We better keep that US boarder closed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

The big pharmaceutical companies you love to hate are mostly Conservative.

---

Big big business. Of course they are. Not surprised at all.

Yup,......... let’s keep that border closed,

http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-disinfectant-light-reaction-1.5543563

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Yup,......... let’s keep that border closed,

http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-disinfectant-light-reaction-1.5543563

---

It's been happening for a while now many have died from drinking chemicals as a disinfectant. Sad really like what are they thinking?. Over 500 deaths in iran and thousands poisoned sickened or blinded from the chemicals .

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/hea...1_4870674.html



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Are you reading the text of his address or just the liberal news reports?

---

I read it, its there they posted it

The governor stated they needed to go back to work to save the economy for his children his grandchildren and for the people. . He said he didnt want to die and no one does but they have to open the economy back up.



He doubled down on his words. There is more important things than living he says.

Its Obvious he will sacrifice human life for the economy. .



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

He doubled down on his words. There is more important things than living he says.

Its Obvious he will sacrifice human life for the economy. .
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

---

Well my fishy ;) friend here is something to chew over. Stats say that if 100 people get convid-19:

77 will have from no symptoms to symptoms of a bad flu.

23 will be hospitalized, of which 21 will recover.

That is a fatality rates of 2%.

Now if you remove the elderly and vulnerable from that population, the death rate falls to 1 in 250,000 or less.

As one that is out on the front lines, I can tell you this. Persons still out here working have a far odds chance of survival, then our fathers and Grandfathers did from 1938( Japan in Asia) to 1945.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Well my fishy ;) friend here is something to chew over. Stats say that if 100 people get convid-19:

77 will have from no symptoms to symptoms of a bad flu.

23 will be hospitalized, of which 21 will recover.

That is a fatality rates of 2%.

Now if you remove the elderly and vulnerable from that population, the death rate falls to 1 in 250,000 or less.

As one that is out on the front lines, I can tell you this. Persons still out here working have a far odds chance of survival, then our fathers and Grandfathers did from 1938( Japan in Asia) to 1945.

---

Tell us how you remove the elderly and vulnerable from the population.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Tell us how you remove the elderly and vulnerable from the population.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

---

From the population, by looking at persons in the age range of the workforce in the stats and not including person of retirement age and above.

Since the most at risk are retired, or retired and in homes we should also use extra precautions to protect them because of their increased risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

From the population of the stats. Since they are retired, or retired and in homes we should also use precautions to protect them.

---

Precautions, yes, but they can't be "removed" from the population. No matter what, elderly and vulnerable must be cared for by those younger and healthier, which means they are at risk of exposure. You or I might be "vulnerable", and not know it. Plenty of underlying conditions go undiagnosed.

It's easy enough to say "it's just the sick and elderly, we have to carry on", not so easy to do.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Precautions, yes, but they can't be "removed" from the population. No matter what, elderly and vulnerable must be cared for by those younger and healthier, which means they are at risk of exposure. You or I might be "vulnerable", and not know it. Plenty of underlying conditions go undiagnosed.

It's easy enough to say "it's just the sick and elderly, we have to carry on", not so easy to do.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

---

Removing them from the population in the statistical data means adjusting the sample.
For example:
If we sample kids from 1 year to 20 years old to see the employment rate, it would be very low. The population of the sample is every kid from one to 20 years old. If we remove the NON work force aged kids from the population ( reducing the sample to only relevant kids) and only use kids from about 14 to 20 years old, the rate gets a lot higher.

The inverse is true with Covid-19 cases. If we look at the work force aged people and do not include the retired or vulnerable people that would not and should not join out and about, both the numbers of cases of hospitalized people and the number of deaths drop to fractions of a percent.

Now age is not the only thing that makes a person vulnerable, but anyone that is should be protected as much as we can.

If you do not feel safe returning to work, then I would not suggest that you do. There is not and will not be anyone forcing you to do so.

Personally. I have "Gone over Top " and stormed the walls enough times in my life, I have likely been living on some else's time for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Removing them from the population in the statistical data means adjusting the sample.
For example:
If we sample kids from 1 year to 20 years old to see the employment rate, it would be very low. The population of the sample is every kid from one to 20 years old. If we remove the NON work force aged kids from the population ( reducing the sample to only relevant kids) and only use kids from about 14 to 20 years old, the rate gets a lot higher.

The inverse is true with Covid-19 cases. If we look at the work force aged people and do not include the retired or vulnerable people that would not and should not join out and about, both the numbers of cases of hospitalized people and the number of deaths drop to fractions of a percent.

Now age is not the only thing that makes a person vulnerable, but anyone that is should be protected as much as we can.

If you do not feel safe returning to work, then I would not suggest that you do. There is not and will not be anyone forcing you to do so.

Personally. I have "Gone over Top " and stormed the walls enough times in my life, I have likely been living on some else's time for a very long time.

---

Your edited post after I quoted your original was clearer, thanks. Mathematically remove them from the equation. Looks good, makes sense to isolate them and get on with things, but I think we can agree that it's a lot easier said than done.

I don't envy the decision makers. We're trying to hold back natural selection at work. It might be a new virus, but disease culling the old and sick from an overcrowded population is not a new thing in nature. We've done a decent job of suppressing the virus, but it's like having caught a bee under a glass. What do you do now? Quite a situation.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk