Face covering bylaws in Waterloo Region: What you need to know
BTW, I can't be the only one who recognizes the faulty reasoning that points directly at political motivations and not health nor science: forcing a measure upon a population to address what is claimed to be a highly infectious and deadly epidemic but we're going to give it a week 'kick in'? Are you kidding me with this?
So that means one or both is true:
- this is not the bogeyman we're meant to believe it is
- in the case of the politicians of Waterloo Region, they have utterly failed their constituents and should resign immediately due to incompetence and gross negligence
0-69: 483,390 (90.33%)
70+: 51,765 ( 9.67%)
** 2020 Current population: 617,870
difference: 82,715
0-69: 558,107 (increase 74,717)
70+: 59,763 (increase 7,998)
| Age Range | Fatalities | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-39 | 0 | |
| 40-49 | 1 | |
| 50-59 | 2 | |
| 60-69 | 9 | |
| 70-79 | 26 | |
| 80-89 | 46 | |
| 90+ | 32 | |
| Total | 116 | (0.019% of the population) |
This translates into just 12 fatalities in the under 70 demographic. No getting undies knotted either over my use of the word 'just', this is a numerical analysis not a condolences card. We have to be able to use words like 'just' and 'only' when talking about data. These terms are not delivered with ill intent or disrespect towards any who have suffered and/or passed away. These words have an important use however as they help to impart some context on the significant points that must be conveyed with regards to analyzing SARS-CoV-2.
12 out of 577,320 most definitely warrants a big capital lettered JUST…as a percentage, that is 0.002%!
But wait, there's more!
According to the reported data, 95 of those fatalities took place in the long term system. I could find no information on fatalities among long term care staff in the region and since the province is only reporting 7 LTC fatalities total then it's 99.99% safe to say that all of these fatalities were among the residents or those who had been in close contact like family members or volunteers. The data doesn't differentiate but since there is a direct connect to LTC, it doesn't much matter.
This leaves 21…JUST 21…in the general population, 0 - 100+.
Some further context: according to the Waterloo Region Police Services, there were 16 motor vehicle fatalities in the region during 2019, only 5 less, yet one can still see vehicles on the road. Why have they not been banned in favour of mass transit?
Let's turn our attention to the trending patterns as well. Waterloo Region has experienced just 3 fatalities since May 18, the most recent was an individual in their 80s. The previous two were in 70s and 60s, both in a LTC facility (region is not reporting any hospital related fatalities). In order to find the most recent fatality outside of an LTC facility we have to go all the way back to April 26, almost 2.5 months ago and an individual not surprisingly in their 90s. In order to get to the most recent under 70 fatality not associated with an LTC facility we have to return to April 20 when an individual in their 60s pass away. The next under 70 was all the way to March 26th and an individual in their 50s. We're talking time frames measured in months here now, not days and hours, MONTHS.
Sifting through the data deeper, I came across something that is not quite as visible in the summary numbers. I'm going to describe it so any errors in logic and math can be identified. Using the province's raw data, I built a simple database to peak at some of the numbers in a few different ways.
When looking at fatality data, the following fields are pertinent among others:
Age_Group defined: said
"Patient ages are clustered in 10-year intervals (20s, 30s, 40s, etc.), except for those less than 20-years-old, who are recorded as "<20", and patients with ages not known or recorded, listed as "Unknown"."
Outcome1 defined: said
"Values include: Resolved, Not Resolved, Fatal."
Outbreak_Related defined: said
"A confirmed positive case that is associated with a COVID-19 outbreak in an institution (i.e., long-term care home, retirement home, hospital, group home, shelter, correctional facility, other) will be marked as 'Yes'."
- Long-term care/retirement home outbreaks
- Congregate setting outbreaks
- Workplace outbreaks
- Hospital outbreaks
So, using the observed conclusion that all of the outbreak fatalities occurred at a LTC facility or with a small number of folks who had direct contact before site access restrictions went into play, I sent the following query to determine fatalities and age group for any fatality that was not connected to LTC:
I repeated this for each age group in their dataset:
| Age Range | Fatalities |
|---|---|
| <20s | 0 |
| 20s | 0 |
| 30s | 0 |
| 40s | 1 |
| 50s | 1 |
| 60s | 2 |
| 70s | 6 |
| 80s | 8 |
| 90s | 4 |
| Total | 22 |
Total 22, the expected result. Setting preexisting conditions aside for a moment, in terms of vulnerable populations it could be pretty successfully argued that 60s is in the eye of the beholder so I'll use 70+ as the vulnerable population group, a range which also fits pretty good with conventional wisdom. This means of all the deaths being attributed to COVID-19 that occurred in the general population, that is, outside LTC, there were only 4 occurring outside the high risk group. Bring preexisting conditions back in, the 40s fatality was just that, co-morbidity. Any/all others could be too, the 40s is the only one I saw reported.
This leaves 3….THREE….fatalities outside of the high risk group! Remember those 16 vehicle fatalities? Does it make any sense to enact draconian measures for 3 when we do nothing for 16? No, it's ludicrous to even consider.
Just as a reminder, the total population outside the high risk group is 558,107, so the chances of succumbing to COVID-19 in the 0-69 age bracket in Waterloo Region is 0.0005% at this point. In other words and even more telling: should a member of the 0-69 group contract COVID-19, the chances of surviving it are 99.9995%.
One other item of note, as outlined in the graphic data put out by the province (in the original article as well), the number of cases being reported as COVID-19 has been reasonably consistent suggesting that all the clamp down measures had minimal effect on transmission. I apologize for the Y-Axis scale changes: the tool I used to create the graphs did not allow for direct manipulation of the scale.
March 2020 said
April 2020 said
May 2020 said
June 2020 said
Looking at it another way, the damage that has been wrought, continues to be wrought and has yet to be wrought far out weighs any potential benefit the draconian measures the govt group dumped upon their respective populations…and this doesn't even speak to liberty lost and the massive infringement on human rights that has been wrought, continues to be wrought and has yet to be wrought.
I'm not sure how many more ways this can be stated, there is simply no denying it, SARS-CoV-2 has been either a complete hoax or is nothing more than relatively mild offspring from the coronavirus family, same family as the common cold and influenza that has been hyped by govt and media for whatever twisted reason(s).
A note about testing
Ask yourself why you put total trust in the 'numbers' or at least enough to feel comfortable formulating an opinion based upon them? Do you know who recorded them, how they are collected, the procedural process from result to computer screen? Do you know the full procedure taken from sample acquisition to case diagnosis? Do you know how the tests work? Do you know what test was used? Have you in person ever seen one being completed? Do you know anyone directly connected with you that has been diagnosed positive for SARS-CoV-2? Have you ever seen an image of the isolated virus? Many govt groups globally are admitting that the criteria used for both testing and cause of death recording are quite loose to say the least; how do you know the reported numbers reflect accurate facts?
In the context of reporting new cases, it is imperative to understand that the only way to attempt an accurate guage of what is happening is a testing policy that includes the same number of tests from across the same demographic being processed each and every day. The minute this number starts to flucuate is the same minute that the 'numbers' begin to loose any reliability they may have had. Where is the testing occurring? Tests conducted at a hospital for example would statistically stand a better than 50/50 chance of being positive but a hospital setting is not reflective of society as a whole thereby skewing the accuracy of conclusions. In Canada and many other countries, LTC was a disaster. Testing in these communities and institutions would also skew numbers for the same reason(s).
Conceptually, perceptually, it's important to remember that testing does not create an infected individual; the infection was either present or not already. Put another way, testing only tries to identify or deny the existance of an already existing infection.
I dunno but this sure looks like the old bait and switch obfuscate word play horseshit game to me. First the name/term 'Viral tests'. These are not tests to identify a virus at all but rather to detect RNA genetic material associated with this or that viral infection. They do not test for the presence of the virus itself. In fact, PCR is an amplifier not a tester. It amplfies genetic material from small amounts. Using 'test' continously builds up an image in the mind of swab, run PCR process, goes green or red and done. Not how that rolls with PCR.
Spiffy name but not a test!
"The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a real-time RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid…"
All three sentences here have a potential to gum up the number worx for sure:"Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities."
They are disconnecting from negative results too as indicated by the last sentence. There are some liability concerns at play here I'm sure, but it's yet another reminder that face value auto acceptance of, well just about everything really, is not a great idea at all, bad things will almost invariably happen.
Again, critical to note that these tests are not carved in stone by any means:
"…which may tell you…"
Very sneaky is the second paragraph, last sentence:"Viral tests identify the virus in samples from your respiratory system, such as a swab from the inside of your nose."
But wait a tick, they've already mentioned it doesn't do that:"…intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid…"
I'm no biology whiz by any stretch but I do know that there is a pretty substantial difference between a virus and D/RNA!Look at the 'If you test positive' image and note the second sentence very closely:
"However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold."
Still wanna know: are you kidding me with this crap?
So here we are
Those who want to indulge the mask fantasies and hang out with the rest of the cult, as cult they surely are, then have at it folks, I couldn't care less.
Those who want to stand as far away as possible, knock yourself out, I've grown to dislike crowds as I've aged anyway so I'll happily respect your desire for distance.
Those who want to hang out at home for the rest of their lives, my best wishes to you.
Those who want to roll up a sleeve when the inevitable vaccine is announced, your body, your thang.
Those who want to force myself and others to do the same, or anything else for that matter:
Those however who are not interested in any more of the bullshit games, now is a Van Wilder 'dare to be great' moment. We must stop squabbling among ourselves and get busy fixin' some shit, more on that next time.
Unless ingesting through a very skeptical filter, try your best to not pay attention to the breathless play-by-play originating from the US. There is far too much horseshit going on there. Using information from America, about America, to shape the narrative, perspective, viewpoint, opinion, what have you, of Canadians will most certainly result in (very) erronenous conclusions being arrived at.
Turn off your TV or at least disconnect yourself from the talking heads of the media and govt groups. Take control of your life, outsourcing that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Have a nice day!
Star Trek: First Contact
Mania Maskuria - The Region of Waterloo - Part #2
Mania Maskuria - The Region of Waterloo - Part #3
Edited
Comments
There have been no comments yet