Former anti-vax Edson woman shares husband's COVID-19 ICU horror story.
(edmontonjournal.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
“I’m not 85 so it’s not a concern for me”
No law, yet, against infecting people who do happen to be vulnerable.
Should there be a law against infecting people who are “vulnerable”?
What law would you make if you were PM?
Jabs mandatory for every last man, woman child and youngest of babies?
How would one prove I’m a court of law whom the ‘infector’ was? Shall this cover just the current ‘Rona or however many “variants” ? 1 of 50 people in the coffee shop each day.
“Vulnerable” to what? The Rona? If a person is so terrified of succumbing to a bug with an IFR of 0.05%, then perhaps that person has bigger issues, such as extreme age, an autoimmune disorder, morbid obesity, etc.
One person is not responsible for another random persons health. We are not helpless babies. Knowingly giving someone HIV is one thing (hello legal in California!) locking thousands of folk down for a glorified influenza just in case a 55 year old clinically obese fat diabetic women walks past someone with a undefined sniffle without a mask on at a Denny’s is another.
Perhaps we should extend this law to other diseases? Or just Corona?
I appear to have touched a nerve.
Are you worried about being held responsible for contributing to the load on the healthcare system?
no, not at all. Why would I be worried about spreading a bug that has an IFR of 0.03% ? (source: HM Gov UK Office of National Statistics)
Should I worry about spreading an influenza? That kills more frail elderly every year than the Rona does, flu deaths are easily findable for prior years.
Would you care to expand on your sentence: “No law, yet..” appears to imply you would like one. If that is not the case please make clear to the forum where you stand.
And how, precisely is one going to be “held responsible”? What law or enforcement should be made?
<sigh> First: that statement would carry more weight if it included a link to the source referenced. As it stands it's just some potential Russian troll bullshit.
Second: Those of us without a firm background in statistics might not understand the differences between the various ways of looking at the numbers. For example, here's a quote from a recent paper: "Currently, the global COVID-19 crude mortality rate is approximately 39 per 100,000 population, and the median case-fatality ratio-defined as the ratio of deaths to total infections-is estimated to be around 1.8%" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340241816_The_many_estimates_of_the_COVID-19_case_fatality_rate
So for those of us without the background to understand the technical nuances of the various numerical analyses I suggest we just go with the simple numbers. As of Oct 8 2021 in Canada there have been 1,585,972 cases which left victims alive, and another 28,186 people who didn't make it. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html
That works out to 1.78% (just under 2%) of the people who tested positive for the virus having died. That's about 1 in 50.
Oh look! That's the global "median case fatality ratio" defined above.
Actually no. "COVID-19 is associated with fatalities at a rate that is higher than that of seasonal influenza" This quote is also from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340241816_The_many_estimates_of_the_COVID-19_case_fatality_rate
Touchy about that, are you?