News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

I'm not a Dr. DeVilla fan -- she's given mixed messages, i.e., go outside and get some exercise followed by "close the parks". I've actually stopped listening to her.

Trudeau was very clear a couple of weeks ago that we won't return to full normal until there's a vaccine, so while we might get back to work, for many of us that will continue to be from home or with new procedures. I expect restaurants won't open to full capacity.

So while "for the foreseeable future" can be frustrating, we really don't know how long any of this will take. Remember when they thought the war would be over by Christmas?

I want to hug my family as much as the next person, but I also don't want a US scenario where the numbers are constantly being revised upwards.
 
I stand to be surprised but I honestly don't see a wholesale shift in society post-pandemic, hopefully outside of some obvious healthcare shortfalls. No doubt some businesses may explore different work arrangements, but I'm not convinced widescale work-from-home will work for everybody. Depending on the type of business, employers will expect, and have to develop, ways of remotely ensuring output, productivity or however performance is measured, and people may grate at those measures. Employers have the right to expect that. Issues of data security may have to be addressed. Perhaps even issues of bandwidth and data useage, and who pays. Kids will go back to school. Bad guys will still do bad stuff and, if caught, have the right to face their accuser and plead their case to a jury of their peers.

I don't think we will see restaurants, bars, etc. with half the capacity so people are father apart. I don't see transit, airlines and rail ripping out every second seat, at least not at a price that can be sustained. People will not tolerate lining up outside retail stores in February. Yes, some may opt for delivery services.

Maybe it's just aged me. I still plan to actually want to see the fruit, veggies and meat I'm buying, the plants I'm buying at the nursery, trying on the clothes and sort the lumber at the yard. The few things I've actually tried to accomplish during the pandemic have made me feel like I'm doing a drug deal; talking to retails at back doors and across barriers. A couple of things I've ordered online are way overdue. Ma-and-pa retail businesses can't afford to to develop massive websites of parts and hardware inventory - they're already struggling against online and big box and I try to patronize them as much as possible. I'm waiting for my weekly 6-7 old-farts breakfast to resume, and perhaps attend memorial services for two friends that have passed and actually express my condolences and comfort to their families in person. And ride my motorcycle as the mood strikes me. Oh, and get a haircut and, gasp, go to the dentist.

Was there a major societal shift after the Spanish Flu?

Claims of dramatic societal shifts remind me of 1950s Popular Mechanics articles that said we all be whipping around in personal flying cars by now.

Or I'm wrong.
 
I was on the TTC earlier and noted a few homeless people sleeping on the train sprawled out overva few seats.

Given the current pandemic it gets me wondering how this is acceptable. I realise they have nowhere else to go but we also have no way to know where they have been or who and what they were exposed to.

In my opinion they should have pulled the train from service for disinfecting. I don't really feel comfortable having so many homeless people taking up residence on my train. It's too big of a risk.

I made that clear on Twitter.

20200506_111953.jpg
Screenshot_20200506-112425_Twitter.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
Richard White said:
I was on the TTC earlier and noted a few homeless people sleeping on the train sprawled out overva few seats.

Given the current pandemic it gets me wondering how this is acceptable. I realise they have nowhere else to go but we also have no way to know where they have been or who and what they were exposed to.

In my opinion they should have pulled the train from service for disinfecting. I don't really feel comfortable having so many homeless people taking up residence on my train. It's too big of a risk.

I made that clear on Twitter.
Click to expand...

It's a tough one as you really don't know where ANYONE has been or if they are washing hands etc etc. Is it less risky to sit on a seat once occupied by a homeless person or one where a covid-19 Unit nurse sat or even where a condo doorman was sitting last? (Health care workers and condo staff can have contact with many other people in as day and though one hopes they would be more able to wash off .....)
 
Richard White said:
Is it just me or is anyone else becoming rather annoyed with Dr De Villa and the policies she is implementing? I see the City of Toronto's daily press conference on TV and when she starts talking about various restrictions I want to scream at the TV.

While I understand the need for safety precautions I do feel like she is being overly restrictive for far too long. Some of that can be attributed to the Province of Ontario but honestly I hear her talk and I immediately want to say screw it and ignore the restrictions rather than be told to stay the course.

Personally, I can only stay the course for so long before I do my own thing.

Places like Europe and Asia are opening up again. They are letting people reopen schools and businesses but here we are staying tightly restricted until the fall.

I do believe that if Dr De Villa continues to preach staying the course for the foreseeable future there will be alot of angry people and her possible replacement.
Click to expand...

You are not alone. My mother described Dr De Villa's conferences and tone of voice/manner of speaking as "fear-inducing", which I can definitely see.

It is unfortunate because I doubt that De Villa thought she would enter the public spotlight in such a way, I doubt she had much media/public speaking training.
 
Richard White said:
Is it just me or is anyone else becoming rather annoyed with Dr De Villa and the policies she is implementing? I see the City of Toronto's daily press conference on TV and when she starts talking about various restrictions I want to scream at the TV.

While I understand the need for safety precautions I do feel like she is being overly restrictive for far too long. Some of that can be attributed to the Province of Ontario but honestly I hear her talk and I immediately want to say screw it and ignore the restrictions rather than be told to stay the course.

Personally, I can only stay the course for so long before I do my own thing.

Places like Europe and Asia are opening up again. They are letting people reopen schools and businesses but here we are staying tightly restricted until the fall.

I do believe that if Dr De Villa continues to preach staying the course for the foreseeable future there will be alot of angry people and her possible replacement.
Click to expand...
I think you need to step back and look at the whole picture and at 'who's in charge'. The country's Public Health doctors like Drs Tam, deVillla, and Henry are offering advice to their political masters. It is not their job (nor should it be) to decide whether things should open or close or whether we should wear masks. They offer MEDICAL advice based on public health concerns and norms and the Prime Minister, Premier or Mayor then needs to evaluate this advice and balance it with advice he is (presumably) getting from economic experts, business people, 'his gut" or a ouija board.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Mayors and Premiers are certainly wise to listen carefully to medical advice on public health matters but it is then THEIR responsibility to balance it with advice from others who, one hopes, are equally skilled in economics, sociology, psychology or politics!
 
DSC said:
I think you need to step back and look at the whole picture and at 'who's in charge'. The country's Public Health doctors like Drs Tam, deVillla, and Henry are offering advice to their political masters. It is not their job (nor should it be) to decide whether things should open or close or whether we should wear masks. They offer MEDICAL advice based on public health concerns and norms and the Prime Minister, Premier or Mayor then needs to evaluate this advice and balance it with advice he is (presumably) getting from economic experts, business people, 'his gut" or a ouija board.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Mayors and Premiers are certainly wise to listen carefully to medical advice on public health matters but it is then THEIR responsibility to balance it with advice from others who, one hopes, are equally skilled in economics, sociology, psychology or politics!
Click to expand...

Yes, but with the admonition that Dr. De Villa's advice has not been consistent with the best science, nor her better reputed peers in the field like Dr. Bonnie Henry in BC.
 
Speaking of the risks of getting outdoors, at least 2 studies were published today on the relative risk of outdoor transmission.

Both supported the notion that the risk is extremely low, particularly if social distance is maintained.

Here's a link to one of these. Note that peer-review is still pending.

www.medrxiv.org

Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Background By early April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had infected nearly one million people and had spread to nearly all countries worldwide. It is essential to understand where and how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted. Methods Case reports were extracted from the local Municipal Health Commissions...
www.medrxiv.org www.medrxiv.org
 
Northern Light said:
Yes, but with the admonition that Dr. De Villa's advice has not been consistent with the best science, nor her better reputed peers in the field like Dr. Bonnie Henry in BC.
Click to expand...
The relevance/consistency/accuracy of any advice given is a whole other matter (and - as the 'science' has been changing all over the world ) one I am not sure enough about to argue with you on). My point was that we should not blame public health physicians for offering advice (that's their job); the decisions on whether to follow it are (or should be) made by their political masters. If they judge the advice they are given is faulty they should not follow it and should probably seek a better advisor.
 
DSC said:
I think you need to step back and look at the whole picture and at 'who's in charge'. The country's Public Health doctors like Drs Tam, deVillla, and Henry are offering advice to their political masters. It is not their job (nor should it be) to decide whether things should open or close or whether we should wear masks. They offer MEDICAL advice based on public health concerns and norms and the Prime Minister, Premier or Mayor then needs to evaluate this advice and balance it with advice he is (presumably) getting from economic experts, business people, 'his gut" or a ouija board.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Mayors and Premiers are certainly wise to listen carefully to medical advice on public health matters but it is then THEIR responsibility to balance it with advice from others who, one hopes, are equally skilled in economics, sociology, psychology or politics!
Click to expand...

Until COVID-19, Doug Ford rarely listened to the medical experts who asked for more resources, but instead listened to lobbyists (like the Chair of the Board for Chartwell Retirement Residences) and accountants and reduced regulations in healthcare. Just look at the current "improvements" he has made, which unfortunately are only temporary until things go back to "normal".

See link.

...the Ontario government issued new temporary emergency orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act to support the immediate needs of the province's hospitals and health care workers so they can better manage critical health care human resources during COVID-19.
Click to expand...
 
COVID-19 Death Rates in Ontario Long-Term Care Homes Significantly Higher and Increasing in For-Profit Homes vs. Non-Profit and Publicly-Owned Homes: New Data Analysis

From link.

A new analysis released today by the Ontario Health Coalition shows a significantly higher death rate as a result of COVID-19 in long-term care homes that are owned by for-profit corporations as compared to non-profit and public (municipal) homes. The research, done by Rabbi Shalom Schachter, LL.B., executive member of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition and member of the Ontario Health Coalition, analyses the death rates in 93 Ontario long-term care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19 that have resulted in death. The total number of deaths tracked in the data is 1,057, with 700 in for-profit homes, 275 in non-profit homes and 82 in municipal homes that have outbreaks resulting in death.

Importantly, before outlining the summary, the Coalition wished to extend its heartfelt condolences and express its sorrow at the terrible loss of human life that these numbers represent. They hoped that this analysis can contribute meaningfully to improving care, saving lives and preventing a repeat of this tragedy.

In summary, the Health Coalition reported that the rate of death, as measured by the proportion of deaths over the total number of beds in homes with COVID-19 outbreaks resulting in death, is:
  • 9 per cent in for-profit homes
  • 5.25 per cent in non-profit homes, and
  • 3.62 per cent in publicly-owned (municipal) homes.
The Health Coalition reported the data shows not only that for-profit homes exhibit higher rates of death but also that rate has increased in the for-profits since April 28 faster than in non-profits. The rate of death per bed has declined in publicly owned (municipal) homes over this period.

The number of homes with outbreaks resulting in death has increased for all types of homes from April 28 to May 5, as has the number of deaths in those homes as follows:
  • The number of municipal homes with outbreaks resulting in death has increased from 8 to 10 in this period.
  • The number of non-profit homes with outbreaks resulting in death has increased from 28 to 33 in this period.
  • The number of for-profit homes with outbreaks resulting in death has increased from 45 to 50 in this period.
When the number of deaths is compared to the number of beds in these homes, there are significant differences both in the proportion of deaths per bed in individual homes and across the ownership type as a whole. From April 28 to May 5 the proportion of deaths over total number of beds in these homes increased or declined as follows:
  • In for-profit homes the increase in the death rate has been 28.52 per cent.
  • In non-profit homes the increase in the death rate has been 14.15 per cent.
  • In public (municipal) homes the increase has been negative, thus, a decline of (-)18.46 per cent.
The bottom line? The outbreaks resulting in deaths are still increasing across the long-term care sector as a whole, and the number of those outbreaks has gone up in homes of every type of ownership. But the death rate is significantly higher in the for-profit homes and is increasing more quickly. The death rate is increasing, but at half the rate, in non- profit homes and is declining in publicly-owned (municipal) homes.

“The data shows that for-profit homes have a much worse record than public and non-profit homes,” said Rabbi Shalom Schachter. “Already even prior to COVID-19 it has been recognized that the current model of delivering long term care has to be overhauled. The pandemic has brought to the fore the consequences of the current model. The overhaul should respond to the ways that ownership impacts quality and outcomes of care.”

“We know historically that government data shows staffing levels have been highest in municipal homes and lowest in for profit homes,” he added, stating that the overhaul of long-term care needs to involve representatives of residents in homes through the Family Councils and Residents Councils and advocacy groups as well as unions representing the workers. He called for the provincial government needs to be more transparent, “The government regularly receives from individual homes the levels of daily staffing by classification and by shift. This data from each home should be available on the government website so that the public can make informed choices when it comes to selecting a home for their family member.”

“We can never forget that these death rates are cold hard numbers but they represent real human beings: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. The differences between the death rates in for-profit versus non-profit and public long-term care raises momentous questions about the different practices regarding staffing, working conditions and wages, levels of care, and profit-taking,” said Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition. “Clearly the outbreaks are not under control yet, and stronger, faster, more effective measures must be taken to save the lives of the residents living in long-term care. As we go forward, the disproportionate power of the for-profit industry, and of providers in general, over advocates for residents and workers must end. The government can and must revoke licenses and appoint interim management to take over the homes in crisis. Ontarians need a concrete commitment from government to stop the for-profit privatization of long-term and chronic care in our province.”
Click to expand...

Click here for table of death rates in long-term care by ownership
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top