Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I would hope people would care about potentially passing the virus on to other people, given the vaccines are free, widely available now and its about the least one can do to help other people. Its not asking much. 

If you've noticed their arguments.  NONE of them are ever about other people, only themselves.

 

The selfish never think of others

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

I'll bank on my good immune system. At this point, there's no reason not to. 

There is the reports of 1 in 3 covid "survivors" who suffer persistent symptoms.  Like loss of smell/taste.  Male "survivors" have an increased chance of erectile disfunction.  There is indications that even asymptomatic survivors can have lung issues.  

 

The whole point of vaccines is to allow you immune system a head start to fight off the viral infection before it becomes a problem.  Going "natural" means your immune system has to learn about the virus, then fight it.  This gives the viral infection time and that time can give it the opening to cause damage or death.  I'd rather like to taste my tasty Big Kahuna burger and then taste the sprite that I use to wash it down. Ahhh

 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/covid-survivor-who-lost-sense-of-smell-and-taste-a-year-ago-gets-help-from-perfumery/3002349/

COVID Survivor Who Lost Sense of Smell and Taste A Year Ago Gets Help From Perfumery

With the help of a fragrance specialist, a COVID survivor who lost her sense of taste and smell tried out a long list different samples — not trying to figure out the perfect scent, just trying to find any scent whatsoever

 

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/yes-covid-19-can-cause-erectile-dysfunction/

Yes, COVID-19 Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction

Research suggests negative effects on sexual health due to coronavirus

 

 

 

https://www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/covid-19/about-covid-19

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gurn said:

The difference is the amount of people dying?

If about 2% of non vaccinated people die from catching covid and so far as I know, 0% of vaccinated people die from covid, well I can see a difference.

 

1 hour ago, Jack Fig said:

I'm not over 70, nor am I immuno-compromised. What's my number then?

Was in a hurry, walk time with Mom, but have a bit more time now.

The 2% number is from developed countries without a crashed medical system, like is happening in India now. So the mortality number is low at 2%.

Also, as others have pointed out, that is "just" the people that died, not the people that  end up with screwed up lungs, heart, brain fog, loss of taste and smell etc.

 

I don't know the percentages on that, from any official source, however if you say 3% end up as long haulers, then add the 2% that pass away; 5% of people that get covid either dying or being scrwed for life is a fairly significant number.

 

That is not using 1 in 3, or 33%  covid folk end up as long haulers as thedestroyerofworlds has posited.

But if you were to use that number you are now looking at about 2% death, and 33% long term ill, and now that is 35% of people that get covid. More than 1 in 3.

 

Still like your odds?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gurn said:

 

Was in a hurry, walk time with Mom, but have a bit more time now.

The 2% number is from developed countries without a crashed medical system, like is happening in India now. So the mortality number is low at 2%.

Also, as others have pointed out, that is "just" the people that died, not the people that  end up with screwed up lungs, heart, brain fog, loss of taste and smell etc.

 

I don't know the percentages on that, from any official source, however if you say 3% end up as long haulers, then add the 2% that pass away; 5% of people that get covid either dying or being scrwed for life is a fairly significant number.

 

That is not using 1 in 3, or 33%  covid folk end up as long haulers as thedestroyerofworlds has posited.

But if you were to use that number you are now looking at about 2% death, and 33% long term ill, and now that is 35% of people that get covid. More than 1 in 3.

 

Still like your odds?

 

 

I would weigh those considerations against a drug of unknown effect that the FDA won't approve. I'm not a sworn anti-vaxxer, but this is a circumstance where pros and cons all should be weighed. That's where I'm at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

I would weigh those considerations against a drug of unknown effect that the FDA won't approve

Are any non approved vaccinnes being administered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

I would weigh those considerations against a drug of unknown effect that the FDA won't approve. I'm not a sworn anti-vaxxer, but this is a circumstance where pros and cons all should be weighed. That's where I'm at. 

Few things:

 

1)  Phased trials did occur, with thousands of participants getting 2 doses in the fall of last year.  Here is Pfizers:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine#:~:text=The Phase 3 clinical trial,as of November 13%2C 2020.

2)  We have over 1 billion doses given.  The US has over 115 million fully vaccinated people.  Millions of shots were administered in December of last year.  Data on issues with the vaccines have been and are being tracked.  It is FAR from being unknown.

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations

 

3)  The FDA gave emergency use and Pfizer is actually applying for FULL approval now that they have enough data, with further studies involving children.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4

COVID vaccines and kids: five questions as trials begin

As the first clinical trials in young children start, here’s what scientists want to know.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/07/994839927/pfizer-seeks-full-fda-approval-for-covid-19-vaccine

Pfizer Seeks Full FDA Approval For COVID-19 Vaccine

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone needs to understand what Emergency Use Authorization mean.

Medical Countermeasures Dispensing: Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model, Workshop Summary.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53122/

An EUA must meet the following four statutory criteria to be considered. The goal of these criteria is to ensure that even in an emergency, the public is receiving the best, safest, most appropriate care possible.

  1. There must be a serious or life-threatening illness caused by a specified chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent.
  2. It must be reasonable to believe that the product covered by the EUA is going to be effective for the intended use—diagnosing, treating, or preventing either an illness or condition caused by a specific agent, or an illness or condition caused by an approved or authorized medical countermeasure deployed against the agent.
  3. The known and potential benefits need to outweigh the known and potential risks.
  4. There must be no adequate approved, alternative medical countermeasures available for the situation.

 

 

 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained#:~:text=An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate,the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

If you've noticed their arguments.  NONE of them are ever about other people, only themselves.

 

The selfish never think of others

I want to give @Jack Fig the benefit of the doubt there, and assume that he just hasn't seen the numbers. There's a ton of misinformation out there, some of it from our own health authorities.

 

But I think if someone just looks at the basic figures on risk of vaccine, vs. risk of getting and/or giving someone covid and what that means even if its not a fatal case, the decision is pretty simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gurn said:

I wonder how many people are anti covid vaccinne, not because of "lack of testing"; but rather anti covid vaccinne because  of the "vaccinnes cause autism" b.s.

There are quite a significant number of them who are not getting the covid vaccines because they fear some 2 year side effect happening.  They fear some dangerous vaccine ingredient.  They fear that the "REAL" data that the vaccines are poison is being hidden.  All related to the "vaccines cause autism" talking points.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Fig said:

I would weigh those considerations against a drug of unknown effect that the FDA won't approve. I'm not a sworn anti-vaxxer, but this is a circumstance where pros and cons all should be weighed. That's where I'm at. 

Where do you get that info?  That the FDA "won't" approve it?  It is emergency use because it's still under going it's long term observation period.......that's my understanding anyway.  Can you provide me a link to why they won't approve it?  I'd like to read that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

So I guess BC got a lot more vaccines than expected? I'm under 30 and just booked my appointment - a couple of other friends in the same age group just did as well. 

The supply has ramped up in May as expected.  2 million per week in Canada of Pfizer in May, and total of 2 million Moderna in May.

Watching from abroad, I'm hopeful for Canada with so many people enthusiastic to get the vaccine.  

At the end of the year, I think Canda will be more vaccinated than US.  Then I can fly back to BC and visit my family, and maybe catch a Canucks game in person.    

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

So I guess BC got a lot more vaccines than expected? I'm under 30 and just booked my appointment - a couple of other friends in the same age group just did as well. 

There are priority zones in play as well.  I asked the same question to my wife (who's over 40) when a colleague of mine (who's between 30 and 40) was booked for his shot, and she showed me the priority zone list (one of which is where my colleague lives in).

 

Edit - of note, my wife still hasn't received her invitation to book, which is why I was confused initially.  The priority zones thing helped resolve my confusion.

Edited by 6of1_halfdozenofother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

There are priority zones in play as well.  I asked the same question to my wife (who's over 40) when a colleague of mine (who's between 30 and 40) was booked for his shot, and she showed me the priority zone list (one of which is where my colleague lives in).

That's what I was thinking, so I checked the BC govt website and while I'm considered to be in a hot spot, it still says 30+ 

 

Another friend just said he booked, and he's in a hot spot but under 30.

 

Oh well, not complaining. 

 

I guess they expanded the criteria for hot spots. I always just assumed most of the hot spots in Greater Vancouver were in Surrey. 

Edited by KoreanHockeyFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

That's what I was thinking, so I checked the BC govt website and while I'm considered to be in a hot spot, it still says 30+ 

 

Another friend just said he booked, and he's in a hot spot but under 30.

 

Oh well, not complaining. 

 

I guess they expanded the criteria for hot spots. I always just assumed most of the hot spots in Greater Vancouver were in Surrey. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the government is over-compensating by inviting < 30's to book in the priority zones.  Or maybe think of it this way - that 30 threshold is probably so that they have a "consistent" approach to the hotspots, but the reality may be that there are more doses allocated to the priority zone than the number of age 30+ who are registerred and waiting for booking, so they just keep working it down the age line until the allocation is mostly assigned.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...