Knnn
I'm trying to understand why you are trying to downplay the risks that this pandemic presents. The only conclusion I can come to is that you are upset because you (or someone close to you) had to delay or cancel a medical procedure because of the pandemic. I could be wrong of course.
Hey Roderick, that's a very reasonable question.
Actually I'm not upset and fortunately no one I know has been severely impacted by COVID {touches wood}. Although some of my mild frustration at the lack of scientific transparency or open discussion may be leaking through in some of my posts.
I am a scientist and I often have to assess the risks posed by contaminated land on human and ecological receptors.
Simply put, I see a huge increase in testing, a huge and ever growing number of cases, which would suggest a corresponding upswing in COVID mortality, if something is not done. However, the numbers do not appear to support this assumption. Death rates are far lower than during the epidemic and far fewer than would be expected if there was a strong correlation with infection rates. I do not know if this is due to false positive test results, better protection of care homes, improved treatment methods or possible all the above or other factors. However, what appears to be clear is that while the number of cases increases every day, mortality is not following the same pattern As of today's date, overall crude case to fatality ratios across the world are trending down, even though case numbers are still climbing. I do acknowledge, this is not the case in Canada where there has been an upturn in the case fatality ratio, but no where near the rate suggested by infection rates and the rate appears to be following a relatively normal seasonal trajectory.
I agree with Ralph that trying to compare infections rates and mortality is challenging, however that is exactly what is being used to justify the control measures.
I also agree 100% that COVID is a very serious disease and that it poses very significant health risks to the elderly and those with poor metabolic health. Therefore, the implementation of control measures to minimize these risks is absolutely essential. However, what I have never seen is a risk assessment (presented by the media, health and/or provincial or federal authorities) that consider how excess moralities associated with COVID should be balanced against the adverse effects associated with the control measures.
I am 100% behind social distancing, hand washing and masks, which have little adverse impact on society and should be rigorously applied. However, there appears to be an ever building rhetoric that the only way to control the "exponential growth of this disease" is a total lock down. However, I am concerned that such a lock down and closing businesses may be a step to far. Looking at countries across the world that have implemented very rigorous lock downs (in totalitarian regimes) compared to countries that have been far more lax or not carried out any lock downs has not provided clear evidence that lock downs work.
Every death due to COVID is sad and tragic, however, there are also very sever consequences associated with delayed cancer, heart and stroke treatment, domestic abuse, suicide and economic down turns that may severely hinder a country''s ability to look after it citizens for many years to come. I find it worrying that this fine balance is not acknowledged or discussed, which is why I raise the topic.