Canadian COVID-19 News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This, in particular, seems fabricated: the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch the disease as the vaccinated

What does that even mean?

Cite? I agree that without context this seems meaningless.

Nonetheless... it's been demonstrated that three shots (initial two plus a booster) does confer some additional resistance to contracting Omicron if exposed. And it still provides significant resistance to Delta and its earlier siblings.

Vaccination may make you less likely to get a severe case of Omicron, but it depends on the following: length of time since vaccination, which vaccine you took, and the exposure with someone who has it. According to some reports I've seen, vaccines are only 70% effective against symptomatic omicron, and that diminishes by 50% after 10 weeks. Which implies that even vaccinated people are only about 35% protected from symptomatic infection after 10 weeks. Granted, they're likely to have a milder case than someone who is unvaccinated.

And that's pretty good, no?

BTW, I'm a big believer in the effectiveness and benefit of the vaccine. I'm also OK with requiring it (or a negative test) to participate in social activities.

But what I dislike is the tendency for the political types to try and point fingers at someone else, and try to blame them for the spread or the effects of covid. Firstly, because the science doesn't back that conclusion. And secondly, because it's just someone playing partisan politics with a pandemic. Which, to me, is being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

It's reality that the unvaccinated are both more receptive hosts AND more likely to experience more severe disease. The vaccinated are basically protecting the unvaccinated, at this point, especially the unvaccinated who also refuse to take other measures to protect themselves and others.

It's not politics, it's human nature to resent those who refuse to "pitch in", but expect to be able to enjoy all the benefits possible because others did pitch in. How do you feel in a lineup, when someone just cuts in at the door?

As I mentioned previously, i don't support forcing or financial penalties for not getting vaccinated... and I also believe that gentle, friendly persuasion will ultimately change more minds than retribution and blame.

But just between you and me... if you think we should spare some sympathy for the butthurt unvaccinated (by choice) who think they're unfairly being picked-on ... f#@k'em. No. We both know who's got the most mileage out of politicizing COVID.

No, it's not the flu.

But it's increasingly similar to it, and our health care policies will be changing over the next year or two to reflect that.

Yes. Agreed.

As we develop some level of collective immunity, and as our treatments, testing, and vaccines get better, people will become more comfortable with letting people make their own choices.

What we're uncomfortable with is people not being responsible about the implications and consequences of the choice they make.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Must be some confusion between absolute numbers and RATES. UNvaccinated clearly show much higher RATE of infection.

From NYC:
Attachment 251382

From Massachusetts:
Attachment 251385

From BC:
Attachment 251383


Of course, when 70-90% of adults are vaccinated, the unvaccinated are a smaller pool. So RATES (per 100,000 or per 1 million) are the better metric.
Attachment 251384

I completely agree that rates are a much better way to understand this. The problem I have with the chart outlining that here is that it implies 50% of the unvaccinated will end up hospitalized. It is offensive that an author trying to point out appropriate mathematical interpretations of these stats would so inaccurately portray the data.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I'd like to see where you got your numbers, because they don't seem to be accurate.

This, in particular, seems fabricated: the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch the disease as the vaccinated

What does that even mean? I know a LOT of people who've been vaccinated who got covid. And they are certainly capable of spreading it. This is partially because of how the vaccine works. It doesn't actually stop you from becoming infected, it just limits the body's reaction. It's makes your case milder. As per its design.

The WHO just said that half of Europe is likely to be infected with COVID in the next two months. Many of those folks are vaccinated. The likelihood of everyone eventually getting covid seems quite high. Vaccinated or not.

Vaccination may make you less likely to get a severe case of Omicron, but it depends on the following: length of time since vaccination, which vaccine you took, and the exposure with someone who has it. According to some reports I've seen, vaccines are only 70% effective against symptomatic omicron, and that diminishes by 50% after 10 weeks. Which implies that even vaccinated people are only about 35% protected from symptomatic infection after 10 weeks. Granted, they're likely to have a milder case than someone who is unvaccinated.

BTW, I'm a big believer in the effectiveness and benefit of the vaccine. I'm also OK with requiring it (or a negative test) to participate in social activities.

But what I dislike is the tendency for the political types to try and point fingers at someone else, and try to blame them for the spread or the effects of covid. Firstly, because the science doesn't back that conclusion. And secondly, because it's just someone playing partisan politics with a pandemic. Which, to me, is being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

First of all, I fail to see how this discussion is getting political. Most of us are sticking to the facts, just the facts, the scientifically proven and published facts, plus our opinions based on those facts. Yes, we comment on government and political actions with respect to the pandemic, but with few exceptions, I don't see many of us getting "political" ourselves - although I suppose that is open to interpretation.

Second, my statement that the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch Covid as the vaccinated: First, let's accept that the unvaccinated have no protection: zero. As has been pointed out elsewhere the vaccines have been shown to provide 70% protection against Omicron (and significantly higher against Delta and other strains still going around) declining to 35% (against Omicron, higher against the other variants) after ten weeks. So let's say, to be conservative, on average, vaccinated people are 50% protected, 50% unprotected. Given that the unvaccinated are zero percent protected, I would say that the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch Covid as the vaccinated - and I believe that to be a conservative figure.

Put another way, if five people get together for a few hours, in close quarters, for say, drinks and dinner, one is infected and contagious, two are unvaccinated, and two are vaccinated, chances are, a few days later both the unvaccinated will be sick and one of the vaccinated will be sick. Thus, I maintain, that the unvaccinated have twice the probability of coming down ill with Covid than the vaccinated. QED.

Note that we are dealing with statistical averages here. Set the same scenario ten thousand times and the statistics indicate that about 20,000 unvaccinated will become infected and about 10,000 of the vaccinated will become infected - a ratio of around 2:1. Results from any one dinner may, of course, be different.

[GordMay]

Canadian hospitals, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, are currently being pushed to the breaking point, by the effects of the Omicron variant. One of the most surprising things about the crisis, however, is how little it took to get here.
Ontario is a province of 14.5 million people, and as of last Thursday, it only took 3,630* people, hospitalized with COVID-19, to plunge the province into one of the world’s strictest lockdowns.

* ➥ https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

For two years, COVID-19 has been highlighting a crisis of Canadian hospital capacity, that has been limping along for decades.
Even before COVID-19, 91.6% of Canadian acute care beds already had someone in them, a rate that was worse, only in Israel and Ireland. In the U.S., average occupancy rate, on acute care beds, was just 64%. In the U.K. it was 84.3%.
Canada also ranks near the back of the pack in overall hospital beds. The latest numbers from the OECD show Canada with just one hospital bed for every 400 citizens , a ratio that put us in the bottom tier of OECD countries. In France, there’s a hospital bed for every 172 citizens, and in Japan (the first place contender) there’s a bed for every 78 people.

Hallway Health Care: A System Under Strain
1st Interim Report from the [Ontario] Premier’s Council on Improving Healthcare and Ending Hallway Medicine [January 2019]
➥ https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/publ...cil_report.pdf

[Mike OReilly]

CBC: Hundreds of air passengers flouted in-flight mask rules in 2021

More than 1,700 passengers refused to wear masks during flights on Canadian air carriers last year — a problem the union representing many of Canada's flight attendants says is getting worse.

Figures collected by Transport Canada show that 959 of those cases resulted in enforcement action, ranging from warning letters to fines.

Airlines like Air Canada and WestJet say the vast majority of their passengers respect the rules.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

CBC: Hundreds of air passengers flouted in-flight mask rules in 2021

There should be no tolerance of this. Risking the safety of others in this shallow way is wrong and hopefully nobody has to argue with them but rather security can escort them outside with whatever force is needed.

[GordMay]

Health Canada has approved Paxlovid, Pfizer’s oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19
Pfizer’s antiviral treatment for COVID-19 is approved for adult patients, with mild or moderate symptoms, at high risk of becoming more seriously ill. Paxlovid, administered in pill form, uses a combination of drugs [nirmatrelvir and ritonavir] to prevent the virus that causes COVID-19 from replicating, once it has infected a patient, reduce symptoms from an infection, and shorten the period of illness.
Evidently, it's 85% efficacious, if given within 5 days of onset [89% w/in 3 days].
This is not an alternative to vaccination.
Canada has placed an order for an initial quantity of one million treatment courses.
➥ https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/paxl...roduct-details

For Consumers ➥ https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/paxlovid-en.html
Regulatory Decision Summary ➥ https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info...inkID=RDS00904

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

There should be no tolerance of this. Risking the safety of others in this shallow way is wrong and hopefully nobody has to argue with them but rather security can escort them outside with whatever force is needed.

Completely agree. But we can look at the positive side of this number. It represents a tiny fraction of the flying public. Only 1,700 out of, what? Millions of passenger-flights (~13 million in 2020 according to one quick source ... which is way down from the more normal ~40 million).

To me, this underscores the fact that we are talking about a small percentage of recalcitrant folks. We spend a lot of time gnashing our metaphorical teeth over their (to me) selfish actions, but they are a pretty small number. The vast majority of us understand the need to act in our collective best interest, even at some cost to ourselves as individuals.

This is why I've always said that, ultimately, the rest of society will do as we always do, and simply carry the few free riders.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree. But we can look at the positive side of this number. It represents a tiny fraction of the flying public. Only 1,700 out of, what? Millions of passenger-flights (~13 million in 2020 according to one quick source ... which is way down from the more normal ~40 million).

To me, this underscores the fact that we are talking about a small percentage of recalcitrant folks. We spend a lot of time gnashing our metaphorical teeth over their (to me) selfish actions, but they are a pretty small number. The vast majority of us understand the need to act in our collective best interest, even at some cost to ourselves as individuals.

This is why I've always said that, ultimately, the rest of society will do as we always do, and simply carry the few free riders.

We have had a very unfortunate situation here with protesters at the home of our MOH which reinforces your point. The protesters looked to be less than 15 by the news reports which could be measured against the 15,000 unvaccinated based on the estimates of vaccinated here.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree. But we can look at the positive side of this number. It represents a tiny fraction of the flying public. Only 1,700 out of, what? Millions of passenger-flights (~13 million in 2020 according to one quick source ... which is way down from the more normal ~40 million).

To me, this underscores the fact that we are talking about a small percentage of recalcitrant folks. We spend a lot of time gnashing our metaphorical teeth over their (to me) selfish actions, but they are a pretty small number. The vast majority of us understand the need to act in our collective best interest, even at some cost to ourselves as individuals.

This is why I've always said that, ultimately, the rest of society will do as we always do, and simply carry the few free riders.

I saw the same news item on CBC this morning. But of those 1700, only 30 were charged and fined. Not much of a deterrent. Hopefully the airlines have at least blacklisted those 1700 and will not allow them on their planes again.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

First of all, I fail to see how this discussion is getting political. Most of us are sticking to the facts, just the facts, the scientifically proven and published facts, plus our opinions based on those facts. Yes, we comment on government and political actions with respect to the pandemic, but with few exceptions, I don't see many of us getting "political" ourselves - although I suppose that is open to interpretation.

Second, my statement that the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch Covid as the vaccinated: First, let's accept that the unvaccinated have no protection: zero.

So, I guess you believe that the unvaccinated are all immunosuppressed.... no innate or adaptive immunity at all. The idiocy posted in this echo chamber is staggering.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279396/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

I saw the same news item on CBC this morning. But of those 1700, only 30 were charged and fined. Not much of a deterrent. Hopefully the airlines have at least blacklisted those 1700 and will not allow them on their planes again.

True, but again, perhaps it's more evidence for the high compliance rate. The caricatured anti-vaxxer that we see protesting minister's homes (or tossing around "idiocy" accusations ) really are the extreme outlier. Most people are smart enough to understand the severity of this pandemic, and they care enough about their fellow citizen to follow with public health measures aimed at protecting everyone.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

.....It's reality that the unvaccinated are both more receptive hosts AND more likely to experience more severe disease. The vaccinated are basically protecting the unvaccinated, at this point, especially the unvaccinated who also refuse to take other measures to protect themselves and others.

It's not politics, it's human nature to resent those who refuse to "pitch in", but expect to be able to enjoy all the benefits possible because others did pitch in. How do you feel in a lineup, when someone just cuts in at the door?

......

The vaccinated can carry as high or higher viral loads and are prone to being infected and infecting others.... yet you claim that somehow they protect the unvaccinated?

More nonsense from within the echo chamber.

Carry on gentlemen.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Greg K

So, I guess you believe that the unvaccinated are all immunosuppressed.... no innate or adaptive immunity at all. The idiocy posted in this echo chamber is staggering.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279396/

No, I'm not saying all the unvaccinated are immunosuppressed. I'm confident the vast majority have normal immune systems. My understanding of immunosuppressed is that the immune system is generally weak and the person is vulnerable to a range of infections that a person with a normal immune system would more easily fight off.

As the article you referenced explains, the body has two, closely entwined immune systems: the general or innate, and the adaptive. Quoting from the article "The innate immune system has only limited power to stop germs from spreading" and is quickly overwhelmed by virulent diseases such as Covid.

The adaptive system is however, much more effective but, again quoting from the article: "The adaptive immune system takes over if the innate immune system is not able to destroy the germs. It specifically targets the type of germ that is causing the infection. But to do that it first needs to identify the germ. This means that it is slower to respond than the innate immune system, but when it does it is more accurate. It also has the advantage of being able to "remember" germs, so the next time a known germ is encountered, the adaptive immune system can respond faster.

"This memory is also the reason why there are some illnesses you can only get once in your life, because afterwards your body becomes “immune.” It may take a few days for the adaptive immune system to respond the first time it comes into contact with the germ, but the next time the body can react immediately. The second infection is then usually not even noticed, or is at least milder".

So the adaptive system is "slower to respond" if you've not been sick with that disease before. In the case of Covid 19, this slow response gives the disease a chance to REALLY make you sick by getting into your lungs. However, then the immune system "remembers" the disease and so if you are infected again " . . . the body can react immediately. The second infection is then usually not even noticed, or is at least milder"

Traditional vaccines harmlessly mimic the disease to trigger a response by the adaptive immune system so that, if you do get infected with the real thing, the adaptive system can immediately attack it and eliminate or minimize the impact before the disease gets out of hand.

mRNA vaccines work differently in that they directly attack the viruses and neutralize them - which may explain their waning effectiveness as the active ingredient slowly leaves the body over time.

Nobody has called you an idiot and it is not appreciated that you are calling us idiots - singularly or collectively.

Take care.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Greg K

The vaccinated can carry as high or higher viral loads and are prone to being infected and infecting others.... yet you claim that somehow they protect the unvaccinated?

More nonsense from within the echo chamber.

Carry on gentlemen.

Where the heck do you get your information? You are just plain WRONG! The vaccinated DO NOT carry a higher viral load when they catch Covid than the unvaccinated and yes, although they can still get infected and infect others, they do so at a much lower rate than the unvaccinated.