Coronavirus outbreak

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, BPA said:

Trump looks at the picture and thinks he's leading the polls for re-election. 

 

(Cuz it's red states...ya bad joke...lol)

I bet he's quite encouraged by the support he's seeing from Mexico....

[NewbieCanuckFan]

11 hours ago, coastal.view said:

bleach is still readily available all over as well

 

I’m officially out of quarantine....if you want to borrow my flashlight, just ask.   Might want to wash it though as I stuck it up my......errrr, Bone Spurs told me the UV rays would help.   Had to use a whole bottle of K-Y Jelly to make it fit though

[wloutet]

9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Edmonton and Stoon both seem to be about right, but the one in Manitoba is nowhere near Winnipeg and the Ontario and Quebec locations are both in the middle of nowhere....

I think, in Canada, they are putting a place holder dot in about the centre of each province.

[nuckin_futz]

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

That map is a little strange....

 

My first impression was that I was surprised at the cases in the Alaska panhandle, but some of the Canadian sites are confusing. The one near the west coast looks to be somewhere around Terrace, or maybe Smithers, but AFAIK, they have minimal cases. Maybe it's supposed to be PG?

 

Edmonton and Stoon both seem to be about right, but the one in Manitoba is nowhere near Winnipeg and the Ontario and Quebec locations are both in the middle of nowhere....

That's how it's displayed on the Johns Hopkins website. I think the general idea is one country is making progress. The other is not. Here is a bigger look.

 

Anyone who has an issue with it please contact Johns Hopkins (not me).

 

 

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

6 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

That's how it's displayed on the Johns Hopkins website. I think the general idea is one country is making progress. The other is not. Here is a bigger look.

 

Anyone who has an issue with it please contact Johns Hopkins (not me).

 

 

 

 

I honestly expected Brazil to look worse than that. (although it does look bad)

 

I guess John's Hopkins did make some small concession to the Amazon jungle....

[Canada Hockey Place]

Map probably looks that way because the Provinces report in collectively. And the relatively small numbers aren't worth it for them to break it down further. 

 

BC should look similar to Washington State, concentrated in areas and smaller areas around it.  

 

Still clearly going up worldwide. 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Canada Hockey Place

[nuckin_futz]

If anyone is curious, here is the map explanation from Johns Hopkins.............

 

 

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

US and Canada agree to keep border closed for an extra 30 days

Tue 16 Jun 2020 15:17:33 GMT

 

Canada and US border to say closed

Looking at this map, I can't imagine why Canada would want to keep the border closed.

 

 

I can tell you that the vast majority of Canadians have no problem keeping the border closed for a long time. If Trudeau re-opens it and Canadian cases spike, he's taking a huge political risk.

 

The current closure will be extended to July 21.

That doesn't give us much time to build that wall....

[higgyfan]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7069342/no-covid-19-cases-bc-schools/

 

[kingofsurrey]

27 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7069342/no-covid-19-cases-bc-schools/

 

Yes great news no new covid from our schools.

 

Certainly we are fortunate parents were smart and  did not listen to Horgan or Dr. Bonnie... and most refused to send their kids back with no gov provided  PPE to use for students / staff.

 

Only 15% of students gr. 6-12 returned.  We are lucky parents were smart to not listen to our BC government.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by kingofsurrey

[Chicken.]

24 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Yes great news no new covid from our schools.

 

Certainly we are fortunate parents were smart and  did not listen to Horgan or Dr. Bonnie... and most refused to send their kids back with no gov provided  PPE to use for students / staff.

 

Only 15% of students gr. 6-12 returned.  We are lucky parents were smart to not listen to our BC government.  

Perhaps this is what Dr. B had in mind all along was a 15-20% turnout as it was purely an option to send one's kids back to school - clearly not mandatory or even fully encouraged. just an option. in some cases more necessary to do so than others with financial situations and what not. 

[skategal]

I talked at length with one person who works in the Surrey school system, she was happy to see the schools open up as she spoke about one young gal that would be transitioning to high school next year, no support at home, the school admin was concerned they might have lost her as they have worked hard collectively to keep her in school and feeling supported and keep her engaged.  With the school reopening she was one of the kids that came back, has connected with school staff who continue to support her and encourage her through the transition to gr 8 next year.  The school staff person I talked to had grave doubts that had the school not reopened this girl would have made it through the summer and back to school next year.  

 

I'm sure this is not an uncommon story and speaks to many of the reasons why the government felt it was important to reopen schools.  It wasn't ever only about teaching the three R's.  I'd venture to say that the three R's were probably lower down on the priority list. 

 

Kudo's to all the educational people out there who work so hard to keep kids from falling through the cracks.  The person I spoke to was working to find some clothes for the young gal to help her through the rest of the school year.  I'm sure it's never easy and you don't always succeed, but thank you for trying.  

[Wilbur]

7 minutes ago, skategal said:

I talked at length with one person who works in the Surrey school system, she was happy to see the schools open up as she spoke about one young gal that would be transitioning to high school next year, no support at home, the school admin was concerned they might have lost her as they have worked hard collectively to keep her in school and feeling supported and keep her engaged.  With the school reopening she was one of the kids that came back, has connected with school staff who continue to support her and encourage her through the transition to gr 8 next year.  The school staff person I talked to had grave doubts that had the school not reopened this girl would have made it through the summer and back to school next year.  

 

I'm sure this is not an uncommon story and speaks to many of the reasons why the government felt it was important to reopen schools.  It wasn't ever only about teaching the three R's.  I'd venture to say that the three R's were probably lower down on the priority list. 

 

Kudo's to all the educational people out there who work so hard to keep kids from falling through the cracks.  The person I spoke to was working to find some clothes for the young gal to help her through the rest of the school year.  I'm sure it's never easy and you don't always succeed, but thank you for trying.  

Not the 3 R's, but the big R..relationships.

[BoKnows]

Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug

A cheap and widely available drug can help save the lives of patients seriously ill with coronavirus.

The low-dose steroid treatment dexamethasone is a major breakthrough in the fight against the deadly virus, UK experts say. 

The drug is part of the world's biggest trial testing existing treatments to see if they also work for coronavirus. 

It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved, researchers say.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281?at_custom3=BBC+News&at_custom1=[post+type]&at_custom2=facebook_page&at_custom4=BC00204A-AFC9-11EA-990C-EA6D96E8478F&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&fbclid=IwAR3ips7TTHlF-R7wbs2FaslwtLGhHaedYO4WIsQwHelQZzVupAZ-kd-l0c4&fbclid=IwAR3Dbzvk4vbs3oevjSBfFWCU7H3TX3LyK0KveUK1Nd0ogq8zcXtcGwah21w&fbclid=IwAR307vGKK4LYC6EsHvxyLXuCbFbB_n167mVuG6RMb-ONYr_M-OlbxF4aLAs&fbclid=IwAR3L6OREuEhCRA4hPACBnoSb5xCOqNTF4MEj91L3qA4lPesSuEnKuHybEGk&fbclid=IwAR2rhuKgrPaxo-zJlbWOni6NzIcmdKE5X2IInOrCSYZCtcnxq046qK6_UTM&fbclid=IwAR3DCbqFkeOAutgzuz7FraM5FLoIpWs2FOgJa8xEyL09cknY3Cq7Ktxa3SY&fbclid=IwAR2OcADu1_cbv90H1fblpkMgY0ItuD-PkBVhPXU-LA-fG-ws75Y1NIoYosg&fbclid=IwAR0xw9osLMNAX7tXhPoM5Qodc5XiEfXn4PygeOAq0JFD4pBe34sm0cljUNc

[Dr. Crossbar]

14 hours ago, coastal.view said:

it's about priorities really

protesting social injustice is a tad more important from a social perspective

then most other outdoor social gatherings

should we risk our health to attend a large group to watch a concert..

probably not

but addressing systemic racism

might warrant some health risk

as doing nothing creates ongoing risk to those being treated unjustly

(particularly when those groups seem to be at higher risk in relation to the virus)

 

human life is messy

hard to be pure about anything

protests are a grey area that everyone should be free to choose about

i applaud those who protest as well as those who stay home

both care a lot about the best interests of society

cheers

For me this isn't about the altruism of the protests or the importance of the social issue as a priority. I'm not anti-protest. That's not where I'm coming from here. I have no issue at all with the protests. I agree with everything you said regarding the value of the protests. From that perspective, all of this is valuable to produce greater awareness and a change in social consciousness.

The heart of my point is the contradiction that's being exposed as a result of the protests. And I don't believe this contradiction is sustainable. I also don't believe the contradiction is nefarious or conspiratorial in any way. Much of it has been erring on the side of caution.

But the more protests we continue to have with thousands of people and NO rises in cases as a result, at some point you have to step back and question the restrictions around large outdoor events.

If people keep gathering in the thousands outdoors and no one's getting sick, THAT needs to be addressed. Health officials can't continue to say large outdoor events are a health risk to public safety if the protests are giving evidence to the contrary and proving otherwise.

You ask a good question ... "Should we risk our health to attend a large group to watch a concert?"

I'd answer that by asking, what risk is there if we're not seeing increases in cases from the protests? If anything - right now at this moment - the protests are providing evidence that you wouldn't be risking your health. We'll see how the cases evolve.

Either mass outdoor gatherings are a significant risk to public health or they're a lower risk. The risk isn't contingent or fluid on whether it's a protest or a concert. A mass gathering is a mass gathering.

The way this has evolved, the risk over the past few months, I'm questioning whether the risk factor for transmission outdoors for people in large groups is actually low. Or much, much lower than originally thought.

The first time I thought about this was back in March in relation to the downtown eastside. From the outset of all of this people have been expecting and bracing for a huge outbreak in the DTES. If anywhere, with regard to transmission of the virus outside, we "should" have seen much larger numbers. That really hasn't materialized. Look at all the daily gatherings of people in large groups in that area. They're mainly outside all day long.

I think the protests are needed and welcome but we also need a balance of other outdoor events to release or recover from tension. If protests aren't producing significant increases in cases, other outdoor events should be put to the test.

[coastal.view]

2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I’m officially out of quarantine....if you want to borrow my flashlight, just ask.   Might want to wash it though as I stuck it up my......errrr, Bone Spurs told me the UV rays would help.   Had to use a whole bottle of K-Y Jelly to make it fit though

so it worked?

trump is correct then?

are you recommending such treatment for others as well?

tell us all more details about the insertion technique 

[kingofsurrey]

59 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Perhaps this is what Dr. B had in mind all along was a 15-20% turnout as it was purely an option to send one's kids back to school - clearly not mandatory or even fully encouraged. just an option. in some cases more necessary to do so than others with financial situations and what not. 

Of course BC schools would have never open on a mandatory basis during a Pandemic.  Are you serious ?

 

Luckily 85% of parents in gr. 6-12 did not follow our governments advice.  70% of  gr. k-5 also did not follow Horgan/Dr. B 's advice. 

Government said it would be safe without masks or PPE. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by kingofsurrey

[coastal.view]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

For me this isn't about the altruism of the protests or the importance of the social issue as a priority. I'm not anti-protest. That's not where I'm coming from here. I have no issue at all with the protests. I agree with everything you said regarding the value of the protests. From that perspective, all of this is valuable to produce greater awareness and a change in social consciousness.

The heart of my point is the contradiction that's being exposed as a result of the protests. And I don't believe this contradiction is sustainable. I also don't believe the contradiction is nefarious or conspiratorial in any way. Much of it has been erring on the side of caution.

But the more protests we continue to have with thousands of people and NO rises in cases as a result, at some point you have to step back and question the restrictions around large outdoor events.

If people keep gathering in the thousands outdoors and no one's getting sick, THAT needs to be addressed. Health officials can't continue to say large outdoor events are a health risk to public safety if the protests are giving evidence to the contrary and proving otherwise.

You ask a good question ... "Should we risk our health to attend a large group to watch a concert?"

I'd answer that by asking, what risk is there if we're not seeing increases in cases from the protests? If anything - right now at this moment - the protests are providing evidence that you wouldn't be risking your health. We'll see how the cases evolve.

Either mass outdoor gatherings are a significant risk to public health or they're a lower risk. The risk isn't contingent or fluid on whether it's a protest or a concert. A mass gathering is a mass gathering.

The way this has evolved, the risk over the past few months, I'm questioning whether the risk factor for transmission outdoors for people in large groups is actually low. Or much, much lower than originally thought.

The first time I thought about this was back in March in relation to the downtown eastside. From the outset of all of this people have been expecting and bracing for a huge outbreak in the DTES. If anywhere, with regard to transmission of the virus outside, we "should" have seen much larger numbers. That really hasn't materialized. Look at all the daily gatherings of people in large groups in that area. They're mainly outside all day long.

I think the protests are needed and welcome but we also need a balance of other outdoor events to release or recover from tension. If protests aren't producing significant increases in cases, other outdoor events should be put to the test.

well i have a wee bit of trouble with what you are suggesting

just because the more extreme risks have not yet been realized here

does not really provide much comfort

 

all we have to do is look at what happened in nyc to see what could easily happen elsewhere

i don't need it to actually happen here to accept it easily could

and the dtes concern is real, and it has been actively addressed from the start

and so far effectively

 

you seem to infer that since these risks have not yet been realized here

there are less real?

i really don't think that is a wise conclusion to be reaching

there is way way too much evidence that we have to some degree been lucky

and to another degree the the effective virus management through testing, tracking, tracing by our health authorities

has been very effective

these risks continue to be very real

and we are walking a very small tightrope in successfully navigating this risk so far

the protests could be the tipping point

we'll see in a couple of weeks what the fall out might be

[Chicken.]

1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:

Of course BC schools would have never open on a mandatory basis during a Pandemic.  Are you serious ?

 

Luckily 85% of parents in gr. 6-12 did not follow our governments advice.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course... but they way you worded it as "parents refused to send their kids back"  made it seem like the government was telling them they had to, or even as you say now - "follow our governments advice" 

It was merely an option for parents that wanted it or thought appropriate for their situation. not every kid has a great home environment. 

 

parents had the option to send their kids back, for reasons as outlined in skategals post, and many declined as is their choice

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, Chicken. said:

Perhaps this is what Dr. B had in mind all along was a 15-20% turnout as it was purely an option to send one's kids back to school - clearly not mandatory or even fully encouraged. just an option. in some cases more necessary to do so than others with financial situations and what not. 

and there is some wisdom in having kids return to school now for a month or so

as it will allow the system to address and adjust to covid related transmission problems that might occur

so that when more kids return in the fall

the environment can be made even safer