LeoV wrote:

Just read an other report stating that out of all deaths in Ontario only about 200 where outside of retirement/long term care facilities. .

It's ironic that the generation that preceded the "baby boomers", the so called "greatest generation", is now being considered by some as the "expendable generation".  I find that offensive as well.
 

Hi Barry.
I think your approach is the right one. I am sure that on your walks you practise social distancing so your risk is minimum.

I also agree that a general statement that everyone 70 years and over should stay home is offensive.
I think people can be responsible so that people at higher risk, either due to age or underlying conditions, of needing hospitalization when getting infected will protect themselves by minimizing contact with the general public by means of social distancing. I think people got the message…..

For people who are still employed and who are at higher risk due to underlying conditions and are not able to practice social distancing due to the nature of their job we might have to come up with a solution until a vaccine is available. Maybe we should make EI available to them until the vaccine is available or arrange alternative employment. All other people should be able to get back to work ASAP?

So making it Algonquin related. Again I see no reason why not to open up all parks.

@ JoeScmoe:  Yep, I get the reproduction number (R value) math, my concern is approach/management.  As with the quick decision to close everything up, the decision now seems a bit pressured to open everything up. Can the Parks be managed effectively?  And I guess also is the government unintentionally making Parks a target for more traffic than they'd normally see. 

And yes we've bought time as we have driven the R value down but have we ensured a rock-solid PPE supply chain in case things get bad again and do we have reliable testing in place to be completely confident on our R value (here's hoping).  

JoeScmoe wrote:

Given our current data, my opinion is we should protect the heck out of your generation and let everyone get else get Covid and get herd immunity as soon as possible.

(While technically I am part of the the "greatest generation", that is an accident of birth; I don't believe I've earned that epithet.)

Personally, I don't believe that letting the pandemic run until we develop herd immunity would turn out well.  Perhaps we can revisit this issue in 6 months time and see how Sweden fared. 

LeoV wrote:

At rgcmce,

I find your suggestion that I find anybody at any age or condition expandable very offensive.

Nowhere do I indicate that. I state (fact) where the most casualties of the virus are and as a result what the best way forward would/could be.

 
Your statement 

LeoV wrote:

Just read an other report stating that out of all deaths in Ontario only about 200 where outside of retirement/long term care facilities. That is about 1 person in 75000…..

reads to me that you're saying that we don't need to consider the deaths within those facilities.  (At the very least, you seem to be downplaying those deaths). We need to consider all deaths equally. 

We are experiencing those LTC deaths even with Ford's "iron wall" around all Ontario LTCs.  We can't protect those facilities any tighter than we currently are with currently available technology and resources.  And yet the number of facilities with outbreaks increases by several a day (239 outbreaks  as of May 9).  Deaths within LTCs are an inevitable result of local community spread.   
 

I explained how your statements came across to me.  I stand by my original impression.
 

John McClane wrote:

LeoV- I found your posts informative, balanced, and thoughtful. Not sure how it's possible to take offense, no need to defend yourself!

+1

I don't see how anything came across as offensive. One thing @Leo to add though, you should look at more than just death rate. Number of People Infected is pretty arbitrary at this point, but hospitalizations and ICU rates need to be factored into the conversation.

@Gord, I believe that the decision to start reopening was pressured and rushed. I worry about what will happen as we continue to ease restrictions without what seems to be a concrete plan and strategy to manage the reopenings. What precautions will be taken by Ontario Parks? How will retail curbside pickup work; are there rules for every retailer to follow? How will multi-floor office builds manage getting tenants to the higher floors without crowding elevators or stairwells?

It's tricky because every day in lockdown is one more day that people grow restless and one more day contributing to the negative economic impacts that will affect many for a long time. But open too quickly and deaths may increase. Hopefully the decisions being made at the top are being influenced by a wide range of professional backgrounds and expertise.

Last edited by trippythings (5/10/2020 9:00 pm)

LeoV wrote:

. The result is that the actual cases are many multiples of the official confirmed cases. If you would go with the 4% and apply it to Ontario than that would mean there most likely are actually already about 600000 cases in Ontario resulting in a death rate of 0.175%. This is a lower death rate than the yearly flu.

"The Flu" is a broad term that covers a range of viruses. 
Your assertions/assumption is also far correct. 

From New York City, they already have deaths AND Antibody testing, And they have already lost around 0.3% of their population from COVID, and counting. 

To contrast, the last major Flu Pandemic H1N1 of 2009, estimated to have killed between .01% - .03%. of those infected, and THAT was considered a bad flu year. 

Last edited by Mulder (5/11/2020 7:00 am)

@ Mulder:

For the official Canadian Influenza numbers: https://ipac-canada.org/influenza-resources.php

So if you would go with the absolute lowest number of annual deaths (500) and take the year with the highest number of cases (55059) you would get a death rate of over 0.9%. Now if you would use the number of annual deaths (8000) due to the combined, influenza and pneumonia deaths, which is a common complication of influenza, the death rate would be much higher.

Now I would not look at the New York numbers as they initially didn’t impose any restrictions and then after they realized things were already totally out of control did…..

LeoV wrote:

@ Mulder:

For the official Canadian Influenza numbers: https://ipac-canada.org/influenza-resources.php

So if you would go with the absolute lowest number of annual deaths (500) and take the year with the highest number of cases (55059) you would get a death rate of over 0.9%. Now if you would use the number of annual deaths (8000) due to the combined, influenza and pneumonia deaths, which is a common complication of influenza, the death rate would be much higher.

Now I would not look at the New York numbers as they initially didn’t impose any restrictions and then after they realized things were already totally out of control did…..

If you want to compare apples to apples, Canada's current confirmed Cases of COVID-19 is 66,996, with 4,728 deaths.  Indicating a death rate of 7.06%. 

You can't decide to throw in a bunch asymptotic/carriers in your calculation for COVID deaths and then totally ignore it for the Flu.