Coronavirus outbreak

[-DLC-]

So a recap so far:

 

[Jaimito]

 

 

[-DLC-]

Numbers:

 

Weekend Total:  2,960

 

Friday-Saturday 1,027

Sat - Sun 933

Sun - Mon 1,000

 

A child under the age of 2 in the FH region has died (had other complications but it was the virus that caused death)

 

 

VCH:  696

FH:  1,845

Interior:  211

Northern:  100

 

In hospital:  441

ICU:  138

 

8 deaths over the weekend.  Total to date:  1,538

 

There are 9,353 active cases and 14,711 in self-isolation.

 

There have been 120,040 total cases in BC 

 

[-DLC-]

 

[Jaimito]

Depending on website of the pharmacies, they are accepting 40+, not just in the hot zones listed.    

 

COVID-19 vaccines: B.C. now offering AstraZeneca doses to those aged 40 and older | CTV News

 

AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD COVID-19 Vaccines in Pharmacies | BC Pharmacy Association

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Jaimito

[BCNeil]

21 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

 

 

 

Right now the online booking system shows they have over 2500 AZ bookings available per day starting next week, in the Surrey clinics alone.  The drive through on 66th ave, you can book your shot for the 22nd.  

[-DLC-]

 

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Instead of using age as the primary determinant of vaccine priority, the PHO should have been using risk of spread as the key factor in deployment of the vaccine.  Sure, age makes sense from the perspective of those who are in assisted living and care facilities being the highest risk, but once you're dealing with a mobile population, age should no longer be the primary determining factor.

 

The fact that the variant strains are now demonstrating how younger people are now the ones becoming more sick and in need of attention should have been a warning sign that the age-based plan isn't/wasn't going to work effectively.  Add in the fact that the HAs initially didn't want to (or perhaps they were too ignorant to) provide neighbourhood positivity statistics (there are ways to share this info without divulging personal information or identifying specific people) only tells me that they really have n.f.c. what they're doing.

 

They should have given priority to vaccinate those who have public-interfacing jobs - teachers, bus drivers, grocery store personnel, hospital/medical and dental clinic staff and practioners (including home care staff), service-oriented jobs, first responders, etc. - after the elderly living in institutions have received their dosages.  They did at least give priority to some rural communities where outbreaks were happening and where the indigenous population was significantly high; where health care services were/are relatively poor or non-existent, so I'll give them that.  However, if it weren't for the AZ "clot" concerns, I doubt our PHO would have changed their approach on vaccine deployment and would have stuck dogmatically to the age-based approach.

 

I just hope someone can give Dr. H and her team a shiny nickel for them to buy a clue.  

</rant>

They have been, but it's ever changing.  And supplies have been interrupted at times.  They switched from age based (that was put on hold) and distributed AZ to people between 55-65 in order to get those supplies used up before they expired.  

 

They've used a targeted approach in conjunction with age based.  People with compromised immune systems can get in earlier.  Workplaces are and have been targeted (schools over the next 5 weeks...that was put on hold because the AZ vaccine wasn't able to be used as planned).

[coho8888]

34 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

So a recap so far:

 

They really need to clarify the travel between health authorities.  I live in Burnaby close to boundary road which is the boundary between Fraser and Vancouver Coastal.  So technically I can't travel for something on Renfrew St. for a non essential purpose but someone from Vancouver can go to Whistler for the day since its part of Vancouver Coastal?  Also, Fraser Health is divided into 3 subregions, so does that mean I have to stay in my Subregion?

 

 

[Jaimito]

2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Instead of using age as the primary determinant of vaccine priority, the PHO should have been using risk of spread as the key factor in deployment of the vaccine.  Sure, age makes sense from the perspective of those who are in assisted living and care facilities being the highest risk, but once you're dealing with a mobile population, age should no longer be the primary determining factor.

 

The fact that the variant strains are now demonstrating how younger people are now the ones becoming more sick and in need of attention should have been a warning sign that the age-based plan isn't/wasn't going to work effectively.  Add in the fact that the HAs initially didn't want to (or perhaps they were too ignorant to) provide neighbourhood positivity statistics (there are ways to share this info without divulging personal information or identifying specific people) only tells me that they really have n.f.c. what they're doing.

 

They should have given priority to vaccinate those who have public-interfacing jobs - teachers, bus drivers, grocery store personnel, hospital/medical and dental clinic staff and practioners (including home care staff), service-oriented jobs, first responders, etc. - after the elderly living in institutions have received their dosages.  They did at least give priority to some rural communities where outbreaks were happening and where the indigenous population was significantly high; where health care services were/are relatively poor or non-existent, so I'll give them that.  However, if it weren't for the AZ "clot" concerns, I doubt our PHO would have changed their approach on vaccine deployment and would have stuck dogmatically to the age-based approach.

 

I just hope someone can give Dr. H and her team a shiny nickel for them to buy a clue.  

</rant>

But they are doing more than just age based priority.    

 

Frontline workers like police, teacher are being offered.  Also they are targeting hot beds like Prince Rupert, and now Fraser Health areas like Surrey. 

[-DLC-]

Just now, coho8888 said:

They really need to clarify the travel between health authorities.  I live in Burnaby close to boundary road which is the boundary between Fraser and Vancouver Coastal.  So technically I can't travel for something on Renfrew St. for a non essential purpose but someone from Vancouver can go to Whistler for the day since its part of Vancouver Coastal?  Also, Fraser Health is divided into 3 subregions, so does that mean I have to stay in my Subregion?

 

 

They described it by "region" - VCH, FH, Interior, Island, Northern.

[-DLC-]

 

[coho8888]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

They described it by "region" - VCH, FH, Interior, Island, Northern.

Thanks Deb.  So I can travel to a lake near Hope!  (not that I plan to)

 

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, coho8888 said:

Thanks Deb.  So I can travel to a lake near Hope!  (not that I plan to)

 

It's a weird deal, isn't it?   I'd imagine you'd be ok for something reasonable....I feel it's more for "travel/visiting/outings" than necessity.

[-DLC-]

 

[A.A.A]

I think the intent behind restricting movement between health regions is just to discourage unnecessary travel.

 

I cannot comprehend why people insist on finding loopholes, like the reporter today asking if people on the Island can travel from Victoria to Tofino... The spirit of all this is to limit leisure travel and limiting spread of the virus. How isn't it just common sense that hey maybe I shouldnt travel 2 hours away for fun?

 

[coho8888]

3 minutes ago, Amaneey said:

I think the intent behind restricting movement between health regions is just to discourage unnecessary travel.

 

I cannot comprehend why people insist on finding loopholes, like the reporter today asking if people on the Island can travel from Victoria to Tofino... The spirit of all this is to limit leisure travel and limiting spread of the virus. How isn't it just common sense that hey maybe I shouldnt travel 2 hours away for fun?

 

Which is why I think a non-essential travel restriction should be based on distance from your home rather than health regions.  Some regions are large and some of the borders make the current restriction non sensical.  i.e. can't travel greater than 80 kms. They encourage going for a walk at a park but my closest park may be in Vancouver even though I live in Burnaby. I know what the intent is and I agree common sense needs to prevail, but for some people, common sense is lacking.

 

 

[Jaimito]

11 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

Thanks Deb.  So I can travel to a lake near Hope!  (not that I plan to)

 

 

9 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

It's a weird deal, isn't it?   I'd imagine you'd be ok for something reasonable....I feel it's more for "travel/visiting/outings" than necessity.

A lot of common sense is needed. I mean you are not going to spread or catch a virus by driving to a lake, spending time outdoors by yourself or with family.  But enough people don't apply what we have known for a year by continuing to swap air indoors with strangers (gas station stores, rest rooms etc), or people outside the bubble etc.  Congregate in close distance without masks outdoor etc (like that beach party over the weekend).  My parents will go to a park and take group photos with 4-5 other friends without a mask.  What's wrong with that, they ask? 

 

No wonder the government has to act like an adult and tell people what to do.  

[Gurn]

21 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

They really need to clarify the travel between health authorities.  I live in Burnaby close to boundary road which is the boundary between Fraser and Vancouver Coastal.  So technically I can't travel for something on Renfrew St. for a non essential purpose but someone from Vancouver can go to Whistler for the day since its part of Vancouver Coastal?  Also, Fraser Health is divided into 3 subregions, so does that mean I have to stay in my Subregion?

 

 

Why stop at Whistler, folks from Coastal Health can come up  to Powell River, and beyond, as it is the same district.

19 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

They described it by "region" - VCH, FH, Interior, Island, Northern.

Too bad they have done it by Heath district, but it is probably illegal to say " Stay with in 10 miles of your home, unless you're going to, or at work."

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

They are now, but that wasn't the case up until somewhat recently - in fact, the fact that AZ became so available (plus the "clot" issues/approaching their "best before date") is likely the key game-changer.  If not, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stuck dogmatically to their original age-based plan.

I don't agree....I feel that the variants and how the demographics are changing would have resulted in  a rethink of it all.