News   May 07, 2021
 494     0 
News   May 07, 2021
 301     0 
News   May 07, 2021
 441     1 

Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (nCoV-2019)

Max Sterling

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
38
Sometimes YouTube and COVID-19 niche fandom Twitter are only a curated reality that give you what you expect to believe is true. When you check in with the real world you will find cases in Japan are exploding, and they are begining to enforce what you call draconian measures, and, frankly, panic. They now even face the consideration of cancelling the Olympic Games, which would be an economic disaster and national humiliation. They look like the Governent of Ontario three weeks ago; heads up their butts in denial as everything falls apart deflecting blame saying "but everything looked fine on my recommended to watch list of YouTube videos!"

Cases in Japan are 'exploding' by their standards, but I really doubt it will translate into tens of thousands of deaths because of the general very good health of their population. Again if there's any country that should get hit hardest by the virus it should've been Japan with their massive senior population. They chose to take measures as necessary rather than trying to chase every single case down and wiping out the virus and as a result the Japanese have went through the pandemic living largely normal lives and lessening the damage done to their people, which is something I wish Canada would've done.

Also to your previous post as to how we could move covid and non-covid patients in between hospitals, it really wouldn't be that huge an undertaking and we already move patients in between hospitals daily so its not anything new. All you would need to do is pretty much line up a couple of dozen ambulances like a taxi line and load up the patients and move then along and do that as many times as necessary for the day until a hospital has been emptied of non-covid patients and then you do the same and move in the covid patients and there you go.

Now you can have most hospitals get back to treating non-covid patients with much less chance of spread and those covid only patient hospitals can concentrate on only treating people who have the virus. One doesn't have to interfere with the other and hopefully people will feel more comfortable going to a hospital to get treatment when they need it.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,763
Reaction score
20,000
Location
Toronto
Cases in Japan are 'exploding' by their standards, but I really doubt it will translate into tens of thousands of deaths because of the general very good health of their population. Again if there's any country that should get hit hardest by the virus it should've been Japan with their massive senior population. They chose to take measures as necessary rather than trying to chase every single case down and wiping out the virus and as a result the Japanese have went through the pandemic living largely normal lives and lessening the damage done to their people, which is something I wish Canada would've done.

You do realize that demographically the Japanese population is much older than ours - and age is key determinant in mortality rates right? Their "good health" from diet has nothing to do with COVID deaths - if you are 80, 90 years old, you are vulnerable to death from COVID infection. Their ability to live as they do right now is precisely because they are able to limit caseload to a low level through socially driven health practices and strong community level public health (which even then, had limits) - factors that are inapplicable to Canada. The public chose to take measures and take them seriously - even before COVID - did we?

AoD
 
Last edited:

Max Sterling

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
38
It’s not the false positives that are the problem, it’s the false negatives.
The entirety of the US White House staff have being rapid-tested. How well has that worked out in containing spread amongst relatively young and healthy people?

Again there are multiple ways you can implement a testing plan that would minimize the spread into LTCs. You could take a rapid test daily before you start work and then at the end of the day and maybe once or twice a week take a more accurate test. Anything along those lines is better tahn wasting testing capacity on the general public where the numbers comeback 90-95% negative. What's the point in that? Save those tests for people who need it like healthcare workers and people who feel sick and believe they might have the virus and want a test.

So, you’re going to tell a bunch of people who work a fairly low-paying job that they now have to upend their lives instantaneously for that job? Do you know anyone with HR or employment law experience? That’s a material change in employment that could be construed as constructive dismissal. Just from a legal standpoint alone it’s a headache.

Again I said in a worst comes to worst scenario then why is it such a hardship to ask workers to for a short period of time to re-arrange their work schedule for the good of the people they're taking care of? If they have kids then open a daycare to help them with their children. Increase the pay for PSWs so it will hopefully attract more and better people.

Whatever money we spend in hiring more and better PSWs to work in those homes is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions we're burning through in keeping most people at home instead of letting people live their lives and generate revenue to help offset all the money we've thrown at fighting this pandemic.

Okay, take Air. Every patient in for Covid (ICU or not) is being given high oxygen saturation air. That is piped from a giant liquid oxygen tank outside of the building (maybe you’ve noticed them at hospitals before). Currently, hospitals are not designed to be able to supply oxygen to every single person on a floor at once. Extensive retrofitting of pipe work is needed to expand capacity dramatically. Not only that, because it’s pure oxygen it’s a major explosive hazard, that retrofitting needs to be redundantly safe (being an explosive hazard is one of the reasons that giant tank is on the outside of the building, by the way).

So let’s say you rip out walls to retrofit bigger pipes. You also then need to either build more exterior tanks, or be ready to accept many, many more deliveries to refill those tanks (each time a potential safety hazard). Look at the huge tanks at NHS' Nightingale (all Covid) hospital: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...id-oxygen-tanks-NHS-Nightingale-hospital.html

Why would you need to do all of this? Most covid patients in hospitals aren't ICU cases so why would you need to do all of this retrofitting to treat them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...id-oxygen-tanks-NHS-Nightingale-hospital.html
That’s just one element. Then there’s the morgue space (morgues are already filling up; I can’t imagine the problem in a hospital dedicated strictly to Covid). And there's an ambulance system that needs to be dedicated strictly for covid patients, and the logistics of that. And many, many other things.

I get you think your ideas are clever, but they’re unable to withstand a cursory scratch of scrutiny.

Just get a trailer to house the bodies or move them to other morgues that have space. What's the issue? Also why is it such a big deal to divert a few ambulances to transfer covid patients from non-covid hospitals to covid hospitals as needed?

But you’re never going to completely keep Covid from entering a given hospital. Do you not get that? A car accident victim comes in requiring immediate life-saving surgery, do you wait 15 minutes for a rapid test result?

That accident victim would get that life saving surgery and then they would be placed in a bed that's on a completely different floor from all the non-covid patients and recover there while he gets tested for covid. Done and done.

You had money to save to begin with. Do you not recognize the privilege in which you stand? You've already got the time and money to be able to shout about being able to save money on an internet forum dedicated to architecture and engineering. Ponder that for a moment. Do you know anyone who’s actually been truly poor? A family one paycheque away from homelessness?

The only privilege I got was being lucky enough to be born in a mostly stable, peaceful and modern country where working hard to get a good education has led to a decent job. That's nothing special and its something most people can do if they're willing to put in the time and effort.

Also knowing that the poor are suffering the most, why are we making their lives even worse by not allowing them to even earn a paycheck these days? People who have a decent amount of money and/or a good job can ride it out and the rich are often getting richer, but many people don't fall into that category and they need to work or keep their businesses open in order to survive and yet we're not even allowing people to do that and are making their lives even worse.

Again 5,200 covid deaths in Ontario to date translates into 18 days worth of deaths in Ontario in any given year out of a population of almost 15 million. You think that warrants extreme measures, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

You think I’m making this up? Do you think eating only rice and beans is a healthy diet (about as much as eating meat only for every meal)? Multiple studies confirm this:

Tell me what foods you believe are apart of a healthy diet and then look up the prices of those foods when they're on sale at your local No Frills or Food Basics and add up the cost. I'm bettting most people can eat healthy without breaking the bank.
 

Max Sterling

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
38
You do realize that demographically the Japanese population is much older than ours - and age is key determinant in mortality rates right? Their "good health" has nothing to do with it - if you are 80, 90 years old, you are vulnerable to death from COVID infection. Their ability to live as they do right now is precisely because they are able to limit caseload to a low level through socially driven health practices and strong community level public health (which even then, had limits) - factors that are inapplicable to Canada. The public chose to take measures and take them seriously - even before COVID - did we?

AoD

Japan has 35 million seniors which is about 3 million less than Canada's ENTIRE population. If covid is so lethal it should be killing tens of thousands of Japanese seniors long ago like it has done in many western countries and yet it hasn't happened because Japanese people are generally pretty healthy.

Its the same reason why outside of LTCs in Ontario only about 1,500 seniors have died to the virus out of an almost 3 million senior population. You would think that if covid was so deadly to seniors that old people outside of LTCs would be dying at the same rate as seniors in LTCs, but that's obviously not the case. Sure people 70 and over in Ontario are dying at the highest rate compared to any other age group, but their rate of death is VASTLY LOWER than the seniors who are living in LTCs and that's mostly because most seniors in the general population are probably at least decently healthy enough that they can take care of themselves.

That isn't the case in LTCs where most patients there require constant care and help to do even the most basic of tasks. In short these seniors have outlived their actual life expectancy and the only reason they're still alive is because of modern medicine and around the clock care. This is why they're dying at the highest rate while the non-LTC seniors in the general population are still fine even if they're suppose to be in the age demographic that's the most vulnerable to the virus.

Take away covid and these patients would still be dying at the highest rate for various other reasons every year like they've always had, but we've never cared about until now only because they're dying by this virus. Take away covid and 2020 would simpy be another year where X amount of LTC patients died that we wouldn't give a second thought about.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,763
Reaction score
20,000
Location
Toronto
Japan has 35 million seniors which is about 3 million less than Canada's ENTIRE population. If covid is so lethal it should be killing tens of thousands of Japanese seniors long ago like it has done in many western countries and yet it hasn't happened because Japanese people are generally pretty healthy

---

If they haven't caught it, how can it be "lethal" to them - which is the point. The issue isn't a differential in lethality because what they ate - it is the ability to limit infection - so that they don't catch COVID.

And your second argument - that residents in the homes would have died anyways - pretty clearly indicates all that talk about ring-fencing the homes is a distraction, a red herring - to your ultimate thesis - that we shouldn't bother with controlling the pandemic because people who are most vulnerable to it would be dying soon. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if we had just skipped to the end in this tete-a-tete.

AoD
 
Last edited:

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
1,810
Take away covid and these patients would still be dying at the highest rate for various other reasons every year like they've always had, but we've never cared about until now only because they're dying by this virus. Take away covid and 2020 would simpy be another year where X amount of LTC patients died that we wouldn't give a second thought about.

Does trying to build a straw man argument around your own dislike of lockdowns assuage the inner guilt (I hope) you feel from basically saying "they were going to die anyway"?

Oh, and then there's the 40% dying who *aren't* in LTC.
 

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
1,810
Again there are multiple ways you can implement a testing plan that would minimize the spread into LTCs. You could take a rapid test daily before you start work and then at the end of the day and maybe once or twice a week take a more accurate test. Anything along those lines is better tahn wasting testing capacity on the general public where the numbers comeback 90-95% negative. What's the point in that? Save those tests for people who need it like healthcare workers and people who feel sick and believe they might have the virus and want a test.

Y'know, I was going to respond to your ridiculous straw man argument yet again, but eff that. You're not worth the mental energy any more, as you don't get it and are simply parroting your same argument over and over and over again, despite a lack of knowledge, compassion and a complete ignorance of actual data. You keep talking out of your posterior about many a thing you know nothing about, I'll be in the corner shaking my head wondering how people like you are allowed to vote, let alone get a Subway Club card.

In the end, I'll go back to my original statement. You should just leave. Your self-centredness, arrogance and ignorance aren't particularly welcome.
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,776
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Parkdale
Does trying to build a straw man argument around your own dislike of lockdowns assuage the inner guilt (I hope) you feel from basically saying "they were going to die anyway"?

Why on Earth should anyone feel guilty for having a healthy and non-hysterical view of death?
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,776
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Parkdale
Of death, or of the death of someone completely unrelated/with zero emotional attachment or investment to one-self?

AoD

Well, death as a concept/fact of life isn't varied. It just is what it is.

If one's view of the death of a loved one is the same as that of a stranger, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

My last grandparent died last summer. He was decrepit and was suddenly, within two months not able to live alone anymore, so at the age of 94 he was slated to be sent to a care home. Sod that, he thought, and kicked it a week before he was to be moved.
What should my reaction to his death be?
What should the reaction of strangers to his death be?
Why should this reaction be different if he had died from a novel virus than from something else? Should it be different?

Our family reaction was to make jokes about how he picked a good time to kick it (a month before the second wave hit his country in earnest) and about how it makes sense he chose to die (obviously he didn't "choose" anything...died of old age and cellular decrepitude) before being warehoused as no one on either side of the family has ever had to suffer such indignity....including oldsters that lived well past 100.


Some people are better off dead than to live shitty lives in suffering. We've even decided that legislatively and judicially as a society.
Old people die. That's how biology works. It's just that simple. I don't think making something out of it that it isn't and dramatising the concept is at all helpful to anyone. Just causes emotional anguish in people.
In cases where people are living with chronic illness also...it's not exactly shocking or all that sad when they die. It's also inevitable to happen at some point before their biological clock would have gave out otherwise.

It's not immoral to view death as a part of life and from an emotionally detached perspective and one should most certainly not feel guilty about viewing it thus. The very notion they should is beyond ridiculous.


Of course, you're implying a lack of empathy in people as a possible explanation for their detached view of death.
That's a possibility, no doubt, but I don't see a lack of empathy in people who are concerned about the negative consequences of certain reactions to a pandemic. In fact, that very concern for the welfare of others potentially precludes a lack of empathy.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,763
Reaction score
20,000
Location
Toronto
Well, death as a concept/fact of life isn't varied. It just is what it is.

If one's view of the death of a loved one is the same as that of a stranger, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

My last grandparent died last summer. He was decrepit and was suddenly, within two months not able to live alone anymore, so at the age of 94 he was slated to be sent to a care home. Sod that, he thought, and kicked it a week before he was to be moved.
What should my reaction to his death be?
What should the reaction of strangers to his death be?
Why should this reaction be different if he had died from a novel virus than from something else? Should it be different?

Our family reaction was to make jokes about how he picked a good time to kick it (a month before the second wave hit his country in earnest) and about how it makes sense he chose to die (obviously he didn't "choose" anything...died of old age and cellular decrepitude) before being warehoused as no one on either side of the family has ever had to suffer such indignity....including oldsters that lived well past 100.


Some people are better off dead than to live shitty lives in suffering. We've even decided that legislatively and judicially as a society.
Old people die. That's how biology works. It's just that simple. I don't think making something out of it that it isn't and dramatising the concept is at all helpful to anyone. Just causes emotional anguish in people.
In cases where people are living with chronic illness also...it's not exactly shocking or all that sad when they die. It's also inevitable to happen at some point before their biological clock would have gave out otherwise.

It's not immoral to view death as a part of life and from an emotionally detached perspective and one should most certainly not feel guilty about viewing it thus. The very notion they should is beyond ridiculous.

We know death is inevitable - but to argue for and make policy choices that hasten death (and not by choice of the individuals/family-loved ones of individuals) - just because someone doesn't want to follow restrictions - is morally indefensible, no matter what the failing of existing policies are. We should not go there.

AoD
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,776
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Parkdale
We know death is inevitable - but to argue for and make policy choices that hasten death (and not by choice of the individuals/family-loved ones of individuals) - just because someone doesn't want to follow restrictions - is morally indefensible, no matter what the failing of existing policies are. We should not go there.

AoD
I added another paragraph to that post, if you want to read it. In regards to empathy, or lack thereof....but reading this now, I guess that's not what you were talking about at all. XD

Was @Max Sterling arguing for policy changes that would implicitly hasten death?
Were they arguing for policy changes because they didn't want to follow the current ones or because their concern was for the unintended consequences of current policy?
Unintended consequences that could also be seen as morally indefensible in some cases, by the by.

I sure as hell wasn't. I don't want anyone dying unless they feel they need to or are suffering beyond hope. Trust me, I've been suicidal for 20 years.....I'm not a fan of death either else I wouldn't be typing this. ;)


There is a balance to be found between the various people's right to life and security of the person and we've failed to find that balance....is all I've been saying in one sentence.

And again, in regards to death specifically, I don't see why anyone should feel guilty about having a healthy view of it.
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,776
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Parkdale
Question: Why are my friends who work in the film industry still working? That's about as "essential" as a hole in the head.
 

Top