News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 480     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 588     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 2.1K     1 

Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (nCoV-2019)

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...s-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered

It’s a good thing we have no clear plan for opening schools because kids aren’t a vector for transmission. Oops, Israel found otherwise.

Well Sickkid’s released a set of guidelines so we’re all good. A report full of illogical nonsensical group think like kids can’t wear masks (100’s of million’s around the world would disagree) or that kids shouldn’t wear masks because while masks are proven to reduce infection it might make them touch their face or wear them improperly (not proven relevant to transmission rates). Or that kids don’t show severe symptoms (irrelevant to the greater issue of overall public health strategy). Or that kids aren’t a source of transmission (disproven)
 
Jasmine18 said:
15 percent of the population has been covid tested in Ontario I heard



That's cool
Click to expand...

Easy enough to see how many tests, its in the link I provided earlier today.

Total Ontario Tests Completed: 1,779,320

Ontario Population: 14.57M

That would equal 12.21% of Ontarians.

*** However, many people have been tested multiple times.

Healthcare/LTC staff regularly.

So the actual percentage of the population to have had at least one test will be lower.

I don't know that number off hand, I'd feel confident saying its under 10%
 
  • Like
Reactions: vic
TrickyRicky said:
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...s-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered

It’s a good thing we have no clear plan for opening schools because kids aren’t a vector for transmission. Oops, Israel found otherwise.

Well Sickkid’s released a set of guidelines so we’re all good. A report full of illogical nonsensical group think like kids can’t wear masks (100’s of million’s around the world would disagree) or that kids shouldn’t wear masks because while masks are proven to reduce infection it might make them touch their face or wear them improperly (not proven relevant to transmission rates). Or that kids don’t show severe symptoms (irrelevant to the greater issue of overall public health strategy). Or that kids aren’t a source of transmission (disproven)
Click to expand...

Was there a credible report that suggested that kids were not a transmission vector?

I was aware that was likely/proven early on in Italy.

We knew transmission was taking place in the home more than any other setting.

There has been a discussion that children when exposed are less likely to have a serious case (though some obviously do, including fatalities).

The risks for children themselves are likely quite reasonable. (apologies to anyone whose child is seriously affected, I'm speaking statistically).

The second-order risk is really that they will bring that infection home to parents or grandparents, with the latter being at high risk.
 
1594931410157.png

www.tallahassee.com

Florida Emergency Operations Center closed till Monday after 12 workers contract coronavirus

DEM began testing EOC workers about three weeks ago. Out of approximately 150 workers tested, 12 returned positive results
www.tallahassee.com
 
Northern Light said:
Was there a credible report that suggested that kids were not a transmission vector?

I was aware that was likely/proven early on in Italy.

We knew transmission was taking place in the home more than any other setting.

There has been a discussion that children when exposed are less likely to have a serious case (though some obviously do, including fatalities).

The risks for children themselves are likely quite reasonable. (apologies to anyone whose child is seriously affected, I'm speaking statistically).

The second-order risk is really that they will bring that infection home to parents or grandparents, with the latter being at high risk.
Click to expand...


From what I gather, it may be that children carry small viral loads because of their generally better immune response to the virus. This would make them less suitable as highly effective carriers. Ergo, they wouldn't be a dangerous vector.

This is what it seems like from what is known now. Children tend to have an immune system that responds better to viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is presenting with very mild or no symptoms in the vast majority of infected children as well. This might suggest that their immune response is significantly effective enough to destroy most viral cells in short order, thus preventing the child from becoming a vector of the pathogen and thus preventing the infection of elders in the home.

Of course, this is hypothesis. I ain't testing it out as I have no kids. :p
 
Northern Light said:
View attachment 257689
www.tallahassee.com

Florida Emergency Operations Center closed till Monday after 12 workers contract coronavirus

DEM began testing EOC workers about three weeks ago. Out of approximately 150 workers tested, 12 returned positive results
www.tallahassee.com
Click to expand...

Defund the police. May as well defund the Emergency Operations Centre as well at this point. Money's probably better spent on buying lollies for disadvantaged youth so as to keep them from stealing them....or something.

Man, Florida is something else. What a place!
 
Jasmine18 said:
Like imagine how badly affected the city would be if all the bars and clubs shut down long term
Click to expand...

That's when it's for sure time to move out into the bush. There'd be no point in civilisation without the debauchery and bachanal. What the hell would the point of an agglomeration of parasitic humans be then?

Banish the thought! This place is getting to be bad enough without us losing all the grime that comes with having a bit of fun.

Or we just put up Adam Vaughan Was Here stickers....or Gord Perks Was Here stickers.....depending on your particular partisan preference or how "progressive" you are, or whatever. I'm equal opportunity when it comes to these jokers so I'll take both.
 
TrickyRicky said:
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...s-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered

It’s a good thing we have no clear plan for opening schools because kids aren’t a vector for transmission. Oops, Israel found otherwise.

Well Sickkid’s released a set of guidelines so we’re all good. A report full of illogical nonsensical group think like kids can’t wear masks (100’s of million’s around the world would disagree) or that kids shouldn’t wear masks because while masks are proven to reduce infection it might make them touch their face or wear them improperly (not proven relevant to transmission rates). Or that kids don’t show severe symptoms (irrelevant to the greater issue of overall public health strategy). Or that kids aren’t a source of transmission (disproven)
Click to expand...
How to get children to wear face masks:

Put interesting designs on them.

A clown mouth or a rabbit mouth are inexpensive generic designs.
 
Rimsky44 said:
As Alvin already noted, the employees (including owner btw, since they are also employees typically) are being paid through CERB. You don't need 2 layers of support. If you pay the business directly, non-viable companies lays off employees (who then are vulnerable) and uses the government incentive to prop up that non-viable business temporarily. There is very little reason why government should be taking on the business risk unless it's a strategically important asset (resources, transportation, food production). Supporting the employees directly ensures that ALL EMPLOYEES impacted get support, whether the business is viable or not.

Small business owners can't survive because they have large fixed cost (rent). Everything else is mainly variable and they should have already cut or minimized. If you were to argue for business support, any incentive to businesses should deal with reduction or waivers of rents so the government doesn't take the business/financial risk. Right now, in the supply chain, the landlords haven't woken up to reality that a lot of their tenants just aren't viable and won't pay. To me, they're the ones who should bear that business risk as that is their business - ensuring their units are rented out to a business that is a going concern.

If all the bars/clubs shut down long term, LANDLORDS would have a serious issue with their cashflow for mortgages. They would reduce their rents to a more reasonable level such that small business owners would return with a more viable and resilient business. If the landlords can't afford their mortgages, then the lenders will own it, and since there is no loan after enforcing on the security, they should be able to charge lower rents (as their acquisition cost now should provide a sufficient return on capital).
Click to expand...

Then allow them to fail on their own....

And CERB is not going to last forever...what happens next? Bunch of businesses are closed for good, where will these people work? You have it all figured out it seems. Small business owners will lose everything then just come back with new businesses because rent may drop a bit? You're living in a dream. A lot of these businesses are GONE for good just like a lot of jobs are GONE for good. Maybe it will dawn on you a little further down the road when we see the true damage of the virus.
 
My logic is there are some countries that need max effort to focus on just avoiding a mass outbreak and death.

We have avoided that for now and I feel even if there was a surge we would react swiftly and it won't get out of control.

As a result, we have the opportunity to look at the side effects and try to mitigate them now rather than not worrying about and it causes a huge issue after.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top