Winston

In making light of the situation, we may see a transition into "boosted" mandates. Those that are "boosted" will have additional freedom benefits. Statistically right now "boosted" individuals make up 0% of infections, 0% of hospitalization and 0% of deaths. The statistics are quite convenient to make a case for immediate vaccine "boosted" mandates.

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data#variants Oct 01 "Vaccine coverage in BC, 28 Sep, 1 dose (2 doses): 78% (72%) of total population" Nov 04 "Vaccine coverage in BC, 2 Nov, 1 dose (2 doses): ~80% (76%) of total population" This means since Oct 01 to November 04 there has been a 4% increase in the fully vaccinated population. But there has been a 8 % increase in hospitalized fully vaccinated individuals. Accounting for the 4% population increase, this results in a 4% increase in hospitalized vaccinated individuals from October to November, according to the numbers given. For the unvaccinated there is a 12% drop in hospitalized unvaccinated individuals. Accounting for a 4% decrease in unvaccinated population, this results in a 8% decrease in hospitalized unvaccinated individuals. Why is there a 4% increase in the hospitalized vaccinated individuals? Why is there a 8% decrease in hospitalized unvaccinated individuals?

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-01-Data_Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-07_Data_Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-14-Data-Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-21-Data-Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-11-04-Data-Summary.pdf Comparing data: Fully vaccinated hospitalizations Unvaccinated hospitalizations Oct 01 2020 14% 61% Oct 07 2020 16% 57% Oct 14 2020 19% 59% Oct 21 2020 20% 56% Nov 04 2020 22% 49% There seems to be a trend of increased hospitalizations over time from fully vaccinated individuals. There seems to be a trend of slight decreased hospitalizations over time from unvaccinated. Why is this the case?

I am not sure what stupid people have to do with hospital management? Patients are not and should not be held responsible for allocation of hospital resources. Smart people are hired and paid for those roles. Thus when the system fails, the people responsible are those in hospital resource management roles. Why would hospital resource allocation responsibility shift onto patients ever?

Patients are responsible for hospital resource management, since when?

In general, who is responsible if a person requiring medical attention is not administered to the ICU due to a lack of availability of ICU resources?

There are many individuals and teams left to understand the problems, but the risk is too high to enter such a spotlight. The fundamental problem is spread and unrealistic expectations.

My apologies, I misread your post. I would still make a similar argument. Should negligent individuals, requiring medical assistance, be double charged for the medical assistance? What is the purpose of country wide medical insurance if it does not function during an emergency? On what basis is their contract with the medical insurance system void? Fundamentally someone that breaks their leg playing sports vs someone who is infected with covid, both requiring ICU, would have to double pay by this "idea" or system.

Exactly. With these extreme ideas comes cognitive dissonance. We as a society still have yet to understand the problem or the objective desired goal. Instead we react to daily numbers as if they have a precise meaning.

I disagree with this idea as it leads to a far worse society. The negligent population does not deserve to die just because they were negligent. The obese population is an example of such a case. Even criminal activity, such as a DUI accident that results in injury does not result in rejected medical treatment. " then why we should pay for their selfishness and ignorance? Let them pay for their own avoidable cost." - We already have a mandatory contract in place, citizens among other parties, pay for the social health care insurance system. To reject medical assistance for a citizen would break the contract. This is unethical and illegal. Most if not all citizens pay into our health care system, irrelevant of their previous conditions or negligent behavior. Most if not all citizens have access to our medical system irrelevant of their previous conditions or negligent behavior. A person could break one bone a week by negligent behavior, they still receive medical treatment. "Let them pay for their own avoidable cost." - Most injuries are avoidable, some medical conditions are avoidable, yet we as a society recognize that it is important to maintain some individual freedom. If medical assistance could be rejected purely due to "negligence" simple activities such as sports would be considered extremely dangerous and avoidable. "Considering that ICU per covid patient is $50,000 and hospitalization cost is $20,000 per covid patient" - This statement suggests that because a covid patient costs $ 50,000 per (day?, week?) society should let them die. Ironically this is the exact opposite argument made against reopening. The cost of lives are higher that a certain value, thus reopening would cost too much in terms of lives, even though it is costing billions by shutting/limiting the economy down. In order to make this argument, one would have to complete an economic analysis per potential life lost, which over the past two years could be in the hundreds of thousands. Overall, if a life is worth less than $50,000 the economy would reopen and return to normal, with funds allocated to the death of a citizen to be paid up to $50,000 , this is not the case. To conclude, this type of argument does not hold water unless one wishes to present a fixed monetary value on an individuals life, concede that all negligent actions which result in medical assistance are to be rejected and formulate a basis on which actions terminate the medical insurance contract. Do you have a fixed monetary value on an individuals life? Do you agree than all negligent actions requiring medical assistance should be rejected? Do you have a basis on which the contract can be terminated?

I am not sure why there is a shortage of beds. The acting authority had two years to build permanent or build temporary containment facilities ( military or private), another example of horrible planning and incompetent decisions. Shortages of doctors and nurses is artificial, supply of qualified individuals abundant, the system mandates inadequate entry numbers.

Thank you Argus, from the looks of the CDC they say its 200% more transmissible.

Maybe I have missed a study, but as far as I know this is still inconclusive and depends on socialization behavior of each group.

These are good questions, to which I do not have the answer. I have been unable to ascertain answers to the many questions relevant to the data that must be addressed before a conclusive analysis can be completed. Questions pertaining to group testing data, transmission of viral load data, total infection data and underlying conditional medical infection data should be publicly addressed. I wish I could answer the mechanism question, but without more specific data this is difficult.

Are you trying to figure out the mechanism by which the cases increase or decrease?

" you admitted that vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalizations and ICUs" - As I said before I am not against vaccines, I am against the improper use of data. For proper data analysis we need to analyze a longer time period before making any scientific conclusions. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the data presented, that should be public knowledge.

I 100% agree, it is a snapshot and should not be used to indicate any risk factor. Just like they should not be taking a snap shot of a day or a week as a representation of any risk factor. Do vaccines prevent higher number of ICU numbers, yes. Do vaccines prevent higher number of hospitalization numbers, yes. Do vaccines prevent higher number of general infections? Currently inconclusive.

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/ https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data As per the report for September 5. If you are fully vaccinated, the chance you will end up in ICU is 0.000199 % If you are fully vaccinated, the chance you will end up in hospital is 0.000340% If you are unvaccinated, the chance you will end up in ICU is 0.00266% If you are unvaccinated, the chance you will end up in hospital is 0.00367% For perspective, in 2018, 1 out of 242 people would be injured in a car accident, that is a risk of 0.413% of being injured in a car accident. (for a year not a day) In 2018, 1 out of 18,612 people would be killed in a car accident, that is a risk of 0.00537% of being injured in a car accident. (for a year not a day) https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/motor-vehicle-safety/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2018 Why am I saying this? Because basing statistics on 1 day or 1 week is not comparable or accurate to an annual representation of the data.

Could you share or cite the studies that show mask mandates or lockdowns do not work? I am unaware of such studies, they would be an interesting read.

Specifics the health Minister should be presenting. Actual data https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#ncf : Unvaccinated - 559 - 12.0% increase since Friday Partially vaccinated - 92 - 35.3% increase since Friday Fully vaccinated - 208 - 13.9% increase since Friday Vaccination status unknown - 85 - 41.7 % increase since Friday Fully vaccinated and unvaccinated percental increase are nearly identical. As we can see, unknown and partially vaccinated groups have the highest increase in infections. "Ottawa Public Health says unvaccinated residents are 15 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals are" - citation? The 15 times more likely number counters the number they provided just last week when they mentioned it was 20 times more likely, "Last week, Ottawa Public Health released new information showing that unvaccinated residents were 20 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents were." Being wrong by 500% would be considered professional misconduct in most professional fields. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/weekly-covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-ottawa-holds-steady-1.5558082

"Some are not." - How many is this some? Where is our data on how many are not self isolating. Mandate containment of an infected individual is already in place. "Plus this disease can have an unusually long period of time between catching it and when symptoms show." - Possibly, but unless you are actively shedding the virus you are not transmitting the virus. "Some get the disease and are asymptomatic, which means they don't even know they have it - but can still spread it around." - How are they spreading it around without shedding the virus? I believe we should solve the problem at the core, we have infected people entering public spaces, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated infected people. A system of testing for all individuals entering public spaces is required. Instead of focusing on one small group that may or may not be infected, lets focus on the actual infected population who is infecting the rest of the population.

What is a true vaccine? As you mentioned Viruses mutate all the time, most of the mutations are not beneficial to the virus. Mutations can and do occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, it only depends on if that individual is infected. I think the argument is based on our current data, because more unvaccinated are testing positive, they could be the majority source of mutations, purely by number, ( roughly double the vaccinated group from Aug 13 to Sept 3). But it is unclear if the the testing numbers for unvaccinated vs vaccinated are the same or comparable. I would argue the data on infection rates for both groups is inconclusive until someone can provide a source for total vaccinated tested and total unvaccinated tested.

I agree, the data indicates that an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch the disease than a vaccinated person. But who are these vaccinated and unvaccinated people catching the disease from ? If you test positive for the disease you self isolate, go to the hospital or ICU. How can an uninfected person catch a disease from an uninfected person? "Which means the risk they will infect others is much higher" how? Are they not self isolating?

Yes infected individuals may be admitted to ICU or hospital care. Let me clarify, why are there restrictions on uninfected vaccinated or uninfected unvaccinated individuals? I can completely understand restrictions on infected individuals. I can understand mandatory self isolation or hospitalization for infected individuals. If a vaccinated individual or an unvaccinated individual is in public, with no infection, they pose no risk.

This is what does not make sense, why are there restrictions? Unvaccinated made a choice and continue to make a choice, they are responsible for their actions, we are not responsible for their inaction. Restrictions are unnecessary unless there is a threat to the public safety.