Canadian Money Forum banner

61 - 80 of 116 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
The Trump example was to illustrate that we are seeing more older people having mild outcomes then we are seeing bad outcomes. We always have.
Are you really saying we're seeing more old people with mild outcomes vs young people with mild outcomes? Just want to be clear here ...

Although there are differences in the health of each person, that kind of difference in outcomes is better explained by the differences in initial dosage of infection, then the health status of each before infection.
And of course there is no way to directly prove what percentage is a bigger factor. However, all health guidelines state that high risk people (old and/or with health issues) should take extra precautions. Obviously the hospital/death numbers support that the high risk group health factors play a very significant role. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, you want me to believe that all the high risk group got a larger initial dose and that is what is making it worse for them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
My 2 cents

The actions we're taking as a society are to protect the old. This group also happens to be the asset owners and the retired.

The cost of these actions disproportionately affect the young, whose careers are more likely to be low end, service roles. So you're asking people in the prime of their youth not to socialize and not to work, so that the boomers (who mind you don't have student debt and who won't be taxed to oblivion to pay for all this) can stay healthy. Going out to bars and partying is a bit much, but I think after this is all over the youngest people in our society deserve an effing break rather than everything constantly happening in favour of the old retired asset owners with pensions. It's a bit ridiculous.

Obviously we need to protect the old but the amount of content written about how awful the young are is so ridiculous to me. As a population, they've got it the worst and have paid the heaviest price. The boomers are riding this out in their muskoka and PEC cottages while the young tear their hair out in their little apartments, unemployed or worried about unemployment.

A year from now, the boomers will be wealthier than when this started and a segment of a generation of young people will be devastated and trying to pick up the pieces of their careers and lives. Oh, and their dream of ever owning a home just got even less likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
Are you really saying we're seeing more old people with mild outcomes vs young people with mild outcomes? Just want to be clear here ...

And of course there is no way to directly prove what percentage is a bigger factor. However, all health guidelines state that high risk people (old and/or with health issues) should take extra precautions. Obviously the hospital/death numbers support that the high risk group health factors play a very significant role. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, you want me to believe that all the high risk group got a larger initial dose and that is what is making it worse for them?
I suppose you are asking good questions, if you never heard this before. No. I am saying that we don't just see old people with bad outcomes. We also see old people with very mild outcomes. The main reason for that is the difference in initial dosage of virus they received when they were infected. There will be other differences with a few of the less healthy but for the average person of ANY AGE the initial dose of infection is the primary determinant of the outcome they will have.

Does that make sense. I am not asking you to agree, I am just asking if you finally understand what I am saying.

And yes, there is no way to prove what percentage is the most important factor except for the differences in outcomes from such a large number of people who appear to be equally healthy. That observation unfortuneatly will not give precise numbers we all would like. I will feel I did pretty good here if I can finally get you to agree that there is more to a person's outcome then just the health status of that person before infection. If I can get you to finally see that intaking 10,000,000 viruses will be more difficult for any body to fight off then intaking only 10,000. Can you see that?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
I suppose you are asking good questions, if you never heard this before. No. I am saying that we don't just see old people with bad outcomes. We also see old people with very mild outcomes. The main reason for that is the difference in initial dosage of virus they received when they were infected. There will be other differences with a few of the less healthy but for the average person of ANY AGE the initial dose of infection is the primary determinant of the outcome they will have.

Does that make sense. I am not asking you to agree, I am just asking if you finally understand what I am saying.
I do hear what you are saying. I just think your conclusion is completely wrong, as in, your weighting factors of viral load is greater than ones age/sickness status. The main reason we see more old people with worse outcomes is precisely due to age and/or other conditions. Again, are you asking me to believe more older people are getting a higher dose than younger people?

And yes, there is no way to prove what percentage is the most important factor except for the differences in outcomes from such a large number of people who appear to be equally healthy. That observation unfortuneatly will not give precise numbers we all would like. I will feel I did pretty good here if I can finally get you to agree that there is more to a person's outcome then just the health status of that person before infection. If I can get you to finally see that intaking 10,000,000 viruses will be more difficult for any body to fight off then intaking only 10,000. Can you see that?
Yes, there is more than just a person's health BUT their current age/health condition plays a major rule not a minor one as you want me to believe. Everyone in the world and all the stats agree that age and health are highly significant factors towards the outcome of a covid-19 infection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
My 2 cents

The actions we're taking as a society are to protect the old. This group also happens to be the asset owners and the retired.

The cost of these actions disproportionately affect the young, whose careers are more likely to be low end, service roles. So you're asking people in the prime of their youth not to socialize and not to work, so that the boomers (who mind you don't have student debt and who won't be taxed to oblivion to pay for all this) can stay healthy. Going out to bars and partying is a bit much, but I think after this is all over the youngest people in our society deserve an effing break rather than everything constantly happening in favour of the old retired asset owners with pensions. It's a bit ridiculous.

Obviously we need to protect the old but the amount of content written about how awful the young are is so ridiculous to me. As a population, they've got it the worst and have paid the heaviest price. The boomers are riding this out in their muskoka and PEC cottages while the young tear their hair out in their little apartments, unemployed or worried about unemployment.

A year from now, the boomers will be wealthier than when this started and a segment of a generation of young people will be devastated and trying to pick up the pieces of their careers and lives. Oh, and their dream of ever owning a home just got even less likely.
Finally someone with some sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
I do hear what you are saying. I just think your conclusion is completely wrong, as in, your weighting factors of viral load is greater than ones age/sickness status. The main reason we see more old people with worse outcomes is precisely due to age and/or other conditions. Again, are you asking me to believe more older people are getting a higher dose than younger people?


Yes, there is more than just a person's health BUT their current age/health condition plays a major rule not a minor one as you want me to believe. Everyone in the world and all the stats agree that age and health are highly significant factors towards the outcome of a covid-19 infection.
You are really fighting it. Just let it sink in. You will feel better after you do. lol

If the main reason we see poor outcomes with older people is their state of health, why is it that sometimes older people have a better outcome then younger people. Even when both appear to be of average health status for their age? You are observing the health exceptions and I am pointing towards the average. Since the average is a much larger group it is believed that initial dose of virus is more important then current health. It just shows up as the likely candidate so much more often, but at the end of the day they are both very important.

In any case, you cannot do much about the state of your current health so reducing the initial dose of infection is something one can sometimes do something about. Like wearing a mask.

Anyway, at least we are on the same page of understanding now. I think if I give you a little more time with your new information you will start to see a slightly different picture, but in the end, if you can avoid infection at all, it really does not matter.

My two rules for Covid-19 protection:

1) Ensure you do not get infected.
2) If you get infected, ensure it is of the lowest dose possible.


I have stated those rules quite a few times on these boards, since the beginning of this pandemic, but they can always use repeating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
It was asked what amount of virus constitutes a low dose. The answer is that no one accurately knows. They are looking at it but this is a new virus after all. Right now we just know that less of it is better then more of it.

Anyway, if anyone observed closely the mess up by the Astra Zeneca vaccine trials, they would observe that a large number of participants received the wrong dose of vaccine for the 2nd dose. Did anyone notice the dosage difference.

I am going by memory now, but if I recall correctly the idea was to dose everyone with 0.53 x 10^10 viral particles in the first dose and then double it to 1.06 x 10^10 viral particles for the 2nd dose. What they actually did for most of their participants which was the mistake made, was they dosed them with 0.53 x 10^10 viral particles in the 2nd dose as well. As we know, this mess up was the difference between 90% effectiveness down to 70% effectiveness.

My point here, is that we are actually needing our body to receive 53,000,000,000 viral particles to get 70% of us to develop any useful immune response. For the other 20% we need twice that many viruses to do that.

Those are the numbers we are talking about. My guess is that the 20% of participants that did not get an immune response from this mess up would mostly be younger people. It is probably for them that they increased the dosage but in hopes of not creating a cytokine storm attack on the older participants, they wanted to create some level of immunity for them (with the 1st smaller dose) before they hit them with the larger one. Which is probably why it is being done in two doses. Just to ensure we don't overdose anyone.

Anyway, I found that interesting.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
You are really fighting it. Just let it sink in. You will feel better after you do. lol
lol, just going with what makes sense to me .. nothing else.

If the main reason we see poor outcomes with older people is their state of health, why is it that sometimes older people have a better outcome then younger people. Even when both appear to be of average health status for their age?
Statements like yours above just doesn't make any sense to me.

On average, older people get sicker and die more (far more) than younger people. Of course there are times when an older person's outcome is milder than a young persons but certainly not on average. Also don't forget that older people are much more likely to have developed underlying conditions (sometimes multiple conditions) to make matters even worse for them. Just look at the numbers for hospitalizations, ICU and deaths ... they climb significantly when the age group is over 50.

So in comparison ..
3% of 20-29 yr olds get hospitalized
12.8% of 50-59 yr olds get hospitalized
16.5% of 60-69 yr olds get hospitalized

My two rules for Covid-19 protection:
1) Ensure you do not get infected.
2) If you get infected, ensure it is of the lowest dose possible.


I have stated those rules quite a few times on these boards, since the beginning of this pandemic, but they can always use repeating.
*Agreed! :)
* with a much higher priority on #1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,790 Posts
I think people are missing that the low fatality rate for young people is hiding a lot of potential permanent health impacts/disability caused by COVID. Breathing problems, kidney problems, mental fog, etc. Outcomes are not binary: mild flu vs ICU/death. Even being sedated and put on mechanical ventilation is enough to cause serious disability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,457 Posts
Discussion Starter · #71 · (Edited)
I think people are missing that the low fatality rate for young people is hiding a lot of potential permanent health impacts/disability caused by COVID. Breathing problems, kidney problems, mental fog, etc. Outcomes are not binary: mild flu vs ICU/death. Even being sedated and put on mechanical ventilation is enough to cause serious disability.
Yes and there's also the possibility of blood clots and lasting problems for the heart and other internal organs. There is the possibility we are going to see significant numbers of previously healthy, young people with new disabilities. Or even unable to work due to a long recovery.

Regarding society's mask rules, limitations on gatherings: they are to protect everyone, not just the old.

My 35 year old relative with COVID is still in hospital, and I just learned an hour ago that he has pneumonia. This isn't just an illness that affects the old. If you're a parent with adult children, I strongly recommend encouraging your children to be cautious / avoid gatherings, to protect themselves.

And @MrMatt , how soon do you think it will be before my previously-healthy relative is able to work again? I assume/hope/pray he will survive. So he won't show up as one of those deaths in your statistics. And yet, there is a tangible harm to society ... the man will NOT be working again too soon. Do you think he will draw EI for a long time? Maybe he will go on short or long term disability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
Yes and there's also the possibility of blood clots and lasting problems for the heart and other internal organs. There is the possibility we are going to see significant numbers of previously healthy, young people with new disabilities. Or even unable to work due to a long recovery.

Regarding society's mask rules, limitations on gatherings: they are to protect everyone, not just the old.

My 35 year old relative with COVID is still in hospital, and I just learned an hour ago that he has pneumonia. This isn't just an illness that affects the old. If you're a parent with adult children, I strongly recommend encouraging your children to be cautious / avoid gatherings, to protect themselves.

And @MrMatt , how soon do you think it will be before my previously-healthy relative is able to work again? I assume/hope/pray he will survive. So he won't show up as one of those deaths in your statistics. And yet, there is a tangible harm to society ... the man will NOT be working again too soon. Do you think he will draw EI for a long time? Maybe he will go on short or long term disability.
Don't know, I'm not his doctor.
That's irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

When we make decisions we decide the costs and the benefits.
Some people think that it's worth the risk, and some people don't.

With such a huge variation in risk profile, it isn't surprising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,457 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
I just got another update from friends of mine (20s and 30s) who are overseas. As I mentioned before, they have been having large parties and spreading COVID to each other for months now. They also likely spread it within that community, since they are constantly going to restaurants, taking public transit, etc.

Now the country they're in is banning alcohol and parties. The guys in their 20s and 30s don't sound like they want to stop partying. They are mostly Americans and seem to consider 'their right to drink and party' one of the most important things in life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
I just got another update from friends of mine (20s and 30s) who are overseas. As I mentioned before, they have been having large parties and spreading COVID to each other for months now. They also likely spread it within that community, since they are constantly going to restaurants, taking public transit, etc.

Now the country they're in is banning alcohol and parties. The guys in their 20s and 30s don't sound like they want to stop partying. They are mostly Americans and seem to consider 'their right to drink and party' one of the most important things in life.
and maybe those are the most important things in their lives?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,457 Posts
Discussion Starter · #75 ·
and maybe those are the most important things in their lives?
It may be the most important thing in their lives, sure. What's your point?

I may argue that one of the most important things in my life is to drink alcohol whenever I want, including when I drive a car. I promise I'll be careful. The public disagrees ... now what I want (drinking & driving) is at odds with what the public wants (no drinking & driving). In response I might whine and complain that I should have the right to do whatever I want, they are taking my rights away.

Similarly for these young adults, they genuinely might think that drinking & partying is the most important thing in their life. The jurisdiction they are in says that drinking & partying is no longer allowed. In response they might whine and complain that they should have the right to do whatever they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
It may be the most important thing in their lives, sure. What's your point?

I may argue that one of the most important things in my life is to drink alcohol whenever I want, including when I drive a car. I promise I'll be careful. The public disagrees ... now what I want (drinking & driving) is at odds with what the public wants (no drinking & driving). In response I might whine and complain that I should have the right to do whatever I want, they are taking my rights away.

Similarly for these young adults, they genuinely might think that drinking & partying is the most important thing in their life. The jurisdiction they are in says that drinking & partying is no longer allowed. In response they might whine and complain that they should have the right to do whatever they want.
Well I guess my point is that these people are acting in line with their priorities.

As far as they should have the right to do whatever they want, they DO have the right to do this.
Sorry the Constitution is pretty clear that we have the right to freedom of association.

The real question is when should the government be allowed to infringe on our constitutionally protected rights?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,470 Posts
Well I guess my point is that these people are acting in line with their priorities.

As far as they should have the right to do whatever they want, they DO have the right to do this.
Sorry the Constitution is pretty clear that we have the right to freedom of association.

The real question is when should the government be allowed to infringe on our constitutionally protected rights?
In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.
It is, I think that they should have actually prohibited non-essential travel, they still haven't done this.

I think that it is very hard to argue against human rights, however since our constitution doesn't actually provide any protection of these rights, and the government and courts seem willing to ignore it I don't see how a reasonable restriction on non-essential travel is inappropriate.

I don't think they should be having COVID parties, I think the government should enforce restrictions on flagrant and willful acts that may cause significant harm.

If a drive in church can be banned, then a house party should definately be banned.

If gatherings between familys can be banned, then entry protocols to the country or any other area can be implemented.
The "Constitutional" argument is legally dumb, since the constitution doesn't protect any rights.

Secondly I think it is similarly inappropriate to say that someone shouldn't be allowed to exercise their constitutionally enumerated rights.

You should be able to exercise them, simultaneously the government should act in a manner to balance those rights with the larger needs of society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,457 Posts
Discussion Starter · #79 ·
In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.
I don't think Mr Matt understands how individual rights work.

This kind of thing has gone to the courts repeatedly. People cannot do any old thing they want, if it also causes harm to the public or country.

Individual rights and freedoms are not unlimited. That's why I can't drive under the influence of alcohol. It's also why freedom of speech is not limitless. It very much is limited when it crosses into the realm of harm to the public.

In the case of 20 year olds who want to drink & party, and are spreading COVID in the middle of a pandemic where the hospital system is collapsing ... the public interest overrules the desire of the young adults to have fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
I don't think Mr Matt understands how individual rights work.

This kind of thing has gone to the courts repeatedly. People cannot do any old thing they want, if it also causes harm to the public or country.

Individual rights and freedoms are not unlimited. That's why I can't drive under the influence of alcohol. It's also why freedom of speech is not limitless. It very much is limited when it crosses into the realm of harm to the public.

In the case of 20 year olds who want to drink & party, and are spreading COVID in the middle of a pandemic where the hospital system is collapsing ... the public interest overrules the desire of the young adults to have fun.
Actually I do know how individual rights work. I also know how they should work.

Free speech is a good one, I think you should be able to say, without criminal penalty pretty much anything that is true.
Beyond that I think you should be allowed to freely discuss and debate opinions etc, civil discourse is essential to a healthy democracy.
The people who stand against free speech are anti-democratic. To me it's obvious that they know their ideas are $#[email protected]# and can't stand up to scrutiny.


As far as 20 year olds who want to drink and party, I've been consistent that this should not be permitted. I've also been clear on closing the border to non essential travel.

As much as I'm one of the strongest proponents of human rights on this forum, I have stated, repeatedly that I think in the context of COVID19, infringing the right to freedom of association may be appropriate in some circumstances.
 
61 - 80 of 116 Posts
Top