COVID-19 Manitoba

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Festivus

Using 1% of a population for a scientific, randomly-selected survey would be massive overkill. I mean, you can do pretty good opinion polls for all of Canada with 500 respondents. The issue is you need to make it completely random, and representative of the overall population.

The COVID-19 tests aren't a random survey though, they are self-selective, meaning that only people who volunteer (and fit the criteria) get the test. It's like phoning homes for a poll vs an online survey on a single website. One gets you a representative sample (with modelling), the other gets you bunk.

However, for medical testing like this you want a self-selected survey, because people with symptoms are more likely to have it than people without.

I am 100% certain there are other cases out there, but until we have enough tests to randomly start testing extra hundreds or thousands who have no suspicion of being infected, we should keep using tests on people we think are more likely of being infected.

I'm sorry what evidence do you have for this? I have heard on multiple occasions that the probability is exceptionally high that a large plurality, if not an outright majority or maybe even a vast majority of cases are either a) asymptomatic, or b) have very mild symptoms. <https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-bmj-study-suggests-78-dont-show-symptoms-heres-what-that-could-mean-135732> (just one article that I've read recently)

If this is even remotely true, this business about favouring symptomatic cases for testing, means that you're getting a wildly biased sample, which means that your actual infection rate is wildly different than the reported case rate. It follows then, that any sort of measurable death rate is also largely useless without a well constructed random sample test to record the actual infection rate. This should also take into account those who have developed antibodies to the virus, so we can see the true extent off all infection. The higher the denominator, the lower the mortality rate, the closer we are to being able to get over the hysteria and panic.

I don't inherently disagree with reserving limited tests for those who present showing symptoms, but we need actual data to start making informed policy decisions. At the moment, we are using badly inflated numbers to justify quasi-fascist lock-downs, and these aren't sustainable in the short term, nevermind for an indefinite period of time. We need to start coming up with restart plans fast, because right now, we're basing our assumptions on models that don't correlate with reality, which is why the estimates for total deaths in the US has been reduced several times in the last couple of weeks, and which already accounted for social distancing where around 50% of people decided not to comply. The most recent suggests around 60k by the end of July, more in line with a bad flu season than anything else.

Look, I understand that this thing is highly transmissible and that everybody is scared because we've put this thing in the spotlight and are hyping it up, but we gotta start looking at letting people make their own risk assessments. If you're vulnerable, maybe you stay home for a while longer, but for those who aren't part of vulnerable groups, it is going to be to our distinct advantage for a bulk of them to get infected and develop a herd immunity.

[bomberjet]

The whole expectation here was to not overwhelm the health system with a flood of cases. Seems that is being accomplished. Once the curve comes down, we should be letting everyone go back to their lives. Formulate some type of slow release plan. And let's get on with it.

[YWG-RO]

MB 221, 3 deaths, 6 ICU.
Canada 19 k, 427 deaths.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'm sorry what evidence do you have for this? I have heard on multiple occasions that the probability is exceptionally high that a large plurality, if not an outright majority or maybe even a vast majority of cases are either a) asymptomatic, or b) have very mild symptoms. <https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-bmj-study-suggests-78-dont-show-symptoms-heres-what-that-could-mean-135732> (just one article that I've read recently)

What I said doesn't contradict that. I said that testing someone with symptoms is more likely to produce a positive test than testing someone without any symptoms (from the general population). Someone with symptoms may have the flu, COVID-19, a cold, or a few other things. Someone without any symptoms (from the general public) could be infected and asymptomatic, but they also likely don't have any current illness.

The only case where your claim may be true (that someone with no symptoms is more likely to test positive than someone with symptoms) would be true if:

- The entire population had COVID-19
- A majority of people with COVID-19 display no symptoms

Obviously the first is not true, we are likely only at a point where 0.1 to 1% of the population has it based on spread. Even if that number is low, we are certainly not far above it as otherwise we'd already have hundreds of thousands of deaths in Canada based on a .6% mortality rate (which is the lowest in any jurisdiction).

For the second, while it's possible that a majority are asymptomatic, we have no proper studies done yet for widescale, random testing of the public. Once we do, we will know more.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The whole expectation here was to not overwhelm the health system with a flood of cases. Seems that is being accomplished. Once the curve comes down, we should be letting everyone go back to their lives. Formulate some type of slow release plan. And let's get on with it.

The problem is that community spread is still really limited. If we "get on with it" we are going to continually have localized outbreaks like NYC, they will just happen faster with more travel and contact. Our hospitals in a local sense will be overrun but if this happens in many locations at once the resources of the whole country will be overrun.

There's a false sense of security given the measures that were taken. The issue becomes that we have very, very low immunity. At this point an extremely small piece of the population has immunity having had the virus and recovered. Until we have a mass of testing to see who has antibodies or a vaccine that we can produces billions of copies of, or hopefully both, anything resembling normal won't happen.

As a for instance, going back to NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, CFL operating...tens of thousands of fans in tight quarters, hundreds of players and team personnel travelling all over the continent. That can't be happening until there's broad immunity.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The whole expectation here was to not overwhelm the health system with a flood of cases. Seems that is being accomplished. Once the curve comes down, we should be letting everyone go back to their lives. Formulate some type of slow release plan. And let's get on with it.

Absolutely. It's gotta happen sooner than later.

As for localized outbreaks: they will happen, but we also can't realistically sit at home and wait for 18 months or however long it takes to produce a vaccine.

Life is risk. We can't run from this forever. People will get infected. People will die. That's a fact. We don't have to destroy the entire system to protect people, especially since you can't protect everyone to an absolute level

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Absolutely. It's gotta happen sooner than later.

As for localized outbreaks: they will happen, but we also can't realistically sit at home and wait for 18 months or however long it takes to produce a vaccine.

Life is risk. We can't run from this forever. People will get infected. People will die. That's a fact. We don't have to destroy the entire system to protect people, especially since you can't protect everyone to an absolute level

That’s just it. We can’t wait for a vaccine to start living again. That’s could be 18 months. It could be years. When do things start going again and how? There have really been no answers to that from the powers that be.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Absolutely. It's gotta happen sooner than later.

As for localized outbreaks: they will happen, but we also can't realistically sit at home and wait for 18 months or however long it takes to produce a vaccine.

Life is risk. We can't run from this forever. People will get infected. People will die. That's a fact. We don't have to destroy the entire system to protect people, especially since you can't protect everyone to an absolute level

I think you are underestimating the human and economic toll of going back to normal in this scenario.

Imagine being a 50 year old in NYC having a first heart attack. This person is at a huge risk of dying given the state of the hospitals there. If that happens in Winnipeg today that person has a great chance of survival and returning to their life and work.

There's going to be the deaths and serious complications of COVID (pulmonary disorders and organ failures that require ongoing support for the rest of life) but there's also going to be a ton of unnecessary deaths from things we can usually treat quite easily just because the capacity in our health system is not there.

Having a significant number of working age people severely ill and dying will be horrendous for the economy. Having a significant amount of skilled workers severely ill and dying will be horrendous for the economy.

We're better off bumping along at 15% unemployment and a bunch of people working from home when they can than having every city on the continent get to have a NYC or New Orleans situation and then try to come back from that.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

I think you are underestimating the human and economic toll of going back to normal in this scenario.

Imagine being a 50 year old in NYC having a first heart attack. This person is at a huge risk of dying given the state of the hospitals there. If that happens in Winnipeg today that person has a great chance of survival and returning to their life and work.

There's going to be the deaths and serious complications of COVID (pulmonary disorders and organ failures that require ongoing support for the rest of life) but there's also going to be a ton of unnecessary deaths from things we can usually treat quite easily just because the capacity in our health system is not there.

Having a significant number of working age people severely ill and dying will be horrendous for the economy. Having a significant amount of skilled workers severely ill and dying will be horrendous for the economy.

We're better off bumping along at 15% unemployment and a bunch of people working from home when they can than having every city on the continent get to have a NYC or New Orleans situation and then try to come back from that.

Dude, if we stay in for 18 months, that unemployment rate is gonna be more like 50%, maybe higher.

I also think your way over blowing what this virus can do. It has the potential to be lethal for some, but to over huge majority of people who contract it, it's not a major thing. Small proportion of cases that may have severe effects or require hospitalization. How many people do you expect will be hospitalized at one time anyways? I'm sick of this war mongering pussyfooting approach adopted by many. This is gonna suck, but it will particularly suck in the long term if we destroy the economy.

And no shit there are those who have a bigger vulnerability. If you feel that you're at risk, you have the choice to stay home, but we can't keep people inside indefinitely, especially not when this isnt like the plague and is more of a coin flip to survive if you catch it.

I don't think that at documented levels of fatality that this would produce the kind of blow to the economy that you're suggesting since you bring it up.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I also think your way over blowing what this virus can do. It has the potential to be lethal for some, but to over huge majority of people who contract it, it's not a major thing. Small proportion of cases that may have severe effects or require hospitalization. How many people do you expect will be hospitalized at one time anyways? I'm sick of this war mongering pussyfooting approach adopted by many.

It has already overwhelmed health care systems in other places. What makes you think that can't happen here?

Yes the economy is important but that fact people on here are dismissing human life so easily is disgusting.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Luisito

It has already overwhelmed health care systems in other places. What makes you think that can't happen here?

Yes the economy is important but that fact people on here are dismissing human life so easily is disgusting.

I get what you're saying, but we shouldn't necessarily be dismissive of people who are concerned about the impact this is all having on the economy either. A brutally depressed economy will also generate vast amounts of human misery, suffering and death. Particularly if the government's ability to provide for people out of work is overwhelmed.

Public health and safety is quite rightly the immediate priority, but there has to be some regard for the long term impact of what's happening now.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Dude, if we stay in for 18 months, that unemployment rate is gonna be more like 50%, maybe higher.

I also think your way over blowing what this virus can do. It has the potential to be lethal for some, but to over huge majority of people who contract it, it's not a major thing. Small proportion of cases that may have severe effects or require hospitalization. How many people do you expect will be hospitalized at one time anyways? I'm sick of this war mongering pussyfooting approach adopted by many. This is gonna suck, but it will particularly suck in the long term if we destroy the economy.

And no shit there are those who have a bigger vulnerability. If you feel that you're at risk, you have the choice to stay home, but we can't keep people inside indefinitely, especially not when this isnt like the plague and is more of a coin flip to survive if you catch it.

I don't think that at documented levels of fatality that this would produce the kind of blow to the economy that you're suggesting since you bring it up.

Ah good to see this forum is still the sick right-wing garbage it usually is. Some things stay the same. "I don't think the tens of thousands of fatalities caused would affect the economy enough for it to be a big deal".......

Obviously you have no loved ones who work in healthcare. I'd ask you to try to imagine what an unmitigated outbreak would do to them but you can't. I doubt you've had a day in your life where you worked as hard as ER staff do every single day, even pre-covid.

Generations before us dealt with things like wars and drafts. Everyone had loved ones overseas for years. Industry lost a huge portion of their workforce, for years. Unprecedented gov't spending on the war effort, for years. It's probably worth noting that without mitigation the covid death toll in Canada would easily surpass our WW2 casualties of 40k. They put their boots on and got it done, and moved on. You've been asked to work from home and stop going to restaurants for 3 weeks and you're already pooping your panties. Don't be so damn soft. Time to put on your big boy pants.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

The problem is that community spread is still really limited. If we "get on with it" we are going to continually have localized outbreaks like NYC, they will just happen faster with more travel and contact. Our hospitals in a local sense will be overrun but if this happens in many locations at once the resources of the whole country will be overrun.

There's a false sense of security given the measures that were taken. The issue becomes that we have very, very low immunity. At this point an extremely small piece of the population has immunity having had the virus and recovered. Until we have a mass of testing to see who has antibodies or a vaccine that we can produces billions of copies of, or hopefully both, anything resembling normal won't happen.

As a for instance, going back to NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, CFL operating...tens of thousands of fans in tight quarters, hundreds of players and team personnel travelling all over the continent. That can't be happening until there's broad immunity.

Ya I don't think we'll see any sort of large gatherings like that for some time. Cancel the NHL/NBA season's. CFL likely cancelled. MLB should be delayed if not cancelled. Next NHL/NBA/NFL season likely delayed.

My point was, we need to start relaxing restrictions at some time. The Province indicated be prepared for social distancing until July/August. So that seems to be the time frame we can all expect when things will start being relaxed.

And 100% when that happens we will see a rise in cases.

[Festivus]

People who say it is a binary choice (health vs economy) are missing a key factor: With massive death comes a worse economy. If we loosen all restrictions and go back to normal, there will be wave after wave of death, and the medical system will be completely underwater the entire time. This will have a huge effect on economic activity as people die, take time off, fear going into work, etc.

[Festivus]

Government of Canada has released their official (current) projections: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ph...inform-eng.pdf

Best Case Scenario (hold restrictions): 11,000 - 22,000 dead
Medium Case Scenario (loosen restrictions some): 100,000 - 200,000 dead
Worst Case Scenario (eliminate restrictions): 300,000 - 350,000 dead

[Biff]

Well I like this chart - the Green (recovered) is starting to encroach on the infected.



Jacques Marcoux@jacquesmarcoux Twitter

[dmacc]

I like charts

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Ah good to see this forum is still the sick right-wing garbage it usually is. Some things stay the same. "I don't think the tens of thousands of fatalities caused would affect the economy enough for it to be a big deal".......

Obviously you have no loved ones who work in healthcare. I'd ask you to try to imagine what an unmitigated outbreak would do to them but you can't. I doubt you've had a day in your life where you worked as hard as ER staff do every single day, even pre-covid.

Generations before us dealt with things like wars and drafts. Everyone had loved ones overseas for years. Industry lost a huge portion of their workforce, for years. Unprecedented gov't spending on the war effort, for years. It's probably worth noting that without mitigation the covid death toll in Canada would easily surpass our WW2 casualties of 40k. They put their boots on and got it done, and moved on. You've been asked to work from home and stop going to restaurants for 3 weeks and you're already pooping your panties. Don't be so damn soft. Time to put on your big boy pants.

Oh yeah, the health care workers are doing a good job, fine.

But it's kind of cold comfort for the millions of people that could lose everything to say, "well at least you're alive", after destroying their livelihoods, futures, and probably the futures of their children.

Also anyone trying to project what the death toll would be without mitigation is talking out of their ass. Our data set is incomplete, and (to be crystal clear), most of the early projections were based on INCORRECT assumptions.

Glad to see people are so easily herded into submission.

[esquire]

Well, those Government of Canada charts certainly lay out the stakes here in very stark terms.

I'd be curious to know where we are right now in terms of the level of epidemic controls right now. I'm assuming we are in the stronger control zone, although not quite at the far left end of the chart, i.e. the Wuhan-style lockdowns.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Also anyone trying to project what the death toll would be without mitigation is talking out of their ass. Our data set is incomplete, and (to be crystal clear), most of the early projections were based on INCORRECT assumptions.

Glad to see people are so easily herded into submission.

Do you have any studies/data that contradict the current 2%+ mortality rate for Canadian cases, or the overall 0.6% mortality rate for best-case scenarios like Korea?