Canadian COVID-19 News

[Mike OReilly]

I'm a bit happier to see Ontario's plan is to start easing restrictions in a couple of weeks -- not right away. There are a number of early indicators right now which suggest hospitalizations may have peaked, but as the data I posted earlier indicates, it's way too soon to say for sure. But perhaps in a couple of weeks the trends will be clear.

G&M: Ontario set to loosen pandemic restrictions starting Jan. 31

Ontario Premier Doug Ford will on Thursday announce a gradual lifting of public-health restrictions that were implemented earlier this month to blunt a powerful wave of COVID-19 in the province driven by the more contagious Omicron variant.

Sources familiar with the government’s decision said Ontario will allow restaurants to restart indoor dining at 50-per-cent capacity as of Jan. 31, with other restrictions to lift in February. Originally, Ontario had identified Jan. 26 as a potential reopening date when it brought in the new restrictions and announced that it was closing schools for two weeks Jan. 3.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're talking to a wall. Our pet COVID deniers here don't give a hoot about children, or what they've been missing because schools keep closing, they can't get back to activities with their friends, they're isolated from relatives, etc. Activities that would be safer for everyone, children included, once they get vaccinated.

Kids are just pawns in their jihad against COVID vaccination and other precautions.

Where are your numbers? Do you have any? I'd suggest you are the one using kids as pawns for your narrative.

Who are "covid deniers"? There might be some of those, but they are certainly few in number. So please stop using incendiary names with the intent of diminishing folks who don't swallow your political narrative.

Let's agree to go with the science. That's what you claim to want, no? So if you want to vax all small children, please produce the numbers you're basing that on.

Again, I'm not against child vaccinations, I'd just like to see the numbers that folks are basing their positions on.


A fall study from England found the infection’s child-mortality rate is 2 per million. Of those who died, “76 percent had chronic health conditions, 64 percent had multiple comorbidities, and 60 percent had life-limiting conditions.” For comparison, about 2 million children in America play baseball each year, and about three or four die from it each year, for roughly the same mortality rate. But most parents don’t think twice about putting our kids in Little League.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm a bit happier to see Ontario's plan is to start easing restrictions in a couple of weeks -- not right away. There are a number of early indicators right now which suggest hospitalizations may have peaked, but as the data I posted earlier indicates, it's way too soon to say for sure. But perhaps in a couple of weeks the trends will be clear.

I'm going to predict the curve looks just like everywhere else, regardless of when governments ease their restrictions.

Also, that the restrictions are going to be eased in the near future.

At this point, people know what to do, no?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Take a closer look at the so called data you post. You are being played.

By using the numbers back through Jan 1 2021, (when hardly anyone was vaccinated) they are able to paint these graphs.
Look:

The existing data source (Critical Care Information System, CCIS) does not have vaccination status.
What does this mean?
It means that you have been played. You also link to an opinion poll. Public opinion (of people that have been manipulated) is not science, it is psychology.
Advocating for children (and soon babies) to get this untested poison in their arms is pure evil. The real science doesn't support it. We are being manipulated and lied to. At least a few of you seem to be waking up somewhat to this fact. I can't see how whatever pittance you get for writing this crap is worth advocating for forced legalized child abuse and outright murder.

COVID statistics have been a sham from the beginning. For example, PCR test stats have not included the cycle threshold count. And this is key. The higher the Ct, the greater the chance of a false positive. Ct's in the high 30's and 40's have about a 97% false positive rate. The test has been grossly misapplied. Problems with PCR were reported by the New York Times Aug. 29, 2020 and updated Jan. 19, 2021. The article can be accessed for free at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html. This is not the only source. Problems with PCR testing documented by many sources. One just has to do some digging. Even the WHO recommended that Ct should not be used beyond a count of 18. The notion of a pandemic falls on the misapplication of the test.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Looking at the actual data, instead of made-up fantasies about Omicron, one can see that it has resulted in the largest wave -- BY FAR -- of hospital cases in Ontario.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/coronavirustracker/

There is the slightest hint of a peak now, but there is no statistically sound trend yet. Perhaps in a few weeks, but at this point the slight dip could easily be noise.

Luckily (or sadly), it is the unvaccinated which continue to be hospitalized at the highest rate. Although happily, our hard-core anti-vaxx numbers seem to be down to around 10%, according to a recent national poll: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...m+19+02+22.pdf

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/co...ast7&map=pt#a7

Were we not going to generally see hospitalizations expressed with a distinction between 'for Covid' and 'with Covid'? I do understand that it matters little as long as the bed is full, but I do think the time has come to be more transparent with us the stakeholders.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Were we not going to generally see hospitalizations expressed with a distinction between 'for Covid' and 'with Covid'? I do understand that it matters little as long as the bed is full, but I do think the time has come to be more transparent with us the stakeholders.

Good point.

It made sense initially, but now we have a chance to be precise and accurate.

We know the difference between person with a broken arm, and a person with a broken arm who has covid.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by danstanford

But I do think the time has come to be more transparent with us the stakeholders.

This is the statement/attitude that is tripping everyone up, at least here in Canada. The populace aren't the stakeholders and sure as sh*t no government worth its salt is going treat us that way. (Not singling you out there Dan, it just a good example of the issue.)

The governments job is to maintain the "peace," attempt to establish equity (which granted most, if not all, suck at), provide and distribute services, and ensure smooth transitions of power etc.

They don't work for us — after they've been elected they work for the institution that is the country as a whole. Of course they "lie" to us. Of course they make hard choices that most people as individuals don't like. Of course they paint a rosy picture and distort statistics for their own messaging purposes. Controlling the message is 80% of governance ffs. Any parent or business owner knows that.

Sigh. Sorry for the rant but it really grinds me when people base their arguments on the fallacy that a government should, is, or ever will, be telling us everything. Of course they aren't. They can't.

[danstanford]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...MtC?li=AAggNb9

A fairly thorough explanation of the success of the vaccine here.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Were we not going to generally see hospitalizations expressed with a distinction between 'for Covid' and 'with Covid'? I do understand that it matters little as long as the bed is full, but I do think the time has come to be more transparent with us the stakeholders.

I quoted that just a few posts earlier Dan. It can be found on the official Ontario Covid site: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

As you say, it doesn't affect hospitalizations (an occupied bed is still an occupied bed), but it may have some value in tracking where and how infections occur.

Here's the current breakdown.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

COVID statistics have been a sham from the beginning. For example, PCR test stats have not included the cycle threshold count. And this is key. The higher the Ct, the greater the chance of a false positive. Ct's in the high 30's and 40's have about a 97% false positive rate. The test has been grossly misapplied. Problems with PCR were reported by the New York Times Aug. 29, 2020 and updated Jan. 19, 2021. The article can be accessed for free at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html. This is not the only source. Problems with PCR testing documented by many sources. One just has to do some digging. Even the WHO recommended that Ct should not be used beyond a count of 18. The notion of a pandemic falls on the misapplication of the test.

It is all too easy to extract a shred of information only to project it broadly. In this case the claim that "CT's in the high 30's and 40's have about a 97% false positive rate". This claim is already an expansion of the facts. The range is 35-40 cycles (not nearly as impressive as "30's to 40's". And it ignores the fact that a typical average CT is about 25.

The second mistleading extrapolation is that all these tests in the claimed high range will have "about" a "97% false positive". "About" and $2 will buy you a cuppa coffee. and the "97% false" may be true at the very highest end (no citation for that claim), it ignores the accuracy of the usual 25 Ct tests.

Furthermore tests at the higher Ct rates are NOT necessarily false. I quote:

That aside, a high Ct positive test doesn’t always mean that the person the swab was taken from isn’t infectious, or about to become infectious.

The exact relationship (between Ct value and infectivity) is still being researched, and interpreting these results depends on the clinical context.

Public Health England says although a positive test at the higher cycle thresholds does normally represent someone with a lower concentration of virus at the time that the test was done, there are other factors to consider, all of which depend on the “ clinical history and context”.

It is important to remember that these tests are a snapshot in time. Therefore, a positive result with high Ct value could represent somebody with lower amounts of virus, and lower infectivity (for example, somebody who has recently recovered from infection). It could also indicate somebody who may have been tested shortly before infection, when viral levels are low, but which may develop “[...] into symptomatic infection with high viral load and infectivity.”

There are other factors which could also give a high Ct positive result even for someone who is infectious and has a high viral load, for example, if test samples are poorly collected or stored, or people who develop severe lower respiratory tract Covid-19 infection (but are swabbed from an upper respiratory tract site).

And, while the maximum number of thermal cycles a coronavirus PCR test will do is typically around 35-40, many positive samples will be detectable at much lower levels.

So the idea that positive tests with high Ct values are “invalid” and should be dismissed is overly simplistic.

https://fullfact.org/health/cycle-threshold-values/

[N Coast Murray]

Interesting number crunching in link below using Canadians who were already participating in a longitudinal study on aging, where they looked at the post infection effects of Covid-19 on functional mobility for people who had the virus but were not hospitalized.

Still very early in the pandemic to gauge long term effects of Covid-19, but this one has a solid baseline from which to make comparisons due to participants being involved since 2015.

This study found that functional mobility was reduced to a greater extent in middle aged and older adults who had contracted Covid-19 but weren't sick enough to be hospitalized.

A sobering finding, especially for 'older' people who might enjoy scrambling around on boats:

This population-based cohort study used data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) COVID-19 study. This study was launched on April 15, 2020, and the exit questionnaires were completed between September and December 2020. Prepandemic data from the first CLSA follow-up (2015-2018) were also used. Respondents included middle-aged and older community-dwelling participants residing in Canadian provinces...

Our findings confirm that individuals with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization were more likely than those without COVID-19 to experience worsening of overall mobility since the start of the pandemic and a deterioration in physical function...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rm=011222&s=03

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

Interesting number crunching in link below using Canadians who were already participating in a longitudinal study on aging, where they looked at the post infection effects of Covid-19 on functional mobility for people who had the virus but were not hospitalized.

Still very early in the pandemic to gauge long term effects of Covid-19, but this one has a solid baseline from which to make comparisons due to participants being involved since 2015.

This study found that functional mobility was reduced to a greater extent in middle aged and older adults who had contracted Covid-19 but weren't sick enough to be hospitalized.

A sobering finding, especially for 'older' people who might enjoy scrambling around on boats:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rm=011222&s=03

Yes indeed, the whole area of "long Covid" is facinating and concerning. It's going to be years before we have a full understanding of what's going on, but early research is pointing to these effects emerging, even when initial infections were mild or even completely asymptomatic.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Where are your numbers? Do you have any? I'd suggest you are the one using kids as pawns for your narrative.

Who are "covid deniers"? There might be some of those, but they are certainly few in number. So please stop using incendiary names with the intent of diminishing folks who don't swallow your political narrative.

Let's agree to go with the science. That's what you claim to want, no? So if you want to vax all small children, please produce the numbers you're basing that on.

Again, I'm not against child vaccinations, I'd just like to see the numbers that folks are basing their positions on.


A fall study from England found the infection’s child-mortality rate is 2 per million. Of those who died, “76 percent had chronic health conditions, 64 percent had multiple comorbidities, and 60 percent had life-limiting conditions.” For comparison, about 2 million children in America play baseball each year, and about three or four die from it each year, for roughly the same mortality rate. But most parents don’t think twice about putting our kids in Little League.

All good points LGS. The supporters of COVID tyranny certainly expose their prejudices with their "COVID denier" and "anti-vaxxer" name calling tactics. When logic and science fail to support their view, they resort to ad hominem statements. Demonizing the opposition may have emotional appeal, but it certainly offers no logic.



The comorbidity issue has certainly been omitted from stats released by government and media. It is well known that people of weakened health die every tear of common ailments, of which COVID has become another.



In reality, most Canadians have had vaccines of some kind, so cannot be called anti-vaxxers. Furthermore, mNRA contains no dead or weakened pathogens, so does not meet the true definition of the word "vaccine". So those who are opposed to receiving them certainly cannot be called anti-vaxers.



Note that when marketing of mNRA injections began, the definition was changed to include them and support the fraud. It seems that on line dictionaries have been quite thoroughly scrubbed of the true definition and replaced with the new fraudulent one. A real paper book that was printed more than 2 years ago must be consulted. My 1979 "Webster's New World Dictionary" defines vaccine as, "any preparation of killed microorganisms, living or weakened organisms, etc. used to produce immunity to a specific disease". Microorganism content is required to meet the definition, but mNMRA injections have none.



Injecting children with an unproven concoction to prevent a disease that they have little chance of contracting and dying of certainly seems like a needless risk.



Will governments permanently ban baseball based upon those quoted statistics?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes indeed, the whole area of "long Covid" is facinating and concerning. It's going to be years before we have a full understanding of what's going on, but early research is pointing to these effects emerging, even when initial infections were mild or even completely asymptomatic.

"Long COVID" might affect a few people. But long term side effects to anti COVID injections are of greater concern. With the concoctions having had no long term study, their irresponsible large scale implementation poses a lot of potentially serious future harms. It is difficult to understand why supposedly rational people would trust their life to such mystery concoctions. It is further bewildering when one considers that they were developed by criminal organizations called pharmaceutic corporations. They have a long record of laws suits over defective products.


"But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails."
BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635 (Published 02 November 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:n2635




"In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in criminal and civil fines to settle allegations that the company illegally marketed several drugs for off-label purposes that were specifically not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The company instructed its marketing team to advertise Bextra, which was approved only for arthritis and menstrual cramps, for acute and surgical pain issues. The lawsuit, brought under the False Claims Act through the actions of six whistleblowers, ended in one of the largest health care fraud settlements in history."
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/...rporate-fraud/


Johnson & Johnson cannot even safely produce something as simple as baby powder, but we are expected to trust them with high technology "vaccines".


"Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $100 million to settle more than a thousand lawsuits claiming its iconic talc-based baby powder caused cancer, according to Bloomberg News."
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2020/1...stos-lawsuits/

[danstanford]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...i3C?li=AAggNb9

Reasonably accurate portrayal of the situation facing employers over Covid. Now, our PM will be faced with finding a solution palatable to the voters and labour as support for lockdowns/lockouts dwindles.