Jump to content
  • Create Account

twinsnorth49

Community Moderator
  • Posts

    11,777
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

twinsnorth49 last won the day on October 5 2019

twinsnorth49 had the most liked content!

About twinsnorth49

  • Birthday 06/23/1969

Other

  • Interests
    Baseball, Hockey

twinsnorth49's Achievements

  1. Fire Colome into the same galaxy as Luplow just hit that ball.......might as well send Rocco and Falvine with him.
  2. To be honest, we’re not going to eliminate that thought from the people who want to propagate it. Personally it’s time to move away from giving that notion any airtime, let alone brain power. It’s not the flu, there is plenty of data out there in many forms to safely make that statement. There is gathering data in many other areas as well imo. I think more is being learned and known about the virus daily, which I believe is useful and solid enough to help guide decision making. It strikes me that so many people are still highly focused on infection prevention for everyone at all costs, as opposed to infection management. Getting a handle on outbreaks and slowing the rate of transmission was essential, and I think in many places that has been accomplished. In doing that, a number of things have consistently revealed themselves across the board, and other information is beginning to look more likely with the passage of time. There is a definite demography to the virus, there is no doubting that and while it isn’t just the elderly, age most certainly plays an important role. In my country, 95% of deaths have occurred in people over the age of 60. Among those, 80% were residents of long term care facilities. In the province I live in, the highest rate of confirmed infections came from males between 20-29, followed closely by females in the same demographic, zero hospitalizations. I would hope that if we had an opportunity at a do over on the response to this, we would have learned who the most vulnerable really are, everywhere. I certainly don’t have all the answers, I don’t pretend to. I would just like the focus to be more about what we do know and what are most likely to be the outcomes. That still needs to be done with a healthy dose of restrictions and safeguarding, but at some point the narrative need to shift from we’re all at risk from dying from this, to a lot of people are going to get this, how do we prevent it from being the people with the most to lose. There is an emotional and psychological toll to this that is going to grow the longer we decide that the message is nobody is safe. There is no minimizing the raw numbers when it comes to fatalities, it’s an almost incomprehensible number. There is much to learn from it though and lessons are continuing to be learned. I hope we can start to use some of those lessons to move forward without it having to be about how much a life is worth. Besides, there are many perspectives to look at that question from.
  3. Little more freedom coming in my neck of the woods. I like the approach, although still a few too many vagaries and conflicting restrictions. It’s a start. https://www.gov.mb.ca/covid19/restoring/phase-one.html
  4. I find it unfortunate that there seems to be no room for people to put forward alternate, thoughtful ideas, without the price of a life argument being thrown at them. It’s a false equivalence and a lot of people with reasonable ideas are unfortunately being accused of it.
  5. Minnesota being considered as one of the venues for games with a possible NHL return in June or July.
  6. As Michael Osterholm indicates, we're going to have to focus on living with this virus, instead of focusing on dying from it. A big part of that is going to involve educating the public. Freedoms are not going to come to everybody equally, it just can't work that way. Some people will have to bear this longer than others. It's an ethical dilemma based on the principles of equality, but there are many other costs involved that need to be considered as well. I think this is something the United States will uniquely struggle with relative to most other nations. There is such a strong value placed on individual freedoms there, and I don't mean that disparagingly in any way whatsoever.
  7. Luck has played and continues to play a major role during this. How does one health worker in a hospital get infected and not others? Why weren't more people infected with this before social distancing and lockdown measures enforced? Perhaps there are answers but my guess is they are a long way off. Once restrictions are loosened the focus has to shift away from keeping everyone from getting infected to managing the rate of infection, particularly amongst those most at risk of serious complications.
  8. Yes, I'm suggesting we give hairdressers PPE...….give your head a shake and try to have a rational argument. A healthy 55 year old is in a high risk category? I think you need to check some data friend. As tragic as all the deaths of younger, healthier people are, they are in the vast minority. The narrative that the virus is an equal opportunist and nobody is safe from critical care is a false one and detrimental to a more nuanced approach to moving things forward. Once testing becomes more widespread the approach has to involve more demography to inform policy. it needs to focus heavily on the most vulnerable while allowing as many people as possible to resume life in a considered way. The future is about managing infection, not eliminating it.
  9. What if his hair stylist wants to go back to work, and like needs to? What if they feel they aren't in a very high risk category for getting critically ill from the virus? What if they took as many realistic precautions as possible to try and reduce possible transmission? At some point a certain level of personal risk is going to enter into the equation, rightly or wrongly it is going to happen. Once the R0 factor of the virus gets to an acceptable level, social distancing is going to decrease and it will be up to individuals to be responsible. If getting a haircut is too risky, don't get one. If you are in a high risk group for severe complications, don't get one. Transmission of this virus is still going to occur, it's not going to zero probably anytime this year, barring some slim chance there is a seasonal effect to it. The trick is to not have it reproduce too quickly again and hopefully is stays at a slow enough rate over time. It's still going to be out there though and some people are unfortunately still going to die from it regardless. Is it time to open hair salons right now? Probably not, but when is decided on how contagious the virus remains in any given place.
  10. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-death-rate.amp.html
  11. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/15/2004911117 This is what needs to happen
  12. Well they were from Michigan, so that lessens the head scratching.
  13. Measures simply need to be put in place to keep transmission to a manageable level for hospitals. Testing needs to be widespread and efficient enough to be able to contain a potential outbreak. People in high risk categories will need to live under stricter guidelines and have safeguards put in place to protect them from both a medical standpoint and a financial standpoint. Lower risk segments of society need to be able to help move things forward. The notion that transmission needs to be prevented between absolutely everyone is a false one, nor is it remotely possible. Part of finding more accuracy in CFR and IFR numbers will have to come from more people being infected and actually knowing it. Comorbidities aren't exaggerating the CFR but they certainly influence it. Testing is ultimately the key in deciding what the levels of risk are moving forward, and for who.
  14. Every situation isn’t the same, to draw any parallels you would have to examine a number of variables.
×
×
  • Create New...