Coronavirus All Purpose Thread: The unnecessary Dumb Dumb 4th wave

[tvp2003]

Some good discussion points. I was planning on going to a preseason game or two (usually smaller crowds, especially up in the nosebleeds), but will give it some more thought.

I will be going to the home opener though. It's been something I've been looking forward to for awhile and I think that's a "risk" that I can live with, especially since I don't do other things like eating in restaurants, etc in order to prevent spread. The next home game after that isn't until October 30, so hopefully numbers in all categories are trending down at least by that point...

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by scobel

I agree listening to the doctors, I really wish that the government would step up and provide some type of statistic behind the reasoning, though it is tough to really gather legit data.

I agree that everyone needs to make there own decision I personally would be ok going to the games, being vaccinated and not in the age group we are seeing on being vaccinated and in the ICU.

plus as others may have said, the vaxxed can still get covid and pass it onto others, who may end up at the hospital.

also, out of 18,000 at a game I would bet there will be more than a few that are not vaxxed at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

It seems to me, as somebody that pays a bit of attention to Covid, that indoors is a major factor in transmission.

This makes sense intuitively, as if you go indoors you are sharing the air with everybody in that building as they recycle so much air. This is why Covid (and other illness) can spread quickly through offices and classrooms. You also have many people touching the same surfaces, which could also be an issue, but not as big for me (personally).

My approach to covid now is to limit or avoid sharing air with people indoors. Where I can't limit sharing air, it's then reducing the time I spend sharing air.

Based on this, a flames game seems about the worst possible place to go. Lots of people, lots of screaming, lots of moving around and indoors for 3 hours. I personally wouldn't attend a flames game even if good tickets were free.

I'll change my approach to indoors as more data comes in on how the Delta variant impacts kids and those with the AZ-Pfizer cocktail. I could see attending later in the year if things looking good.

Transmission rates in highly ventilated areas are low. There is a reason we don't see many cases of spread on airplanes.

Sporting arenas could install more air exchangers to filter the air through HEPA filters (or something less) and effectively eliminate many of the risks.

Maybe not all, but once you consider that people are vaccinated, masking, ventilation, high ceilings, air movement in general....it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is such a risk that capacity needs to be reduced.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

plus as others may have said, the vaxxed can still get covid and pass it onto others, who may end up at the hospital.

also, out of 18,000 at a game I would bet there will be more than a few that are not vaxxed at all.

Am I missing something? Isn't there a vaxx requirement in order to go to the games?

Because if there isn't, well than yeah that is a much different story.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

This is the type of information our governments should be pushing out to the people every single day.

I mean, they do repeatedly say that the risk of a COVID infection is vastly higher than getting any kind of severe reaction from a vaccine. But do you honestly think people who get their medical info from Facebook are going to look at a logarithmic chart of risk ratios for a bunch of things they've never heard of and be convinced of anything?

BC publishes lists like this every day which, when taken with the fact that nearly 90% of the adult population is vaccinated, should make the benefits of vaccination abundantly clear to even the most thick-headed person:



But you can only do so much to convince people who are irrational and at a certain point you have to accept it's not a problem of messaging from the government.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Am I missing something? Isn't there a vaxx requirement in order to go to the games?

Because if there isn't, well than yeah that is a much different story.

There is, but the "proof" is a printout/screenshot of an editable PDF that anyone can throw together.

[TorqueDog]

We're going to the Flames/Jets game in late November.

What we know:
- On 9/21, 21.3% of new cases provincially were comprised the fully vaccinated
- As of 9/21, approximately 928,345 Calgarians are fully vaccinated
- The Saddledome's capacity for hockey is 19,289


With that data and those assumptions in mind, yesterday's new case numbers (across all vaccinated states) for Calgary were 291, so 21.3% is an estimated 61 new cases in fully vaccinated Calgarians. That works out to 6.57 new cases per 100k fully vaccinated, or 1.27 new cases per 24 hours of full capacity Saddledome. Over four hours, that's 0.212 new cases.

Now I am fully aware that this is the most basic-ass calculation and there are tons of obvious assumptions and flaws to call out:
- Infections are equally spread over a 24 hour time period (flaw: they aren't).
- Transmission in a closed building like the Saddledome with people in close quarters is the same as entire city (flaw: it isn't).
- Masks will be still be required indoors, helping to reduce transmission.
- Children under 12 aren't at the game. Of course, they will be. The game is in late November, it's entirely possible that ages 5-11 could see vaccine approval before then (late October perhaps?). Either they are and these numbers are more reflective of that scenario, or they aren't and these numbers have the stated flaw (though without a vaccine this may result in far fewer parents taking their kids to the game at all).
- The population of the Saddledome is consistent over 4 hours (flaw: capacity over time is on a bell curve, albeit one that is heavy from middle to end)
- The Saddledome will sell out (this assumpton is unlikely but keeping it like this errs on the side of caution)
- Staff on-site do not appreciably increase numbers for the sake of calculations.
- 21.3% of daily cases in Calgary are in the fully vaccinated (assumed based off provincial reporting).
- Vaccination in Calgary will not increase beyond its current high water mark by end of November, so spread and daily cases will be the same as it is today.

So there's obviously a lot to assume here. With all that in mind, I'm accepting the risk unless something dramatically changes between now and then that presents a much larger risk (eg: new born-in-Edson variant).

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

scolding rant

Your sanctimony isn't welcome. I know how serious things are in the hospitals right now. I also know health care workers and people whose surgeries have been delayed.

The situation sucks, I know it does. I want it to get better too. We are where we are because not enough people are vaccinated. The vaccine passports haven't even been a thing in Alberta for a week and we're already talking about more restrictions on the vaccinated that will make getting the jab less attractive.

If you're unvaccinated and longing for a return to normal life and the experiences you once loved, you need to be able to see the vaccinated doing those things unfettered. They need to be shown that they're missing out on true normalcy. Not a watered down, neutered version of normalcy.

If we're truly concerned that an arena full of people who have been vaccinated and masked will be a super spreader event, then we really aren't convinced of the vaccine's effectiveness. If we aren't convinced of that ourselves then how will we convince others to get vaccinated?

This isn't me being butt-hurt about going or not going to a subpar Flames experience as you imply. We need to trust that the vaccines will allow us to live normal lives. If we aren't convinced of that, then we really are all screwed.

[MissTeeks]

Feds sending help:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1441091085200072707

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, they do repeatedly say that the risk of a COVID infection is vastly higher than getting any kind of severe reaction from a vaccine. But do you honestly think people who get their medical info from Facebook are going to look at a logarithmic chart of risk ratios for a bunch of things they've never heard of and be convinced of anything?

BC publishes lists like this every day which, when taken with the fact that nearly 90% of the adult population is vaccinated, should make the benefits of vaccination abundantly clear to even the most thick-headed person:



But you can only do so much to convince people who are irrational and at a certain point you have to accept it's not a problem of messaging from the government.

The best way to beat bad information is with better information.

Our governments have simply not done a good job at creating a high level of public awareness with what the ACTUAL numbers are.

You can sit here and say you won't convince irrational people, and we may not convince everyone, but like I said earlier, being confident about the vaccines and the vaccine effectiveness and results would go a long way in pushing the fence sitters over the edge.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We're going to the Flames/Jets game in late November.

What we know:
- On 9/21, 21.3% of new cases provincially were comprised the fully vaccinated
- As of 9/21, approximately 928,345 Calgarians are fully vaccinated
- The Saddledome's capacity for hockey is 19,289


With that data and those assumptions in mind, yesterday's new case numbers (across all vaccinated states) for Calgary were 291, so 21.3% is an estimated 61 new cases in fully vaccinated Calgarians. That works out to 6.57 new cases per 100k fully vaccinated, or 1.27 new cases per 24 hours of full capacity Saddledome. Over four hours, that's 0.212 new cases.

Now I am fully aware that this is the most basic-ass calculation and there are tons of obvious assumptions and flaws to call out:
- Infections are equally spread over a 24 hour time period (flaw: they aren't).
- Transmission in a closed building like the Saddledome with people in close quarters is the same as entire city (flaw: it isn't).
- Masks will be still be required indoors, helping to reduce transmission.
- Children under 12 aren't at the game. Of course, they will be. The game is in late November, it's entirely possible that ages 5-11 could see vaccine approval before then (late October perhaps?). Either they are and these numbers are more reflective of that scenario, or they aren't and these numbers have the stated flaw (though without a vaccine this may result in far fewer parents taking their kids to the game at all).
- The population of the Saddledome is consistent over 4 hours (flaw: capacity over time is on a bell curve, albeit one that is heavy from middle to end)
- The Saddledome will sell out (this assumpton is unlikely but keeping it like this errs on the side of caution)
- Staff on-site do not appreciably increase numbers for the sake of calculations.
- 21.3% of daily cases in Calgary are in the fully vaccinated (assumed based off provincial reporting).
- Vaccination in Calgary will not increase beyond its current high water mark by end of November, so spread and daily cases will be the same as it is today.

So there's obviously a lot to assume here. With all that in mind, I'm accepting the risk unless something dramatically changes between now and then that presents a much larger risk (eg: new born-in-Edson variant).

Are vaccination numbers not increasing in Calgary every single day?

What are the expected numbers supposed to be come start of the actual season?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are vaccination numbers not increasing in Calgary every single day?

What are the expected numbers supposed to be come start of the actual season?

They absolutely are, and I wholeheartedly expect that vaccination will increase considerably by the time the game happens.

But that's just one of the flaws/assumptions I called out. By using numbers I expect will improve by the time the event actually rolls around, I'm simply erring on the side of caution. It also balances out some of the other assumptions that skew the risk lower, like not considering that under 12s might not be vaccinated, transmission risk in a building being greater than that of an entire city's averages, etc.

You could probably make a complete model of the risk if you were so inclined, but some things are completely a shot in the dark. How many people do we expect to forge the vaccine passport PDF and use that instead of PortPass? What's the possibility of asymptomatic infections amongst attendees?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

The best way to beat bad information is with better information.

Our governments have simply not done a good job at creating a high level of public awareness with what the ACTUAL numbers are.

You can sit here and say you won't convince irrational people, and we may not convince everyone, but like I said earlier, being confident about the vaccines and the vaccine effectiveness and results would go a long way in pushing the fence sitters over the edge.

No it won't. We've been vaccinating for 9 months at this point; barely anyone who hasn't clued in yet isn't going to figure it out based on more scientific information from the government. They're either paralyzed by fear or have buried themselves in misinformation, and government statistics aren't going to fix that. Some will be able to be convinced by people they trust on an individual level (doctors, pharmacists, friends, etc.), but more information from public health officials isn't going to provide that.

There's a reason that the only thing that created a demonstrable uptick in vaccinations was the proof of vaccination requirement. Coercion is really the only lever left for the vast majority of unvaccinated people. Coddling them or blaming their poor decision making on the government is no longer tenable.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Your sanctimony isn't welcome. I know how serious things are in the hospitals right now. I also know health care workers and people whose surgeries have been delayed.

The situation sucks, I know it does. I want it to get better too. We are where we are because not enough people are vaccinated. The vaccine passports haven't even been a thing in Alberta for a week and we're already talking about more restrictions on the vaccinated that will make getting the jab less attractive.

If you're unvaccinated and longing for a return to normal life and the experiences you once loved, you need to be able to see the vaccinated doing those things unfettered. They need to be shown that they're missing out on true normalcy. Not a watered down, neutered version of normalcy.

If we're truly concerned that an arena full of people who have been vaccinated and masked will be a super spreader event, then we really aren't convinced of the vaccine's effectiveness. If we aren't convinced of that ourselves then how will we convince others to get vaccinated?

This isn't me being butt-hurt about going or not going to a subpar Flames experience as you imply. We need to trust that the vaccines will allow us to live normal lives. If we aren't convinced of that, then we really are all screwed.

how can I be convinced to live a normal life when any misfortune could cost me that life?
I understand we're at the point when any accident could have you denied medical treatment as there just isn't the ability to treat you.

If I get in a car accident and I get a lower level of care, or no care because the hospital is filled with mostly unvaxxed, my double vax status means nothing.
I already can't get a surgery I've been needing for a long time. the unvaxxed are already affecting my quality of life.

since the government isn't doing their job, (for example a proper vaccine passport and proper restrictions for the unvaxxed) we all have to do more to keep each other safe.

Right now, It's nothing to do with how effective the vaccine is, in keeping me safe from covid so I can live normally.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Some good discussion points. I was planning on going to a preseason game or two (usually smaller crowds, especially up in the nosebleeds), but will give it some more thought.

I will be going to the home opener though. It's been something I've been looking forward to for awhile and I think that's a "risk" that I can live with, especially since I don't do other things like eating in restaurants, etc in order to prevent spread. The next home game after that isn't until October 30, so hopefully numbers in all categories are trending down at least by that point...

I don’t believe we should do more than the restrictions ask of us. It’s a tragedy of the commons.

If you choose to deprive your self it makes no difference to Hospitalization rates at the society level. If everybody else deprives themselves and you don’t your action makes zero difference. So the correct action in all circumstances is to not care about societal risks. To do otherwise is not rational.

This is why the government needs to regulate activities to ensure that the costs of depriving ourselves are born throughout the population.

So if flames games with only Dual Vaxxed present a material risk to the ICUs then the government needs to step in and regulate. Otherwise the most responsible will have a disproportionate burden to the irresponsible.


I for one am done helping out the cowards in government and the cowards afraid of a vaccine.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Am I missing something? Isn't there a vaxx requirement in order to go to the games?

Because if there isn't, well than yeah that is a much different story.

Counterfeited vax certificates

[PeteMoss]

Suicides down 32% last year in Canada. Lowest level in a decade. Obviously just one measure, but a lot of anti-lockdown messaging was that it was going to cause suicides to go up due to mental health issues caused by being lockdown.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...red/?cmpid=rss

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

how can I be convinced to live a normal life when any misfortune could cost me that life?

You could ask yourself this question at any time or place regardless of the pandemic.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

You could ask yourself this question at any time or place regardless of the pandemic.

Again, demonstrating your lack of understanding of the hospital situation.

[REDVAN]

^^ I've read that suicides decrease during wartimes... I think the idea is that people will tough it out because, well, my life sucks but these problems aren't that bad in comparison. I think the same can be said for the current pandemic- many are without jobs, or less income, worried for their health etc, but unless they are sick or really up against it, what do they have to really complain about compared to others?

Quick Googling shows that wartime suicide idea to be in question, but my point is:

I expect a large increase in suicide rate when this pandemic officially moves into endemic status. Many laid-off workers who've been surviving on CERB/savings will discover there is no job to return to. Many families that stuck it out during this time will fracture. People will need to re-enter society and many of their pandemic vices will creep up on them. Mental health will degrade for many, such as those who must return to working from the office- the commute is no joke my friends. But the opposite is true too, many people love the office as it is a break from their home.

Time will tell, but I think this suicide stat is going to reverse soon