Will You And Your Family Get The Vaccine?

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by fishpro

While 0.07 percent is not a high number, it is actually higher than the number of people who were symptomatic. While the number of active cases fluctuated in the time that asymptomatic testing was available, looking at the graph of active case numbers an estimate of 1000 active cases at a time seems reasonable, which equates to 0.0229 percent. In other words, for every symptomatic case, there were more than three asymptomatic cases, which I think is something we need to pay attention to.

It's slightly concerning that 0.07% is such a small number that they decided to stop testing as it wasn't that big a deal, but we are experiencing what we are because of 0.02%.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Narrow and selective data viewpoint is the crux of the conspircy movement.

I wonder what other position that's the crux of.....

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by fishpro

While 0.07 percent is not a high number, it is actually higher than the number of people who were symptomatic. While the number of active cases fluctuated in the time that asymptomatic testing was available, looking at the graph of active case numbers an estimate of 1000 active cases at a time seems reasonable, which equates to 0.0229 percent. In other words, for every symptomatic case, there were more than three asymptomatic cases, which I think is something we need to pay attention to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are looking at the data incorrectly. The 0.07% is a function of people being tested for Covid whereas the 0.0229 is the number of positive cases in the population. Maybe its due to not enough coffee yet this morning but I am having difficulty recreating the 0.0229%.

[Rastus]

HERE, if you have a heart condition, and you die of it, and they do a Covid-19 test on you, and you test positive, which test they do on you, that is what you died of, DUH!!!!!!!!!!

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It's slightly concerning that 0.07% is such a small number that they decided to stop testing as it wasn't that big a deal, but we are experiencing what we are because of 0.02%.

I think they were very caution in the beginning due to the unknowns associated with the virus. Now that they have learned more, fortunately for us its a much lesser threat than initially perceived. I think a major concern for the policy makers is to accept this lower risk and back down without losing face. There is probably a bit of fear looming in regards to the public backlash that is going to follow.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Exactly. It is a waste of testing resources because people aren't asymptomatic. 7 in every 10,000 tested. Just a paper tiger.

I think it comes down to rate of infection. It is very low in Alberta...hence you can’t find many asymptomatic cases. Do the same thing in Texas...Florida...etc hotspots and you will find lots.

As almost all spread is via family groupings, church groupings, some parties and a few spread between coworkers at the job...finding fandoms is highly unlikely.

It is therefore a result of infection rate versus it is not spreading asymptomatically to any strong degree in Alberta. Maybe we are in agreement.

Contact tracing and behaviours are keeping out asymptomatic cases in check unlike other areas of the world.

It is a good thing.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

How many people have died from covid?

How many people have died from a heart attack in that same period of time?

Seriously think of that.

Now think of the panic surrounding heart disease.

Or another perspective...it is now the third leading cause of death in the US.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...-off-1.5067450

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

There is something I don't understand.

As I understand it the primary means of transmission is via droplets we expel when we sneeze or cough, hence the need for wearing masks.

It is also my impression that asymptomatic means one is not exhibiting systems even though they are ill. So they are not sneezing or coughing.

If those two things are true and only .07% are asymptomatic, how then are those few such a major contributor to the spread of this disease?

That's a legitimate question. A large amount of the asymptomatic transmission has occurred in tightly packed indoor environments where people are yelling, singing or raising their voices, thereby forcibly projecting tiny "spit" particles. It's not a coincidence that a lot of infections have occurred in churches, choirs, bars or political rallies.

[BigJon]

Originally Posted by scott h

that's a legitimate question. A large amount of the asymptomatic transmission has occurred in tightly packed indoor environments where people are yelling, singing or raising their voices, thereby forcibly projecting tiny "spit" particles. It's not a coincidence that a lot of infections have occurred in churches, choirs, bars or political rallies.

lol

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are looking at the data incorrectly. The 0.07% is a function of people being tested for Covid whereas the 0.0229 is the number of positive cases in the population. Maybe its due to not enough coffee yet this morning but I am having difficulty recreating the 0.0229%.

The 0.07% is the percentage of positive results among asymptomatic tests, which given the sample size is probably a fairly accurate representation of the population. The 0.0229% is the percentage of the positive cases. Using the covid stats site for Alberta, I estimated an average of about 1000 active cases at any given time over the time period, then 1000/4371000=0.0229%

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

There is something I don't understand.

As I understand it the primary means of transmission is via droplets we expel when we sneeze or cough, hence the need for wearing masks.

It is also my impression that asymptomatic means one is not exhibiting systems even though they are ill. So they are not sneezing or coughing.

If those two things are true and only .07% are asymptomatic, how then are those few such a major contributor to the spread of this disease?

While 0.07% is a small number, it's quite a bit larger than the approximately 0.0229% that are symptomatic. In addition to this, those who are asymptomatic are likely to be in the presence of far greater people than someone who's symptomatic and isolating.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by fishpro

The 0.07% is the percentage of positive results among asymptomatic tests, which given the sample size is probably a fairly accurate representation of the population. The 0.0229% is the percentage of the positive cases. Using the covid stats site for Alberta, I estimated an average of about 1000 active cases at any given time over the time period, then 1000/4371000=0.0229%

Ok I see where you got your answers from now. I appreciate it! Now I will show you the flaw in your calculations.

Number of tests = 233,000 (measured value)
Number of asymptomatic positives = 163 (measured value)
163 / 233,000 = 0.07%

1000 daily active cases is unknows as there could be 10 or 100 times people with covid that are staying at home and not getting tested. I would be one of them as if I got ill, I would self isolate until I was good. If I got tested, I would be subject to legal isolation and a mistake could become costly.

A better measure would be to use the numbers of positive Covid results divided by the number of people tested for Covid

16,381 / 1,180,696 = 1.39%

With these known measured numbers asymptomatic cases are actually 1/20th or 5% of the actual cases.

Paper tiger.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

The large amounts of tests provide very significant data that the threat of asymptomatic transmission is not real. They also maybe want to make sure that their budgets don't get cut by excessive work volume to show they are doing legitimate work. Nothing like soaking up as much tax payer cash by AHS as they can!

The criteria for asymptomatic testing in Alberta is...

In order to be tested, you must:*
1. Be asymptomatic (you have no symptoms of COVID-19)
2. Have not been in contact with someone known to have COVID-19*
3. Have not travelled outside of Canada within the last 14 days

So in a population with low infection rate...what has been proven is that there isn’t a significant number of asymptomatic carriers in the population. Out another way...if you are at super low risk of having it...most likely you don’t. The mostly likely asymptomatic people are not in this category.

Those with no symptoms and have been in contact with a Covid positive person or traveled outside Canada in the last 14 days... are the more likely ones to be worried about being asymptomatic in the population.

Also what it suggests maybe that the number of asymptomatic carriers is low. However you need to know that circumstance and information changes as new things are learned.

For instance...low asymptomatic carriers may be true in the over 40 year old demographic that saw lots of cases early on. Now the surge is in under 40 and it may not be the same.

Your “transmission is not real” is a dangerous statement to spread as it is based upon a lack of knowledge. Here is a link to a study to show it is real.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...0/asymptomatic

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Ok I see where you got your answers from now. I appreciate it! Now I will show you the flaw in your calculations.

Number of tests = 233,000 (measured value)
Number of asymptomatic positives = 163 (measured value)
163 / 233,000 = 0.07%

1000 daily active cases is unknows as there could be 10 or 100 times people with covid that are staying at home and not getting tested. I would be one of them as if I got ill, I would self isolate until I was good. If I got tested, I would be subject to legal isolation and a mistake could become costly.

A better measure would be to use the numbers of positive Covid results divided by the number of people tested for Covid

16,381 / 1,180,696 = 1.39%

With these known measured numbers asymptomatic cases are actually 1/20th or 5% of the actual cases.

Paper tiger.

Using total tested doesn’t work as the same person has been tested many times in Alberta...and are included in tests administered.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Ok I see where you got your answers from now. I appreciate it! Now I will show you the flaw in your calculations.

Number of tests = 233,000 (measured value)
Number of asymptomatic positives = 163 (measured value)
163 / 233,000 = 0.07%

1000 daily active cases is unknows as there could be 10 or 100 times people with covid that are staying at home and not getting tested. I would be one of them as if I got ill, I would self isolate until I was good. If I got tested, I would be subject to legal isolation and a mistake could become costly.

A better measure would be to use the numbers of positive Covid results divided by the number of people tested for Covid

16,381 / 1,180,696 = 1.39%

With these known measured numbers asymptomatic cases are actually 1/20th or 5% of the actual cases.

Paper tiger.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Using total tested doesn’t work as the same person has been tested many times in Alberta...and are included in tests administered.

That is the total number of tests that were administered in Alberta. This reflects people that have been tested multiple times as the actual number of people tested is 909,443. I know you really want it to be orange, sorry bud the sky is still blue.

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Ok I see where you got your answers from now. I appreciate it! Now I will show you the flaw in your calculations.

Number of tests = 233,000 (measured value)
Number of asymptomatic positives = 163 (measured value)
163 / 233,000 = 0.07%

1000 daily active cases is unknows as there could be 10 or 100 times people with covid that are staying at home and not getting tested. I would be one of them as if I got ill, I would self isolate until I was good. If I got tested, I would be subject to legal isolation and a mistake could become costly.

A better measure would be to use the numbers of positive Covid results divided by the number of people tested for Covid

16,381 / 1,180,696 = 1.39%

With these known measured numbers asymptomatic cases are actually 1/20th or 5% of the actual cases.

Paper tiger.

That's a good point about many people with symptoms simply staying home. However I think your calculation of 1.39% does not represent the average person as the majority of people do not have symptoms, while the majority of the 1,180,696 who were tested were symptomatic. The number is probably somewhere between our calculations, but there is not enough info to accurately calculate what it is.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by fishpro

That's a good point about many people with symptoms simply staying home. However I think your calculation of 1.39% does not represent the average person as the majority of people do not have symptoms, while the majority of the 1,180,696 who were tested were symptomatic. The number is probably somewhere between our calculations, but there is not enough info to accurately calculate what it is.

I can agree with you.

[Big Grey Wolf]

Keg, I highly recommend anyone with other health concerns buy a few Triomed masks. They were tested at University of Toronto Level 3 lab. They showed 99% success in killing the covid -19 virus. It protects both you and your family/ neighbours etc. Available through Rexall Well.ca, they limit number to 15 as high demand, out of Guelph Ont.
Lastly the CCD Director ( Dr Friedman) just stated under oath that masks will probably protect most people better than vaccine, Trump was furious!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

That is the total number of tests that were administered in Alberta. This reflects people that have been tested multiple times as the actual number of people tested is 909,443. I know you really want it to be orange, sorry bud the sky is still blue.

Are you talking about just the asymptomatic testing or overall Covid testing?

For daily numbers...multiple tests are counted just once. For the same person under regular testing, tested 90 times over the past 90 days...show me the link that says they are counted only once.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Are you talking about just the asymptomatic testing or overall Covid testing?

For daily numbers...multiple tests are counted just once. For the same person under regular testing, tested 90 times over the past 90 days...show me the link that says they are counted only once.

https://www.alberta.ca/coronavirus-i...albertans.aspx

Here is the link of the data you requested showing the number of tests and the number of people tested. This reflects the number of people that were tested multiple times.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Scott h

That's a legitimate question. A large amount of the asymptomatic transmission has occurred in tightly packed indoor environments where people are yelling, singing or raising their voices, thereby forcibly projecting tiny "spit" particles. It's not a coincidence that a lot of infections have occurred in churches, choirs, bars or political rallies.

That makes a lot of sense, yet it begs the question, wouldn't increased emphasis on social distancing recommendations, rather then stricter mask rules, make more sense if that's the case.

See it's that sort of thing that makes me so uncomfortable with the rules in place.

Because it makes me wonder if the people in charge are just incompetent, lying to us, or a bit of both.

Whatever the case it leaves me not knowing who or what to trust.

I really can't decide if it's real, a hoax, blown all out of proportion or simply badly mismanaged.

I err on the side of caution, more for the sake of others then for myself.
See I know my days are numbered.
Since I have no desire to become completely dependent on others of the basics, adding a few years to my time simply does not appeal to me.

As it is now I operate at about 20% of the capability I had twenty years ago. Much more decline and for me life won't be worth living. So cutting the time I have left by a few months or even years does not concern me greatly.
But I personally know some folks in about the same situation that desperately want to live every last second possible.

That is why I follow the recommendations more of others then for myself.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fishpro

While 0.07% is a small number, it's quite a bit larger than the approximately 0.0229% that are symptomatic. In addition to this, those who are asymptomatic are likely to be in the presence of far greater people than someone who's symptomatic and isolating.

But isn't most transmission from those with symptoms who are not isolating?
IE: those who think they have a cold or the common flu.

After all if they are isolating there should be zero transmission.

And if those people are not isolating then isn't the issue not complying with the rules rather then people who may be asymptomatic?

I know this, everyone I know who has tested positive had recently attended gatherings where the rules for social distancing and for wearing masks, were ignored.
Not even one positive test has been traced to someone who was asymptomatic, yet. That could well change for sure but again the real issue seems to be zero effort to comply with the rules.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

That makes a lot of sense, yet it begs the question, wouldn't increased emphasis on social distancing recommendations, rather then stricter mask rules, make more sense if that's the case.

As it is now I operate at about 20% of the capability I had twenty years ago. Much more decline and for me life won't be worth living. So cutting the time I have left by a few months or even years does not concern me greatly.
But I personally know some folks in about the same situation that desperately want to live every last second possible.

Distancing is THE gold standard. If you are separated enough from someone that is infected you are safe. The "people in charge" know how to handle infectious situations, it's done all the time. It's been explained over and over and over, yet people refuse to listen. The issue is that there is a certain percentage (larger than I would have thought) that have turned this into a political fiasco. I doubt it will be real to them until they see personally see someone get REALLY sick/die.Even then, I' sure it will be someones else's fault.....

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

That could well change for sure but again the real issue seems to be zero effort to comply with the rules.

You got it. The question is how do you control those people when there are a certain percentage of the population that don't agree with health regulations, and in fact go out of their way to break the rules?

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Scott h

You got it. The question is how do you control those people when there are a certain percentage of the population that don't agree with health regulations, and in fact go out of their way to break the rules?

Over this weekend I have noticed that a much larger percentage of people are no longer wearing masks in stores in Edmonton.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Scott h

You got it. The question is how do you control those people when there are a certain percentage of the population that don't agree with health regulations, and in fact go out of their way to break the rules?

TV news said 87% mask compliance in Calgary.

I hear what is confusing some is that they simply are confusing low numbers of Covid cases to be due to Covid being not a problem versus not a problem due to social distancing and masks helping so much.

They are missing cause and effect.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

https://www.alberta.ca/coronavirus-i...albertans.aspx

Here is the link of the data you requested showing the number of tests and the number of people tested. This reflects the number of people that were tested multiple times.

Hmm. Same site I looked at. When I read it, it is by day with no duplicates by day...it doesn’t mean if I was tested yesterday and today that they delete one from yesterday and add one today.

I think they are saying if I had two tests today, they only count me once.

I believe in this number they are showing the same person counted more than once but on different days.

But table 6 does seem to suggest an individual only count.

So you may be correct.

[Bergerboy]

Thankfully since Dr Deena Hinshaw has dropped asymptomatic testing due to the almost non existent positive tests, its pretty clear that asymptomatic infection is not a threat. Some people are annoyed at the government for putting in tight restrictions at the beginning but in their defense, how could they know? They errored on the side of caution and hopefully what they are learning from this will help them make better decisions in the future.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Hmm. Same site I looked at. When I read it, it is by day with no duplicates by day...it doesn’t mean if I was tested yesterday and today that they delete one from yesterday and add one today.

I think they are saying if I had two tests today, they only count me once.

I believe in this number they are showing the same person counted more than once but on different days.

But table 6 does seem to suggest an individual only count.

So you may be correct.

No. You are incorrectly interpreting the data.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Thankfully since Dr Deena Hinshaw has dropped asymptomatic testing due to the almost non existent positive tests, its pretty clear that asymptomatic infection is not a threat. Some people are annoyed at the government for putting in tight restrictions at the beginning but in their defense, how could they know? They errored on the side of caution and hopefully what they are learning from this will help them make better decisions in the future.

I would say due to our low overall infection rate you are likely correct. It is not what studies show however and the results in Texas for instance could be a lot different. Thankfully masks and social distancing is helping this as well.