - The fact that these guys were saying 'stay home if you're sick and drop all other restrictions' back in Oct. 2020 shows that they were being selfish and ignorant to how COVID spreads.  The fact that many of them have an 'MD' in their title doesn't change that.

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

I've clicked enough links to Epoch Times articles to know that no good lies there.  

 

Disagree - there are lots of lies in the Epoch Times.

[gowlerk 1,905]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

An interesting article is linked at the bottom. It discusses how experts that went against the narrative were silenced, and how the science was not followed to the determent of overall public health. 

Make sure to click on the link to the Great Barrington Declaration. The list and qualifications of the 43 co-signers along with the three authors is significant. A small excerpt is:

Do you seriously think we have not already heard of the long debunked "Great barrington Deception". Are you in the grips of other conspiracy theories or just ones about Covid?

[lippy 771]

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

Disagree - there are lots of lies in the Epoch Times.

Well played, sir....well played

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

I've clicked enough links to Epoch Times articles to know that no good lies there.  

As far as The Great Barrington Declaration, I've seen this held up a few times before and I don't understand how anybody can consider it relevant today.  This was basically a bunch of doctors - back in October 2020, before vaccines were available - saying that they wanted everything to go back to normal.  A quote from 'The Declaration':

Again, this was from October 2020.  No vaccines, but far enough into COVID to know that asymptomatic transmission was a major deal.  So:

A - Nobody's advocating for widespread lockdowns today, which seems to me to make 'The Great Barrington Declaration' not applicable to the current COVID mitigation measures.

B - The fact that these guys were saying 'stay home if you're sick and drop all other restrictions' back in Oct. 2020 shows that they were being selfish and ignorant to how COVID spreads.  The fact that many of them have an 'MD' in their title doesn't change that.

Epoch Times. You have to wonder, given that it's a ridiculable, far right, publication that is sure to be hammered here why offer them as a source?

Edited February 17, 2022 by JoeWeber

[kallend 1,623]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Epoch Times. You have to wonder, given that it's a ridiculable, far right, publication that is sure to be hammered here why offer them as a source?

If you're gullible enough to believe anything Trump says*, you surely are gullible enough to think the Epoch Times is a reliable source.

* When even his own accountants don't believe the stuff he gives them. 

 

[winsor 186]

11 minutes ago, kallend said:

If you're gullible enough to believe anything Trump says*, you surely are gullible enough to think the Epoch Times is a reliable source.

* When even his own accountants don't believe the stuff he gives them. 

 

They're just following CNN's lead.

[lippy 771]

14 minutes ago, winsor said:

They're just following CNN's lead.

CNN is obviously biased...to the point where I've been pretty turned off on reading their stuff when you can practically hear the authors' eyes rolling as they type.  But IMO, for what it's worth, they've still got a pretty firm foothold in reality.  ET, on the other hand, presents itself as the one place where you can find truth amidst a media ecosystem that's lying to you...That's the fucking banner at the top of their homepage.  The premise of their existence is nipping at the heels of a conspiracy theory, and their content will lead you straight down that rabbit hole.