Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corona virus

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Hadez View Post

    IMO there are so many different moving parts this is a hard question to answer in terms of comparing one region to another.

    1. How good is the data the region is working with?
    2. What kind of resources is the region working with?
    3. What is the population density?
    4. How difficult/smooth is the rollout of policy to the public?

    This is not even touching some of the more arguable things like "how good is the leadership doing?"

    I still think lessons can be learned looking at how one region is doing compared to another region but I am not sure I would start making judgements about one region compared to another region. It may not be apples to apples.
    Yes, I was asking Butler for more specific reasons. But anyone else can chime in of course.

    I think what you say is very relevant. I for one can not argue with the commentary. I would say though, that when multiple well researched reports point to some countries doing very well, and some doing very poorly, I start leaning towards the results, given the effort, knowledge, methodology, and thorough approach taken, combined with the similarity of results. So if 9 of 10 extensive studies choose some countries as leaders, who am I to differ with them?

    Not saying it's 100% conclusive, given the many variables involved, but as long as these are independent bodies coming up with similar ratings, it's a pretty good start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post


    who is kickin it deservedly on this planet? South Korea? Japan? Who gets your vote of approval?


    IMO there are so many different moving parts this is a hard question to answer in terms of comparing one region to another.

    1. How good is the data the region is working with?
    2. What kind of resources is the region working with?
    3. What is the population density?
    4. How difficult/smooth is the rollout of policy to the public?

    This is not even touching some of the more arguable things like "how good is the leadership doing?"

    I still think lessons can be learned looking at how one region is doing compared to another region but I am not sure I would start making judgements about one region compared to another region. It may not be apples to apples.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

    You've finally got a reason to be concerned, unlike last year when the 15 cases a day your province had was nothing compared to states that were dealing with 5000 to 10,000 cases per day. With that being said I do hope your province gets over the hump soon. We were in a very similar situation 3 weeks ago, and our citizens listened, we followed the guidelines, got our vaccinations (we should pass 60% with one dose tomorrow or Saturday) and now have a clearly laid out plan to complete reopening, IF we continue to do what we need to do (the dates thrown around out there as actual dates aren't true, they were dates we could see things happen based on current trends, but aren't set in stone, or even written in pencil). Hopefully Manitobans start following the rules at some point.

    Question for you about New Zealand and Australia and their "wisdom" they locked everyone down, harshly, and closed their borders to get to 0 cases. Now anytime cases even blip it leads to immediate shutdowns of large populations. Melbourne, a city of 5 million, in facing a 4th strict lockdown (their second lockdown was 111 days) because of 26 cases. They have very little vaccination going on in either country (New Zealand at 7.5% with one dose, Australia at 13.1%) so now their only answer is lockdowns and closed borders.

    Do you really think isolation is great (as you said) when it's led to massive lockdowns (way stricter than anything we've seen in Canada) when they get even a small number of cases and they're likely to remain dealing with a pandemic, and following this cycle long after many other countries are open for business? The praised "success" of New Zealand and Australia will be looked at with scorn in coming years because the only thing they've done is lengthened things.
    First statement.....no idea what you mean. Sounds like someone who knows everything to me. Maybe that needs reflection. After our initial success, we became a hot spot during the 2nd wave.. So when we are not so "cautious", we seem to get into a bit of trouble. BTW, I could ask about Alberta, because I do not pretend to know more than you.

    And I am not going to debate success stories, like NZ, as reported by many well researched folks. Easy to poke holes in anything. Especially when one does not have to make the hard decisions.

    You know that I disagree with your opinions on this subject, stemming from comments you have made in past. Like we are overreacting. Like my family is being ridiculous not having a Thanksgiving get together. Spoke volumes. Most people I know have followed the rules very tightly since day one. None of us that I know of has caught the virus. I know, that's too basic.

    So dude, with all your insight and connections, who is kickin it deservedly on this planet? South Korea? Japan? Who gets your vote of approval?



    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzbodog View Post
    I don't believe I'm "splitting hairs" and my post is not directed at any one member but I struggle when the word theory is used versus opinion.

    Agree....disagree?

    Theory
    NOUN
    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
    • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

    Opinion
    NOUN
    1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    • beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
    • an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
    • a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.
    • a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given.
    Well there are details involved not captured in a dictionary defining.

    Essentially any theory can be called an opinion if someone wants to go that far with it. There are details about what is intended.

    In terms of scientist...and the leaders without agendas....imo they using the term theory as a set of observations made but when they use the word theory I think they are admitting more data needs to be gathered.

    When someone puts forth their opinion...they are kind of saying in their mind they have enough data to try and form a conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzbodog
    replied
    I don't believe I'm "splitting hairs" and my post is not directed at any one member but I struggle when the word theory is used versus opinion.

    Agree....disagree?

    Theory
    NOUN
    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
    • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

    Opinion
    NOUN
    1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    • beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
    • an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
    • a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.
    • a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given.

    Leave a comment:


  • Butler By'Note
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    Appears I did not push "post" recently. Not my first time thinking I have when I haven't.

    Where I live, we are now the hotspot for North America. New York Times "hotspot"! Not proud of it, given how so many of us have followed the rules for so long. It won't last too long, because 3rd waves tend to decline with some pattern of regularity, plus we are now starting to get our 2nd shots. My appointment will likely be in the books within a week.

    But so much for us being too cautious last year. Overreactive as someone stated. You're never too cautious in a pandemic, one that has never really been dealt with before. One that has killed somewhere near 3.5 million thus far.

    I stick by my views from the get go.....test, test, test....monitor closely, trace, proactively enforce rules, and yes....roll out vaccines as quickly as you can. Read up on New Zealand if you get a few moments. Isolation is great, but so is process.

    As for rolling out vaccines, that part is clearly working in The US.
    You've finally got a reason to be concerned, unlike last year when the 15 cases a day your province had was nothing compared to states that were dealing with 5000 to 10,000 cases per day. With that being said I do hope your province gets over the hump soon. We were in a very similar situation 3 weeks ago, and our citizens listened, we followed the guidelines, got our vaccinations (we should pass 60% with one dose tomorrow or Saturday) and now have a clearly laid out plan to complete reopening, IF we continue to do what we need to do (the dates thrown around out there as actual dates aren't true, they were dates we could see things happen based on current trends, but aren't set in stone, or even written in pencil). Hopefully Manitobans start following the rules at some point.

    Question for you about New Zealand and Australia and their "wisdom" they locked everyone down, harshly, and closed their borders to get to 0 cases. Now anytime cases even blip it leads to immediate shutdowns of large populations. Melbourne, a city of 5 million, in facing a 4th strict lockdown (their second lockdown was 111 days) because of 26 cases. They have very little vaccination going on in either country (New Zealand at 7.5% with one dose, Australia at 13.1%) so now their only answer is lockdowns and closed borders.

    Do you really think isolation is great (as you said) when it's led to massive lockdowns (way stricter than anything we've seen in Canada) when they get even a small number of cases and they're likely to remain dealing with a pandemic, and following this cycle long after many other countries are open for business? The praised "success" of New Zealand and Australia will be looked at with scorn in coming years because the only thing they've done is lengthened things.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Appears I did not push "post" recently. Not my first time thinking I have when I haven't.

    Where I live, we are now the hotspot for North America. New York Times "hotspot"! Not proud of it, given how so many of us have followed the rules for so long. It won't last too long, because 3rd waves tend to decline with some pattern of regularity, plus we are now starting to get our 2nd shots. My appointment will likely be in the books within a week.

    But so much for us being too cautious last year. Overreactive as someone stated. You're never too cautious in a pandemic, one that has never really been dealt with before. One that has killed somewhere near 3.5 million thus far.

    I stick by my views from the get go.....test, test, test....monitor closely, trace, proactively enforce rules, and yes....roll out vaccines as quickly as you can. Read up on New Zealand if you get a few moments. Isolation is great, but so is process.

    As for rolling out vaccines, that part is clearly working in The US.
    Last edited by CanDB; 05-27-2021, 11:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by Hadez View Post

    Part of working for a 2 major corporations for almost 20 years now I get conflict of interest training close to once a year. It has been apparent to me the people most responsible constructing the Animal Transfer Theory and the people assigning them to the roles that allowed them to perform the duties which helped construct the Animal Transfer Theory need conflict of interest training.

    There is definitely not enough evidence to support any theory as fact as this point and imo people should be skeptic and consider any line of information which lead them to stop considering any theory.

    Learning how COVID19 was brought to the public is the single most thing people should put down all emotion and bias and just do an honest investigation.
    Unfortunately the country where the virus originated doesn’t allow free speech.
    Anyone who is aware of what happen in Chernobyl knows how far a country will go to cover up a horrible mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
    A constructive discussion would start by pointing out how the World Healy Organization , and Dr. Fauci were quick to say it was naturally occurring despite both having conflict of interest in this case. Fauci realizing evidence like the Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care.

    What conflict of interest: Scientists in laboratories all over the world have for the past decade been collecting dangerous viruses and making them even more dangerous by performing "gain-of-function" experiments on them—manipulating the viruses to make them more infectious or deadly or both. The work is undertaken for the best of intentions—to understand and anticipate future pandemic viruses that could arise in nature—and much of this work has been done in the U.S. and abroad with funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Dr. Fauci leads.


    Part of working for a 2 major corporations for almost 20 years now I get conflict of interest training close to once a year. It has been apparent to me the people most responsible constructing the Animal Transfer Theory and the people assigning them to the roles that allowed them to perform the duties which helped construct the Animal Transfer Theory need conflict of interest training.

    There is definitely not enough evidence to support any theory as fact as this point and imo people should be skeptic and consider any line of information which lead them to stop considering any theory.

    Learning how COVID19 was brought to the public is the single most thing people should put down all emotion and bias and just do an honest investigation.
    Last edited by Hadez; 05-26-2021, 08:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    What makes more sense? That it originated in nature, despite the intermediate host never being found. None of the animals in the wet markets have the virus, and haven’t found the virus in nature.

    Or could it be the lab in Wuhan that was performing gain of function experiments with viruses?

    If you want evidence to decide both arguments are lacking.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by Hadez View Post

    I get why people want to go hard after Dr Fauci but expressing these opinions is only going to hurt constructive discussion on the lab leak theory.
    A constructive discussion would start by pointing out how the World Healy Organization , and Dr. Fauci were quick to say it was naturally occurring despite both having conflict of interest in this case. Fauci realizing evidence like the Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care.

    What conflict of interest: Scientists in laboratories all over the world have for the past decade been collecting dangerous viruses and making them even more dangerous by performing "gain-of-function" experiments on them—manipulating the viruses to make them more infectious or deadly or both. The work is undertaken for the best of intentions—to understand and anticipate future pandemic viruses that could arise in nature—and much of this work has been done in the U.S. and abroad with funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Dr. Fauci leads.



    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by 58Miller View Post

    Coincidentally:
    “Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory.”

    Also coincidentally if the coronavirus was from a lab leak in China it would come from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    China said it wasn’t a lab leak.....
    why would they lie?

    Dr. Flip Flop’s Take:
    Dr. Anthony Fauci told the Poynter Institute on May 11 that he wasn't totally convinced that Covid-19 developed naturally and that he thinks that more investigation into the origin is needed.

    Originally he said May 2020, Fauci told National Geographic:"What’s out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated."
    I get why people want to go hard after Dr Fauci but expressing these opinions is only going to hurt constructive discussion on the lab leak theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    First off let me be clear...all we have are theories. There is not enough evidence to know what really happened at this point. We should investigate everything though.

    The Rogan interview with Bret Weinstein was the first time this was brought to my attention in a way I thought was credible and frankly I did not want to hear it at first. I been sitting on it for months as I knew most people would not take this as enough.

    Bret Weinstein has been on multiple places talking about the science. The longer the interview the more in depth he goes into the science. Let me know how in deep you are ready to get into the science and I will suggest a deep science link or just a brief science link where he discusses his reasons for his theory. The Bill Maur show is brief and just touches on the science. The Rising Hill on youtube goes a little more into the science and is the most recent interview I know he has done. The Rogan show interview goes pretty deep into the science. I had to watch it multiple times to wrap my head around it including having to get over not wanting to hear it a 2nd time.

    Wall Street Journal has been putting out articles. Apparently US intelligence says staff from the Wuhan lab were hospitalized in Nov 2019 with symptoms that could have possibly been Covid...or maybe another similar illness. I linked an article talking about it for those who do not have a sub.to the WSJ. Josh Rogin from the Washington Post has a very interesting take on his opinion of the events.

    There are a lot of interesting things going on but I do not want to take people further than they are willing to go with this topic.
    Last edited by Hadez; 05-25-2021, 05:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzbodog View Post

    Theories are just that, theories. I watch several major news networks every day. I haven't heard of this "theory".

    Where's the verifiable, scientific, authentic, provable evidence / data?
    Coincidentally:
    “Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory.”

    Also coincidentally if the coronavirus was from a lab leak in China it would come from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    China said it wasn’t a lab leak.....
    why would they lie?

    Dr. Flip Flop’s Take:
    Dr. Anthony Fauci told the Poynter Institute on May 11 that he wasn't totally convinced that Covid-19 developed naturally and that he thinks that more investigation into the origin is needed.

    Originally he said May 2020, Fauci told National Geographic:"What’s out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated."

    Last edited by 58Miller; 05-25-2021, 05:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzbodog View Post

    Theories are just that, theories. I watch several major news networks every day. I haven't heard of this "theory".

    Where's the verifiable, scientific, authentic, provable evidence / data?
    I was going to say that info is in the lab........but hmmmm.



    Last edited by CanDB; 05-25-2021, 07:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X