The COVID-19 pandemic

[ac3r]

We are doing a pretty good job donating vaccines from what I understand. We've committed to donate over 100'000'000 of them and have already donated tens of millions through COVAX in addition to donating over half a billion in cash. Granted, the vaccines aren't out of our own supply we purchased from pharmaceutical companies, but it's still a considerable amount.

Why we are hoarding enough vaccines to vaccinate Canadians several times is a different story...we've got way more than we really need even if we use them for children. I think we're sitting on at least 250'000'000 doses.

[tomh009]

But I can’t believe how selfish of a country we have come, that we’d think of vaccine low risk individuals rather than share our resources (and vaccine) for developing nations that need it 100x more than us. Not a word of this is being discussed. Y’all talk about wanting to protect children from a horrible disease that, in all likelihood, will never do anything to them. Yet 100% with this so-called generous nation holding onto vaccines from the less fortunate.

Sigh. You do realize that the vaccination does not only help the person being vaccinated, it reduces the opportunities for the virus to spread and attack others (including people already vaccinated)?

And, as ac3r said, we are already supporting COVAX. If you want to talk about vaccine selfishness, you should focus your efforts on booster shots rather than the efforts to increase the percentage of people vaccinated.

[ijmorlan]

Maybe a better idea is just to vaccinate children (if ever approved) that have serious health issues, and are more likely to benefit from a disease that, for the most part, ignores children.

My understanding is that children can act as links in a transmission chain. The goal of vaccination is to make our country an inhospitable environment for the virus. This is done by vaccinating everybody, or at least everybody who spends significant time with others.

Again, vaccination is not really an individual decision, but a societal one. This is why vaccination requirements are appropriate: if the society as a whole decides, through our democratic institutions, that we are to end the pandemic through vaccination, and if the safety and effectiveness of that decision is supported by solid scientific research, then those who disagree have the right to protest the decision but not to stop it.

The same is true of any of our laws. We all have to stop at traffic lights, whether or not we think traffic lights are an appropriate way of controlling traffic. We all have to wear clothes, even though not doing so doesn’t really harm anybody else. And so on.

[jeffster]

Current 7-day Covid-19 cases per 100k

• Chatham-Kent Public Health 112.9
• Windsor-Essex County Health Unit 102.9
• Brant County Health Unit 55.4
• City of Hamilton Public Health Services 53.4
• Niagara Region Public Health 45.9
• York Region Public Health 37.3
• Peel Public Health 33.7
• Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit 33.0
• Toronto Public Health 32.8
• Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health 32.1

• Region of Waterloo Public Health and Emergency Services 26.4

• Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit 16.4
• Hastings Prince Edward Public Health 13.7
• Renfrew County and District Health Unit 11.0
• Algoma Public Health 10.5
• Thunder Bay District Health Unit 10.0
• Leeds, Grenville & Lanark District Health Unit 9.2
• Grey Bruce Health Unit 8.8
• Northwestern Health Unit 6.8
• Porcupine Health Unit 4.8
• Timiskaming Health Unit 0.0

• TOTAL ONTARIO 33.5

[jeffster]

Maybe a better idea is just to vaccinate children (if ever approved) that have serious health issues, and are more likely to benefit from a disease that, for the most part, ignores children.

My understanding is that children can act as links in a transmission chain. The goal of vaccination is to make our country an inhospitable environment for the virus. This is done by vaccinating everybody, or at least everybody who spends significant time with others.

Again, vaccination is not really an individual decision, but a societal one. This is why vaccination requirements are appropriate: if the society as a whole decides, through our democratic institutions, that we are to end the pandemic through vaccination, and if the safety and effectiveness of that decision is supported by solid scientific research, then those who disagree have the right to protest the decision but not to stop it.

The same is true of any of our laws. We all have to stop at traffic lights, whether or not we think traffic lights are an appropriate way of controlling traffic. We all have to wear clothes, even though not doing so doesn’t really harm anybody else. And so on.

Unsure of false equivalencies, but you’re not wrong about what you said.

The reason for vaccinating children is NOT to protect them, but rather to protect old people like myself, and you, and probably 98% of people here. And I did bring that out several times. But others keep saying this is about protecting younglings, when it really isn’t.

Do I take exception to this? I sort of do. Of they (PHAC, PHU’s) are telling use the the vaccine is effective at preventing serious illness (and for the most part, it’s pretty good), then we shouldn’t potentially risk children’s health.

How many times have we been given this shot or that shot, then it had to stop, because of negative outcomes? I was one of those, PHU recommended against getting my second AZ, so Moderna. Trip canceled because agency didn’t accept mixed doses. It is what it is. Teens were getting Moderna, then this stopped, due to negative side effects. Those over a certain age told not to get AZ, after it was approved for that age group.

Yet, despite the constant changes we see, monthly or weekly, regarding what shot we should be taking, there are too many here willing to jump to the opportunity to vaccinate the youngest. Will THAT outcome be different? Will we make changes after the fact, like we have several times already?

And again, we have zero idea of the long term effects on the youngest, who are still developing.

Side note, and I thought I had brought this up before, but perhaps not.

In 2020, there were 295,370 deaths in Canada. That was a 1.55% increase over 2019 (or about 4,520 additional deaths).
In 2019, there were 290,850 deaths in Canada. That was a 1.68% increase over 2018 (or about 4,810 additional deaths).
In 2018, there were 286,040 deaths in Canada. That was a 1.82% increase over 2017 (or about 5,110 additional deaths).

Why do I bring this up? Because the amount of expected deaths in Canada did not increase as you would have expected, with this virus. It’s not suggesting that we shouldn’t have done anything. We needed to. In fact, our masking, lockdowns, social distancing, etc., saved lives regardless of Covid-19, or in spite of it.

If not factoring in Covid-19 deaths (if we assume every death was 100% related to Covid-19), our deaths actually dropped to about 269,000, numbers not seen since 2015 (270,030) when Canada had over 1m less people.

[tomh009]

Sigh.

[tomh009]

SUNDAY 2021-09-12

Waterloo Region reported 28 new cases for today (14.8% of the active cases) and zero additional for yesterday for 25; 172 new cases for the week (+3 from yesterday and +16 from last week), averaging 13.3% of active cases. 203 active cases, +28 in the last seven days.

Next testing report on Tuesday.

Next vaccination report on Monday.

Ontario reported 784 new cases today with a seven-day average of 712 (-4), compared to 757 a week ago. 738 recoveries and four (new) deaths translated to an increase of 40 active cases and a new total of 6,249. -287 active cases and 36 deaths for the week. 23,625 tests with a positivity rate of 3.32%. The positivity rate is averaging 3.02% for the past seven days, compared to 3.14% for the preceding seven.

158 people in the ICU, +4 from yesterday and +3 over the past week.

29,182 doses of vaccine administered yesterday, with a seven-day average at 31,075 (previous week was 32,450). 74.71% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.08% from yesterday, +0.66% from 7 days ago), 69.09% fully vaccinated (+0.12% from yesterday, +0.82% from 7 days ago).

Cases/100K by regional health unit:

• 73 cases in Windsor-Essex: 18.8 per 100K
  
• 19 cases in Chatham-Kent: 17.9 per 100K
  
• 45 cases in Niagara: 10.0 per 100K
  
• 57 cases in Hamilton: 9.8 per 100K
  
• 13 cases in Brant: 9.6 per 100K
  
• 16 cases in Eastern Ontario: 7.9 per 100K
  
• 37 cases in Simcoe-Muskoka: 6.8 per 100K
  
• 42 cases in Durham: 6.5 per 100K
  
• 8 cases in Lambton: 6.1 per 100K
  
• 65 cases in York: 5.9 per 100K
  
• 57 cases in Ottawa: 5.7 per 100K
  
• 11 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 5.5 per 100K
  
• 22 cases in Middlesex-London: 5.4 per 100K
  
• 29 cases in Halton: 5.3 per 100K
  
• 147 cases in Toronto: 5.0 per 100K
  
• 67 cases in Peel: 4.8 per 100K
  
• 12 cases in Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: 4.4 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Huron Perth: 4.1 per 100K
  
• 19 cases in Waterloo: 3.1 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 6 cases in Kingston Frontenac: 2.9 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Leeds, Grenville & Lanark: 1.8 per 100K
  
• 2 cases in Thunder Bay: 1.3 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Sudbury: 1.0 per 100K
  

   

[danbrotherston]

Hey tomh009, thanks again for the great coverage.

Given that there are now some concerning misconceptions being posted here, do you want to break out the age groups of the people hospitalized with COVID.

For example, in Alberta, there are over 2,500 children under 9 IN HOSPITAL with COVID.***

It's very frustrating to continually hear the misconception that COVID doesn't affect you people and children continue to be spread. It affects them less, but infecting our entire child population with COVID is a bad policy.

***Edit: This is actually a statistic from the spring wave, when there were ~20,000 people in hospital in Alberta. It still remains the case that children ARE impacted by the disease, sometimes very severely. Worse, this wave is likely to impact children more severely given that they are the largest unvaccinated group, AND ALSO indications that Delta may affect children more severely than previous variants.

***Edit 2: Apparently I misread it, that's the total number of cases, not hospitalized cases, which I cannot find anywhere.

[panamaniac]

2,500 children in hospital with covid in Alberta seems impossibly high. Where did you find that info?

[danbrotherston]

2,500 children in hospital with covid in Alberta seems impossibly high.  Where did you find that info?

Sorry, it was dated, from the spring wave:

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/these-are-co...-1.5414315

But I do think it's still valid, possibly more so since children are even MORE vulnerable now.

[panamaniac]

To note, that was the total number of covid cases among children.  The number hospitalized would have been a much lower number.

The fact remains that children can be infected with, and can spread, covid.  Some will be hospitalized.

[plam]

I just don't think your facts are correct about childrens' risk from the vaccine vs from infection, jeffster. And that's just the direct risks, without taking into account them spreading COVID to the rest of us. I also think that it's important to update one's view of the world when facts change, and that childrens' risk has substantially increased with delta.

[danbrotherston]

To note, that was the total number of covid cases among children.  The number hospitalized would have been a much lower number.

The fact remains that children can be infected with, and can spread, covid.  Some will be hospitalized.

Ugh, yes, sorry, I did misread that.

You know, it serves me right for not just reporting the data that I did have (and for assuming Alberta is terrible).

Okay, from the beginning.

Thousands of children in the US are hospitalized with COVID. It's a big problem and it is affecting children. Sorry, despite searching and obviously misreporting, I cannot find similar numbers for Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/child-covid...-1.5578264

This is affecting children.

[ijmorlan]

My understanding is that children can act as links in a transmission chain. The goal of vaccination is to make our country an inhospitable environment for the virus. This is done by vaccinating everybody, or at least everybody who spends significant time with others.

Again, vaccination is not really an individual decision, but a societal one. This is why vaccination requirements are appropriate: if the society as a whole decides, through our democratic institutions, that we are to end the pandemic through vaccination, and if the safety and effectiveness of that decision is supported by solid scientific research, then those who disagree have the right to protest the decision but not to stop it.

The same is true of any of our laws. We all have to stop at traffic lights, whether or not we think traffic lights are an appropriate way of controlling traffic. We all have to wear clothes, even though not doing so doesn’t really harm anybody else. And so on.

Unsure of false equivalencies, but you’re not wrong about what you said.

The reason for vaccinating children is NOT to protect them, but rather to protect old people like myself, and you, and probably 98% of people here. And I did bring that out several times. But others keep saying this is about protecting younglings, when it really isn’t.

Right, it’s to protect everybody, including the kids, by dramatically reducing virus transmission. Remember, this is contagious, so any intuition you might have about appropriate response to risk that you might apply to driving or heart disease or knife injuries will be completely wrong.

Do I take exception to this? I sort of do. Of they (PHAC, PHU’s) are telling use the the vaccine is effective at preventing serious illness (and for the most part, it’s pretty good), then we shouldn’t potentially risk children’s health.

How many times have we been given this shot or that shot, then it had to stop, because of negative outcomes? I was one of those, PHU recommended against getting my second AZ, so Moderna. Trip canceled because agency didn’t accept mixed doses. It is what it is. Teens were getting Moderna, then this stopped, due to negative side effects. Those over a certain age told not to get AZ, after it was approved for that age group.

Right, in other words, the medical people are being very careful with the vaccines; when even minor amounts of side effects are noted, they suspend the vaccine in question and investigate more fully.

Yet, despite the constant changes we see, monthly or weekly, regarding what shot we should be taking, there are too many here willing to jump to the opportunity to vaccinate the youngest. Will THAT outcome be different? Will we make changes after the fact, like we have several times already?

“Jump to the opportunity”? What are you talking about? Adults and teens have been eligible for months, and there are still at least weeks to go before approval for younger children occurs. We want children to be vaccinated as soon as the scientific evidence confirms that it will be safe and effective.

And again, we have zero idea of the long term effects on the youngest, who are still developing.

I’m pretty sure immunologists have a pretty good idea of what the long term effects could be, certainly more than “zero idea”. Not all outcomes are reasonable things to worry about.

[tomh009]

Using CDC data since they have a bigger data set:

• 2% of infected kids (0-9) are hospitalized
  
• 1% of infected kids are sent to ICU (yes, typically with intubation)
  
• 0.035% of infected kids have died 
  

As for the vaccinations,

• 0.00011% of recipients (0-18 in this case, sorry) died after the injection
  

For this, I could not find a more detailed analysis of the root cause, how many of those actually were caused by the vaccination, sorry.

If only 1 kid in 10 caught COVID, the risk of death from the disease would be at least 35x that of risk of death from the vaccine. Also, a substantially high risk of the kids being sent to the ICU.

And, as others have said, vaccinating the kids (really, vaccinating any given person) helps protect everyone else as well. It's the greater good.