OT: COVID-19 Ontario 2nd Wave Thread

[NBA Sheady]

I agree, it needs to be like a stage 2.5 and not a full stage 3. Restaurants and gyms open, but very low capacity. Hell, I would even go as far as reservation only for most restaurants that aren’t in the fast food category. Let’s put some damn controls in place instead of the loose rules that hurt everyone as we saw

This really isn't an easy decision. We need to use the data we have available and do the best we can based on it. It's not like a pandemic like this has happened recently. You don't want to close down more than you have to and have such a severe hit to businesses and people's livelihoods.

We really need to be looking at countries which are doing better and see what is working. From what I can see both Korea and Japan are doing much better than us.

I suspect Korea and Japan have far fewer anti-mask morons and science deniers. I honestly feel a significant percentage of our population still thinks this is a hoax. Just look at the clowns in this thread as a cross-section of our populace.

[Pointgod]

I agree, it needs to be like a stage 2.5 and not a full stage 3. Restaurants and gyms open, but very low capacity. Hell, I would even go as far as reservation only for most restaurants that aren’t in the fast food category. Let’s put some damn controls in place instead of the loose rules that hurt everyone as we saw

This really isn't an easy decision. We need to use the data we have available and do the best we can based on it. It's not like a pandemic like this has happened recently. You don't want to close down more than you have to and have such a severe hit to businesses and people's livelihoods.

We really need to be looking at countries which are doing better and see what is working. From what I can see both Korea and Japan are doing much better than us.

I suspect Korea and Japan have far fewer anti-mask morons and science deniers. I honestly feel a significant percentage of our population still thinks this is a hoax. Just look at the clowns in this thread as a cross-section of our populace.

I’d say not even just anti-maskers but people are careless and selfish. How many people went to large gatherings and parties indoors without thinking of the danger they were putting themselves and others into?

[execoftheyear]

I heard Toronto was going to start tracking cases by race a while ago. Any data on this yet? The province hasn't released any data by ethnicity or recent immigrant status. I don't think they're collecting it (which is absurd). Current data published includes geography, age, sex. As a month ago :

Sep 9th CBC: "Immigrants, refugees nearly half of Ontario's COVID-19 cases but only a quarter of the population: study"

Sep 30th CTV: "Researcher urges Canada to track link between race and COVID-19 as study reveals troubling trend"

Sep 21st CBC: "People of colour make up 66% of Ottawa's COVID-19 cases"

The trend matches the US as well (where Hispanic, Black and Native Americans have higher rates relative to Whites). There are a host of explanations available for this but we need the data here in Ontario. These politicians need to act like adults.

It's heavily tied to vitamin D deficiency. I've read studies months ago about severity of symptoms were linked to vitamin D deficiency and people of darker skin colour have more difficulty in producing vitamin D. More and more recent studies are confirming this.

[JJWong17]

This really isn't an easy decision. We need to use the data we have available and do the best we can based on it. It's not like a pandemic like this has happened recently. You don't want to close down more than you have to and have such a severe hit to businesses and people's livelihoods.

We really need to be looking at countries which are doing better and see what is working. From what I can see both Korea and Japan are doing much better than us.

I suspect Korea and Japan have far fewer anti-mask morons and science deniers. I honestly feel a significant percentage of our population still thinks this is a hoax. Just look at the clowns in this thread as a cross-section of our populace.

I’d say not even just anti-maskers but people are careless and selfish. How many people went to large gatherings and parties indoors without thinking of the danger they were putting themselves and others into?

The areas around Hong Kong definitely learned their lesson from SARS and that covers both the institutions and the general populace. The gov'ts of S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan, they all had plans for when the next outbreak came around and the people, well it wasn't uncommon to see people wearing masks even before the pandemic. Mostly it was in the food service industry but I think that helps to normalize wearing them. This is obviously anecdotal but my mom lives in Markham and she told me that by the end of March, most people were voluntarily wearing masks. Meanwhile, I live in the High Park area that's mostly white and at best, only 30% of people were wearing masks before Toronto made it mandatory in July. I even noticed that just a few block away in Parkdale that there seemed to be a more frequent number of masks, which scans with their large Tibetan community

[BBallInSight]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

[Basketball_Jones]

200 gyms in Quebec are opening unless the province shows proof outbreaks are linked to them. Should be interesting!

[Van_Trump]

This fall is disturbingly similar to the Spanish Flu trend in its first year a hundred years ago.

All I can do is repeat my advice:
2000 IU of Vitamin D daily (to make up for the rapidly diminishing sunlight)
Adding a Vitamin C and Zinc supplement wouldn't hurt as well.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/more-than-80-per-cent-of-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-had-vitamin-d-deficiency-study-1.5162396

[JJWong17]

200 gyms in Quebec are opening unless the province shows proof outbreaks are linked to them. Should be interesting!

Whoa really? That's... that's ballsy

[BBallInSight]

200 gyms in Quebec are opening unless the province shows proof outbreaks are linked to them. Should be interesting!

Whoa really? That's... that's ballsy

Many of them are facing bankruptcy I'm sure. When you consider that, it's not as much of a risk.

[Tor_Raps]

200 gyms in Quebec are opening unless the province shows proof outbreaks are linked to them. Should be interesting!

Whoa really? That's... that's ballsy

I'm being selfish but hope the same happens here. I want to see particular businesses get fined for not following protocol rather than punish the whole industry. If we can be stupid enough to have school open then I want the stupidness to not discriminate.

[ATLTimekeeper]

There is likely a correlation with gym users and anti-masker sentiments I stopped going in March, briefly considered going back and then bailed on my membership. I feel just as good working out at home without weights or much equipment, so I don't see how my mental health is being compromised. It's just a different kind of workout. Adapt and move on.

[Basketball_Jones]

44 cases linked to one wedding. Will anyone get fined? Nope. Just go after businesses and punish them. Let these goons off the hook.

[Johnny Bball]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

[Johnny Bball]

44 cases linked to one wedding. Will anyone get fined? Nope. Just go after businesses and punish them. Let these goons off the hook.

They had been fining the organizers up to 6 figures and everyone there at one point.

[Pointgod]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

Even after a vaccine is developed and approved it will take a while for it to get administered to the whole population. I’m guessing masks and some forms of social distancing will be in place for the next 2 years. Which is fine, the whole point is to prevent the spread and if we get to the point where we can quickly trace and isolate cases the faster the return to normalcy. But this only works if everyone plays their part instead of being selfish ****.

[Johnny Bball]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

Even after a vaccine is developed and approved it will take a while for it to get administered to the whole population. I’m guessing masks and some forms of social distancing will be in place for the next 2 years. Which is fine, the whole point is to prevent the spread and if we get to the point where we can quickly trace and isolate cases the faster the return to normalcy. But this only works if everyone plays their part instead of being selfish ****.

Sounded like summer to me from what I heard form Trudeau and drug companies. But that's also with those at high risk done first.

I'll just travel and pay for it if I have to and can make it sooner.

[beanbag]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

The herd immunity crowd is the best. So, the plan is to just get infected over and over again in an attempt to tire the virus out?

It has to be that, since anyone who's done a modicum of research knows the antibodies decrease rapidly and people are subject to re infection.

[Pointgod]

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

Even after a vaccine is developed and approved it will take a while for it to get administered to the whole population. I’m guessing masks and some forms of social distancing will be in place for the next 2 years. Which is fine, the whole point is to prevent the spread and if we get to the point where we can quickly trace and isolate cases the faster the return to normalcy. But this only works if everyone plays their part instead of being selfish ****.

Sounded like summer to me from what I heard form Trudeau and drug companies. But that's also with those at high risk done first.

I'll just travel and pay for it if I have to and can make it sooner.

Yeah summer sounds about right, but front line medical workers will get it first. I think it will be widespread soon after, but it will also require two doses. And don’t forget you need a critical mass of the population vaccinated before things can fully open up. But if about 30% of the population refuse to take the vaccine things can’t just return to normal. You’ll still require some form of prevention until you reach critical mass in the population.

[Pointgod]

So what are we thinking is the end-game here? Vaccination? Vaccines are not 100% effective. We'd be lucky to see one at 50% effectiveness any time soon. It will take a year or longer to produce enough doses for the populations. In the meantime, when you're vaccinated, you will test positive for Covid - what's that going to do to the case counts? Several "experts" have already indicated that vaccines won't be an all-encompassing solution.

So if we assume vaccines aren't going to be the answer in the near future, for how long do we keep going with this effort to eradicate the virus? How long do we do rolling restrictions? At what cost will these interventions come? Future worldwide austerity? Massive wealth inequality? Hyperinflation? Overwhelming debt? Lack of funds for healthcare, a non-viable environment for small business development, permanent remote-only learning, mental deterioration of the population to be passed on through generations, permanently diminished civil liberties.

What evidence is there to show that if we lower the numbers, that they'll stay low or zero forever? Why would we assume that this is different than any other coronavirus that returns for its seasonal rise and fall?

Why employ a strategy that restricts the majority of the population when it is a real danger for 2% or less of the population? Why not protect the vulnerable and leave the rest to continue society?

This is not the killer virus that it was said to be in March. Rather than a 3% - 8% CFR, it is more likely 0.24%. Just look at Ontario's stats. Look at the number of deaths of confirmed cases amongst healthcare workers. Do a quick google search of the long-term effects of the flu - you'll see all of the same ones attributed to Covid. Many people experience effects, but almost all resolve within weeks, if not days.

Many highly respected experts have said that the best way to approach the virus is to allow it to spread at a faster, controlled rate, so that the we more quickly reach a state where many have immunity, and the number of cases lowers to a level that is safer for the vulnerable. Many are professors from the most respected universities. To sit here and cast aspersions at others, and look to silence people with differing views, is not a good look.

Herd immunity is complete bull **** without a vaccine and will kill untold millions. Herd immunity also assumes that everyone develops antibodies forever and we already know that to be untrue. Vaccines are the only way. And you have no idea how effective they are, yet you're downplaying effectiveness before they arrive and just to slant your point of letting it run amok.

Masks, social distancing and gatherings not only control the spread, the smooth the curve to limit hospitalizations and they limit viral load when exposed, so when those that do get sick they have a better chance of survival. Even not 100% effective, vaccines would serve a similar purpose as the latter.

The herd immunity crowd is the best. So, the plan is to just get infected over and over again in an attempt to tire the virus out?

It has to be that, since anyone who's done a modicum of research knows the antibodies decrease rapidly and people are subject to re infection.

For herd immunity to work, roughly 80% of the population needs to get infected. And you’re right, people can get reinfected. So their brilliant idea is to expose 30 million people to long term health effects from covid and condemn hundreds of thousands of people to death. But hey as long as gyms and restaurants are open who cares...

[bballsparkin]

That’s not how you spell triple.

Never said I was triple-digit!