Canadian Money Forum banner

2201 - 2220 of 2288 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
I guess google is wonking out on you?
Or maybe you mean you aren't finding recent enough ones for your liking or ones in the area you'd prefer?



Cheers
I guess google is wonking out on you?
Or maybe you mean you aren't finding recent enough ones for your liking or ones in the area you'd prefer?



Cheers
1) first one had less than 200 subjects for 4 different categorizes. big leap of faith to the entire population. Plus it didn't show prevention.
2. It says right in the conclusions it didn't meet its own criteria for efficacy. There was a slight benefit that they subjectively deemed outweighed harm done. Low sample size, so generalizing to whole population is a leap of faith.
3. People with MG were not harmed by the vaccine. Low sample size, requires a lot of faith to generalize to whole MG population.

Basically they do not show efficacy. I wondered why the health professionals informally told me it doesn't work. Now I know. thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Trudeau is crossing a provincial border to make an unnecessary non-emergency trip to his cottage this weekend. You're not allowed to cross a provincial border to go to your cottage but the rules don't apply to Trudeau.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,204

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
Sailors on the USS Roosevelt who had the virus are testing positive again.

It has to be no immunity or false negative testing results. Either way it isn't good news.

My reaction would be that I do not trust any testing or reporting of cases as being definitive, if the USA is involved. So I would discount these as unreliable data and therefore 'no news' at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
1) first one had less than 200 subjects for 4 different categorizes. big leap of faith to the entire population. Plus it didn't show prevention.
2. It says right in the conclusions it didn't meet its own criteria for efficacy. There was a slight benefit that they subjectively deemed outweighed harm done. Low sample size, so generalizing to whole population is a leap of faith.
3. People with MG were not harmed by the vaccine. Low sample size, requires a lot of faith to generalize to whole MG population.

Basically they do not show efficacy. I wondered why the health professionals informally told me it doesn't work. Now I know. thanks.
Word from the CDC is that the flu vaccine is 40-60% effective. Not perfect, by any means, but hardly "doesn't work".

Here's the list of papers they cite in the above article:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
Word from the CDC is that the flu vaccine is 40-60% effective. Not perfect, by any means, but hardly "doesn't work".

Here's the list of papers they cite in the above article:
Deaths from the flu keep rising despite 40 - 60% effectiveness. Hmmmm. something is awry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,208
The population is growing and aging, so there will be more deaths from all causes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,209
The number of vehicle accident claims are down and some companies are giving rebates, so the lockdown probably saved lives on the roads.

There are probably fewer workplace accidents, swimming accidents, boating accidents as well.

On balance the COVID lockdown has probably saved many lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
A somewhat interesting side issue of the virus is how differences in culture even within a country can affect the outcome. In particular, I am thinking about the willingness to accept or not accept advice that is seen as 'government interference in how I live my life' or the 'no one can tell me what to do' syndrome.

I see it in the USA, Quebec and the north of England. All places that tend to say, 'I'm gonna do what I want, never mind what it might do to anyone else (or even to myself).'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
And the flip side of that are the people willing to give up every last bit of freedom they have left for more government control for the illusion of safety.

If you're scared you can stay at home cowering under the covers for the rest of your life, but you don't have the right to tell me I have to when the fatality rate for my demographic is less than that of the flu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,212 (Edited)
True, but then you should only co-mingle with others who feel the same way, which evidently is a small but noisy portion of the population.

You also shouldn't expect doctors and nurses to risk their health and lives to treat you if you get the virus.

I read about preachers and protestors who railed against the shutdown and are now in ICU units or have died.

I hope they didn't infect others by their actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,909 Posts
And the flip side of that are the people willing to give up every last bit of freedom they have left for more government control for the illusion of safety.

If you're scared you can stay at home cowering under the covers for the rest of your life, but you don't have the right to tell me I have to when the fatality rate for my demographic is less than that of the flu.
I can see both sides being I am at a lower risk group, but my parents and family are not. The challenge with allowing those who are at a lower risk do what they want, they can still infect others at a higher risk group.

I would say if people really want to go out and take their chances despite government warnings, they should sign something indicating they and their families will not ask for any assistance as a result of their actions. If one ends up catching COVID because they choose not to follow, then they don't get to get medical treatment and they nurse themselves back to health. If they do end up sick, then they must self quarantine without any assistance. No CERB, no nothing. If they get anyone else sick, they must be responsible for the care of the others in terms of cost, if the others are demonstrate they followed the recommendations, they will get covered, otherwise they are on their own.

It would be like the insurance policies. You break their rules, you are on your own.

The safety nets we have in Canada are quite generous (overly generous in my view), but it does come at a price. If one doesn't like the price, then go elsewhere, or sign away the safety nets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
I can see both sides being I am at a lower risk group, but my parents and family are not. The challenge with allowing those who are at a lower risk do what they want, they can still infect others at a higher risk group.

I would say if people really want to go out and take their chances despite government warnings, they should sign something indicating they and their families will not ask for any assistance as a result of their actions. If one ends up catching COVID because they choose not to follow, then they don't get to get medical treatment and they nurse themselves back to health. If they do end up sick, then they must self quarantine without any assistance. No CERB, no nothing. If they get anyone else sick, they must be responsible for the care of the others in terms of cost, if the others are demonstrate they followed the recommendations, they will get covered, otherwise they are on their own.

It would be like the insurance policies. You break their rules, you are on your own.

The safety nets we have in Canada are quite generous (overly generous in my view), but it does come at a price. If one doesn't like the price, then go elsewhere, or sign away the safety nets.
Can we apply the same logic to the flu? Anyone who doesn't quarantine during flu season or get a flu shot will be refused medical treatment? And if you give someone else the flu you must pay for their treatment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,909 Posts
Can we apply the same logic to the flu? Anyone who doesn't quarantine during flu season or get a flu shot will be refused medical treatment? And if you give someone else the flu you must pay for their treatment?
If there was a public health warning on the flu, I would say yes. COVID is not the flu. They do have vaccinations for the fl. At many health care places, they tell the staff if they choose not to get the flu shot, and they get sick, they will not pay for sick days.

The risks for COVID are much higher than the flu, enough that it’s been declared a pandemic. I have say if a strain of the flu is serious enough to declare pandemic then if you don’t follow the recommendations, don’t get treatment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,450 Posts
I can see both sides being I am at a lower risk group, but my parents and family are not. The challenge with allowing those who are at a lower risk do what they want, they can still infect others at a higher risk group.

I would say if people really want to go out and take their chances despite government warnings, they should sign something indicating they and their families will not ask for any assistance as a result of their actions. If one ends up catching COVID because they choose not to follow, then they don't get to get medical treatment and they nurse themselves back to health. If they do end up sick, then they must self quarantine without any assistance. No CERB, no nothing. If they get anyone else sick, they must be responsible for the care of the others in terms of cost, if the others are demonstrate they followed the recommendations, they will get covered, otherwise they are on their own.

It would be like the insurance policies. You break their rules, you are on your own.

The safety nets we have in Canada are quite generous (overly generous in my view), but it does come at a price. If one doesn't like the price, then go elsewhere, or sign away the safety nets.
... better yet, getting sued for infecting others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
While idiots are calling to be allowed to do as they please and businesses are calling to be allowed to re-open, what is happening in long term care homes continues to be ignored. Now we have 28 military personnel who have been working in LTC homes in Ontario and Quebec testing positive for the virus. What does that tell us?

Clearly, NO improvement in how patients and staff are being dealt with in LTC homes is happening. They are continuing to FAIL to isolate those in these homes and as a result, the virus is continuing to spread.

When a patient tests positive what do you think then happens? A patient in a Laval, Quebec LTC home was reportedly left in a room with a CORPSE for 24 hours. Imagine yourself being positive and lying in your bed in your bedroom suffering from the virus. In another single bed across the room from you there is another resident who has tested positive. Once in a while, someone comes in and looks at you. That's your CARE. You are not taken from the home to a hospital, you are kept in that room. Then the other resident in your room dies. Someone comes in and sees the person is dead. Then they leave you alone for another 24 hours before they remove the body. HOW is that CARE?

When someone NOT in a LTC home gets very ill and needs healthcare, we call an ambulance and they are taken to a hospital. This is 'standard operating procedure'. Why is it not the same with someone in an LTC home who has Covid-19? It's not like a resident suddenly has a heart attack or stroke and dies in the LTC home. It's a progressive illness over a period of time. But it seems at no point in that progress does it mean the person is taken to a hospital.

They are not telling us this is what is happening and has been since the beginning. Why when someone in a LTC home tests positive and goes beyond the first symptoms are they KEPT in that home and not transferred to hospital?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
Now read this link for the answer to my question of why LTC residents are not being transferred to a hospital. It may open some eyes as to what is happening.

EACH LTC home makes its own decisions as does each attending physician and each local Public Health Department. There is no LAW that says, 'when someone, anyone is seriously ill, you MUST call for an ambulance to take them to a hospital.'

So people are making these DECISIONS for our seniors. They are deciding seniors will left to die if they get the virus. Clearly, this is happening but it is NOT being talked about. Imagine yourself as someone in the CBC article being told, 'there's no point sending your parent to a hospital, s/he will die anyway.' Put YOURSELF in those shoes and see how they fit your belief as to how we treat our seniors.

Nor are they just making the decision to let someone die. They are at the same time making the decision to increase the risk of infection for everyone else in the LTC home since the person is not being fully isolated. That's why 28 army personnel have been infected. That's why it has spread throughout a LTC home once it gets in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
This pandemic is showing us a lot of the shortcomings of our healthcare system when it comes to seniors. We basically, treat our seniors differently from everyone else and we do not treat them well at all. We treat them as if they no longer matter. They're past their 'usefulness' to society, they're 'discardable', they're really just an 'annoyance' that we wish would just 'go away' and let us get on with our oh so busy and important lives.

How important our seniors are to some of us is summed up very clearly in this statement from a poster above, "but
you don't have the right to tell me I have to when the fatality rate for my demographic is less than that of the flu".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,450 Posts
Now read this link for the answer to my question of why LTC residents are not being transferred to a hospital. It may open some eyes as to what is happening.

EACH LTC home makes its own decisions as does each attending physician and each local Public Health Department. There is no LAW that says, 'when someone, anyone is seriously ill, you MUST call for an ambulance to take them to a hospital.'

So people are making these DECISIONS for our seniors. They are deciding seniors will left to die if they get the virus. Clearly, this is happening but it is NOT being talked about. Imagine yourself as someone in the CBC article being told, 'there's no point sending your parent to a hospital, s/he will die anyway.' Put YOURSELF in those shoes and see how they fit your belief as to how we treat our seniors.

Nor are they just making the decision to let someone die. They are at the same time making the decision to increase the risk of infection for everyone else in the LTC home since the person is not being fully isolated. That's why 28 army personnel have been infected. That's why it has spread throughout a LTC home once it gets in.
... the bolded part is nothing new or a change in mindset for "decades". Seniors are viewed as passed its BB date. [Even Ms. Elliott has bluntly viewed these as "collateral damages" in this pandemic as harsh as seems to be.] While not in the pandemic phase, deaths of seniors are viewed merely as "this is LIFE".

As for the "YOURSELF", that question should be asked of the physicians, LTC, hospital administrators, Public Health Care, nurses or just about those in the "healthcare" profession that can make the difference ... do they not have parents or become a "senior" themselves? Guess it's just easier to act like ostriches or have the teflon mindsets with the "ain't gonna to happen to Me, Me, Me" too or my parents ain't in those LTCs.
 
2201 - 2220 of 2288 Posts
Top