Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 12299 times)

L K, Bates, Heroic Shrimp and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2669
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #585 on: Today at 07:31:55 AM »

You know, over in the thread about the NHL's return someone made the case that no reasonable person could ever be surprised by people who were primarily driven by a profit-motive caring more for that profit than for health and safety.

So, you know, it is a bit strange to see so many headlines in the newspaper about just how shocked, shocked, our Premier is that people running care homes for the elderly in the interest of making money cut corners and jeopardized safety in the interest of their own profitability.


Who ever said Doug Ford was a reasonable person.
That being said, he has to feign shock. He can't come out and say "I knew it was that bad..."


Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2669
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #586 on: Today at 07:35:42 AM »
To prevent ICU admissions wouldn't you also have to prevent cases in the first place?



I don't know that they necessarily go hand in hand. If the cases are spread out over a much longer period you may still get the same number of cases in the end, but the health system won't be overrun.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #586 on: Today at 07:35:42 AM »

Online Highlander

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6907
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few"
                                           Sunryn Suzuki

Offline Bender

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6566
  • Gender: Male
  • Bender cracked corn and he is great!
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #588 on: Today at 12:19:29 PM »
To prevent ICU admissions wouldn't you also have to prevent cases in the first place?



I don't know that they necessarily go hand in hand. If the cases are spread out over a much longer period you may still get the same number of cases in the end, but the health system won't be overrun.
But isn't that the point? Maybe you don't stop everyone from getting infected eventually but you do prevent infections that would normally happen all at a much faster rate, so in that sense you are preventing cases or at least holding them off. If hospitalizations are just a mathematical fraction of number of cases then it stands to reason that the lower overall case count will lead to lower overall ICU count, so in that sense reducing case count (300 cases a day vs 3000 cases a day) matters.
"They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So here is the professor's oldest friend, a grotesque, stinking lobster." - Bender

Online bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21260
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #589 on: Today at 12:33:17 PM »
Are they not to some extent one and the same? To prevent ICU admissions wouldn't you also have to prevent cases in the first place?

Yes and no. Obviously, preventing them from happening now is what helps to limit ICU admissions, but, in order to achieve herd immunity (absent a vaccine, at least), it's really just a matter of spreading the cases without lowering the end total of infections. So, instead of 100,000 cases in a 2 month period, it's 100,000 cases in a 6 month period - or whatever the real numbers and timelines end up being. Same number of people getting sick, just less of them being sick at the same time.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Online herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19532
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #590 on: Today at 01:06:02 PM »

A very good podcast with an interview with Dr. David Fisman, who I think Herman mentioned earlier, about why Ontario isn't handling the crisis very well:

https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2020/05/27/what-is-ontario-doing-wrong-on-covid-19/

Haha what did I mention now? I have no recollection of this, but thanks for the share!

We're several months past it now, but there was a huge window of opportunity for North America to handle this properly, but due to leadership being what it is here...

A) Asian countries were raising the alarm bells back in October. Most of them knew SARS up close and personal and put measures in place after they recovered to ensure this didn't catch them off guard again; i.e. lots of examples of procedure and messaging and equipment; western nations seemingly scoffed from afar and said, that wouldn't happen here.

B) It did. Italy, Spain, UK, all got thrashed thoroughly for taking it chill, and their subsequent warnings to the rest of the world went mostly unheeded. Those Twitter threads from front-line workers were chilling and heart-breaking.

C) It was WINTER when the virus started to appear more serious here. If our governments took the warnings seriously: manufacturing should have been leveraged immediately towards masks, tests, care facilities, ventilators (a bit late for that); distancing measures should have been spun up when it was cold and snowy anyway instead of... March Break.

Is there significant economic impact to shutting things down so early? Um yes, but you know what else is a significant economic impact? Letting things drag out over 2-3 years with periodic shutdowns because either people are buttholes and selfish, or there are no social infrastructures for supporting/sheltering all citizens in times of need.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:47:20 PM by herman »
#BeBlessed

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26920
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #591 on: Today at 02:02:08 PM »
Haha what did I mention now? I have no recollection of this, but thanks for the share!

My mistake, it was Bender. In my defense you both have 6 letters in your name and I very rarely listen to people who aren't me.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online L K

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 10402
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #592 on: Today at 03:38:55 PM »
As long as the hospitals don't get swamped with new admissions I think they will just ride it out.

This is one of the things that is getting left out of the discussion too much.  Shutting things down wasn't about preventing COVID cases.  It was from preventing overrun ICUs.  Having an uptick in cases if they are primarily mild isn't going to be the limiting factor on whether things get shut back down.  Besides we are still on the early wave of seeing if opening things back up causes a problem.  It's going to be next weekend and the week after that that will be a much better indicator of whether we are heading for another problem.
Are they not to some extent one and the same? To prevent ICU admissions wouldn't you also have to prevent cases in the first place?

I also don't see things backsliding into lockdown unless ICUs start to fill up but that doesn't seem like an elegant solution since ICU admissions and death are lagging indicators.

Not really.   In the early stages of COVID the threshold for Intubation was set incredibly low.  The hospital alliance I work with basically suggested if you went past 4 litres of oxygen by nasal prong, start thinking early intubation.  For COPD/long term smokers/people with bad hearts, that's really a low threshold for even healthy individuals wiht a bad pneumonia.  Now we are doing a lot more to prevent intubation with patients so that has made a big transition point for how quickly we need to access ICU beds for even sick COVID patients. 

We also just don't have a bed crisis in the hospitals at this point in time. If we ended up with a massive influx of cases, we potentially would have to reconsider going back to more extreme precautions, but at this point in time we are dealing with 70+ percent of our cases coming from the GTA and those numbers are steadily in the 3-400 range a day.  That just isn't the volume to justify keeping everything closed.   

We have also increased our ventilator access so should things actually get worse we have more bed availability than we did at the onset of the COVID pandemic so we have more wiggle room to handle an influx of cases.   

Categories of who is getting infected still play a big role as well.  Our largest death populations have come from the nursing homes.  Deaths have obviously happened in other populations but the elderly have been our biggest risk population.  Expanding people back to work and out in the day to day while keeping restricted visiting in the homes isn't likely to cause the same problem as just outright opening everything up into a free for all.