Coronavirus (NO POLITICAL OR SOCIAL COMMENTARY PLEASE)

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

Then pandemics will spiral out of control again

Anyone already in the air when an outbreak occurs should be allowed to proceed to their destination but that vacation in Tahiti you had planned for next week isn't worth risking making hundreds of people get sick or die.

I'm not talking about vacations. I'm talking about people already in another country who need to get home. Not people planning on going to said location. The people on vacation in China, or lets say Tahiti. Then the virus hits, and you want a complete travel ban. Those people still need to get home. Not to mention you just destroyed the airline industry.

To slightly change the subject: how realistic would it have been to order a complete and total shutdown in the USA for a few weeks (lets say 2-4) earlier this year (let's say March). No one allowed to leave except emergency personnel. Everyone gets the $1200 for their time spent inside. Would that have been realistic (I already know it's not), and would that have done much to curtail the virus?

[ctujackbauer]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

I've said it before and I'll say it again: next time, CLOSE THE AIRPORTS! All of them. Restrict inbound shipping. Set up roadblocks across State lines and test people. If someone absolutely has to travel, test them. This thing absolutely could've been prevented simply by restricting movement.

The UK did this, the UK even had mandatory 14-day quarantine from citizens returning from Spain. The UK now is clearly in a second wave.

Not every country can do a complete lockdown like New Zealand, even though NZ obviously did great twice.

[mar3o]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/neck...161212144.html

Neck gaiters can protect against spreading COVID-19, study finds

Sharma says he and his co-author, Tho Nguyen, a fellow professor at the University of Georgia, were “somewhat surprised” to see that the multi-layer gaiters outperformed the face masks. “It was clear from the results that whether a face cover loops behind your ears like a mask or goes around your head like a gaiter, the reduction in respiratory droplets is driven by the material and the number of layers used, rather than the form factor of a mask or gaiter,” he says.

Sharma calls bans on neck gaiters in some areas “very unfortunate,” adding, “fighting this pandemic requires us to encourage everyone to wear face coverings, and excluding a very popular face covering is a mistake.”

More stupidity - thanks to that ridiculous article months ago with no scientific data, lots of places banned neck gaiters. Now science shows they work.

Yet the CDC still doesn't recommend them. This is why so many have lost faith in the CDC.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by mar3o

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/neck...161212144.html

Neck gaiters can protect against spreading COVID-19, study finds





More stupidity - thanks to that ridiculous article months ago with no scientific data, lots of places banned neck gaiters. Now science shows they work.

Yet the CDC still doesn't recommend them. This is why so many have lost faith in the CDC.

I disagree. The "ban" is a result of how thin those gaiters are. Sure, multiple layers help anything. And I believe there was a ton of scientific data in the initial reports, with how much droplets escape each type of mask

[Penton-Man]

I wear a shemagh for when bike riding, pulling it up over my mouth and nose when approaching other people especially like at an intersection with a stop sign and then slipping it back down momentarily after passing them, pretty easy to do if you have decent bike handling skills.

By its nature, it is much larger than the typical neck gaiter allowing one to easily fold it 4x, even 6x, if you’d like to and I know that when I fold it like that I can barely breath…much harder to pass air thru than with wearing an N95 mask, thusly I think it performs well in terms of maintaining public health guidelines with regards to facial coverings.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, the CDC guideline advises that 10 days after the onset of symptoms in a patient with ‘mild to moderate COVID-19’, one could be considered likely not contagious to others…..but, the twist is the CDC does not address with that general timeline benchmark the specific situation in which your family member or friend may have received steroids during the course of their treatment. Why is that an important consideration? Because steroids, not only being a cause of euphoria - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...d#post18159662 and for that matter, insomnia, also likely extend the shedding of the SARS-CoV-2 as was concluded in a peer-reviewed published paper just last August -

“Furthermore, our results demonstrated a significant prolonged viral shedding time existed in non-severe patients receiving corticosteroid treatment”. That, supplemented by the fact that this same prolonged virus shedding was also previously seen with a different killer coronavirus several years ago…..complicates things.

So, other than timeline as a sole parameter, what would be a more definitive way to clear someone of being contagious to others? It’s certainly not simply them feeling good.

so, Dr. Fauci partially answers that question ^ at ~ 1m45s timestamp in your link -

Originally Posted by MrHT

Why Fauci says pandemic 'didn't have to be this bad'

Why Fauci says pandemic 'didn't have to be this bad' - YouTube

And to be more specific than Tony in response regarding a patient with mild to moderate COVID-19, if after 10 days displays two negative PCR tests spaced 24 hr. apart, you can be pretty assured that be it the President, or one’s family or friends with the same history are likely not contagious.

[ctujackbauer]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-h...d=hp_lead_pos1
Stimulus package offering by the White House. I'm hopeful about this one, seems like it might pass.

[deckard82]

It's only October. This will be a rough autumn and a brutal winter for most people on this globe I'm afraid

Germany has tightened restrictions for hotspots, which is the right thing to do. I don't think there will be a full shutdown of the economy again but I do think closing all borders in the EU will be pretty much inevitable.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by deckard82

a rough autumn and a brutal winter...

COVID-19 cases resurge as colder weather moves in - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

....And to be more specific than Tony in response regarding a patient with mild to moderate COVID-19, if after 10 days displays two negative PCR tests spaced 24 hr. apart, you can be pretty assured that be it the President, or one’s family or friends with the same history are likely not contagious.

Suppose the PCR testing for COVID-19 is positive? What testing parameter do doctors also look at as a measure of infectivity?

They’ll examine the Ct value (https://www.wvdl.wisc.edu/wp-content...Ct_Values1.pdf )
to try to get an idea as to the patient’s viral load and infectivity to others. If you’re interested specifically in the case of the President, if he doesn’t turn negative in the timeline he would like to, they’ll see if he’s really close to the Ct cutoff and if so, despite testing positive(s), they could very well refine decision making in terms of a shorter isolation rather than waiting for 2 sequential negative testing results.

^ knowledge, courtesy my wife

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Why do some people wear masks while driving alone in their cars with the windows up?

...does it make any sense at all?

if someone asked Anthony, I will get in my car and drive 2h to my cottage none stop should I wear a mask, the obvious answer is no.

But when you see someone alone in the car you can't know the situations and it might make sense. Maybe like others said they are between stores and it is not worth the playing with the mask for that 10 minute drive, maybe the person is an Uber driver (or similar) and you just saw him between users, maybe the person has run out of sanitizer and decided it is better to get home and take off the ask where he can wash his hands.

The funny thing is just this morning I was at the grocery store to pick up our stuff and I saw this lady come out of the store take off her mask, fold it up and put it in a baggie (making sure her hands where all over the exposed area) , put the bag in her purse take out her make-up kit fix her foundation (or what ever it was) and her lipstick and then continue here way to her car . To someone like that I would definitely say she would be better off keeping the mask on until she got home.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

Well people are arguing it's not just deaths but I agree. Is it highly contagious? Sure. Is it likely to kill you in the extreme short term if you're not over 60? Nope.

I corrected it for you

people seem to assume extreme short term is the only thing that matters (since it is the only thing that we know). This is not the flue this is not a simple respiratory disease where it tends to be black (death) or white (you get better in a couple of weeks and that was it). Here the black is relatively easy but there is no proof the rest is white.

Last week I posted a link to research that showed even in asymptotic people there is proof of heart damage. We have known from autopsies it damages the lungs, the heart, the vascular system, the brain, the kidneys. It is possible that eventually we will find out that all that damage that people are dismissing as white will take lives.

Let's say in 20 years people under 60 start dying because of that damage, would that change your statement?

what it is 10 years?

what it is 5 years?

what it is 1 year?

what if it is not death but health (i.e. this guy I know had bad kidneys and had to go to the hospital every second day and sit there for 3h for dialysis)

we now now that natural immunity (especially if it is a milder case) is extremely short lived, with scientific proof that some people did not learn the lesson the first time and they caught it again. what if it is like baseball, some peopkle hit the covid ball, it gets caught and they are out, some people get a strike (not dead but worst off) and when they get to three srikes they are out.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

POTENTIAL long term affects...we still dont know and a lot of guessing going on based on very few case studies that have not been long term studies.

yes, we've seen scarring etc but do we have any concrete numbers to go on? what % of people etc....

well we do know some stuff

i.e. if someone catches pneumonia it damages the lungs. If the damage is small the lungs eventualy get better but it takes a long time, if the damage is too big the scarring becomes permanent.

heart damage on the other hand tends to be permanent
....

but let's assume (mostly impossible) best case scenario, after 5 years time there are no traces of the damage done by Covid-19.

Wouldn't it still be insane to assume at this point it is the only scenario possible.

My moto is, has been and will always be hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

In my experience the people that don't prepare for the worst are the ones that are always complaining after words and blaming their bad luck.

i.e. it is 2025

A: I caught covid-19 in 2020 and now I am dying in a hospital (bad scenario comes out to be true)

B: I took precautions but still caught covid-19 in 2020 and now all scars on my internal organs are gone (best case scenario above)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by MrHT

It's a little upsetting that businesses are starting to close again. This is so stupid! Cases are up, let's close. Ok, cases are down, let's re-open! Oh no, cases are up again, let's close again!!

I don't understand why we're repeating the same thing over and over. Clearly this non-stop repetition of closing and re-opening is not working! We need a different plan!

The easiest thing would be brick every window and door and force people in their homes for ever. But is that realistic. No, sooner or later people will run out of food and die (to keep it simple). You always need to have some stuff always open and the rest needs to be played by ear to keep cases under control.

It would be nice if there was one easy good solution, but especially in times like this that is an impossibility. It is about picking between solutions that suck nd so it will always be moving from one solution that sucks to an other.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by MrHT

As per Dr. Fauci, open up prudently!

The problem is, we either shut down or open up recklessly!

on paper that works, but we need to live with reality. The biggest issues are time and tests.


time 1:
it can take up to two weeks to show symptoms, it can take up to a month before hospitilization is needed it can take months before death happens (if you are hospuitalized) any information is extremely archaic.

(the numbers are not going up, good we can open more stuff.
the numbers are going up but the hospitalizations/ death are not, so good things won't get as bad as they did in the previous wave)

tests 1:
numbers are low you go for the test, i the same day you get a positive and you quarantine.
numbers get high you are asked to come for the test the next day, the results take 3 days and the person spread it to a lot more people before he new he had to quarantine

tests 2:

there are few cases the test comes back positive public health does a good job contacting everyone you came in contact with during the last two weeks

numbers are high the test comes back positive public health does not have the rime to trace as well and the disease is spreading in directions that no one knows of.


time 2 (math):

when we tend to discuss R0 which indicates how contagious the disease is.
R0<1 and the numbers are in decline R0=1 the numbers are steady and R0>1 and the numbers will be increasing

R0 depends on the disease but also what we do. (which is why when things are closed down the numbers go down.

when R0>1 we can also duiscuss the doubeling rate
exemplified by this video

Wayne's World - They Tell Two Friends - YouTube

unless something changes the R0 (and there are many factors that can)

it will take the same amount of time to go from 1 to 2 people as it will from 100 to 200 or 1000 to 2000

that means it takes a long time to go from "numbers are no where near X so everything is golden" to " numbers are still reasonable since they are under X" but they move very fast from " numbers are still reasonable since they are under X" to " the numbers are completely insane we need to shut everything down"

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

**** me.

Alberta just hit an all time high for cases. And no, it’s not from increased testing.

They’re going to shut everything down again...

I always find that excuse to be the most idiotic. people that are not sick don't test positive.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by MrHT

I don't understand why this wasn't minimized during the summer. The fact that cases are rising here in NY when we're doing the same thing we did two months ago just proves that it's much easier to slow the spread during warm weather. How warm states like Florida, Texas and California couldn't slow the spread, especially during the summer, is beyond me...

because like I just posted a few minutes ago and you have yet to see it is not that simple.

there are many factors 1) geometric growth tells us when he numbers are low they will tend to stay low until they start getting big at witch point they will grow faster.

there is also human nature when the numbers are terrible and everything is closed down people will be locked up. Some people might go to the restaurant as soon as it opens but most people will still distance a lot. As time passes and the numbers are not ballooning immediately (and like I pointed before they won't and it is irrational to assume they will) people start feeling more comfortable with the situation and uncomfortable with "the lack of life" and so they become emboldened and so the R0 will grow over time while things are open.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

"Oh sure, he LOOKS and sounds fine but my wife says..."

an advanced assessment and explanation of testing PCR positive I highly doubt you’ll find by any journalist or, for that matter, TV or twitter doctor prior to the time it was posted here, yesterday evening, because they've all been focused on the binary nature of the COVID-19 test -

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Suppose the PCR testing for COVID-19 is positive? What testing parameter do doctors also look at as a measure of infectivity?

They’ll examine the Ct value (https://www.wvdl.wisc.edu/wp-content...Ct_Values1.pdf )
to try to get an idea as to the patient’s viral load and infectivity to others. If you’re interested specifically in the case of the President, if he doesn’t turn negative in the timeline he would like to, they’ll see if he’s really close to the Ct cutoff and if so, despite testing positive(s), they could very well refine decision making in terms of a shorter isolation rather than waiting for 2 sequential negative testing results.

^ knowledge, courtesy my wife

like I said, despite one's personal ideology, you may learn something along the way from an experienced, qualified professional

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

because like I just posted a few minutes ago and you have yet to see it is not that simple.

there are many factors 1) geometric growth tells us when he numbers are low they will tend to stay low until they start getting big at witch point they will grow faster.

there is also human nature when the numbers are terrible and everything is closed down people will be locked up. Some people might go to the restaurant as soon as it opens but most people will still distance a lot. As time passes and the numbers are not ballooning immediately (and like I pointed before they won't and it is irrational to assume they will) people start feeling more comfortable with the situation and uncomfortable with "the lack of life" and so they become emboldened and so the R0 will grow over time while things are open.

It is actually VERY simple but people can’t do simple things. First simple thing, wear a mask. Second simple thing, only go out for essential purposes. Third simple thing, keep six feet distance from other people.

None of those three things are hard at all, yet people just aren’t doing it. If people were following those three things diligently, then there’s no way in hell the virus would be spreading the way it is right now.

You cannot honestly say that we’re doing the best we can when we’re constantly hearing on the news about mass gatherings in bars and college parties.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The easiest thing would be brick every window and door and force people in their homes for ever. But is that realistic. No, sooner or later people will run out of food and die (to keep it simple). You always need to have some stuff always open and the rest needs to be played by ear to keep cases under control.

It would be nice if there was one easy good solution, but especially in times like this that is an impossibility. It is about picking between solutions that suck nd so it will always be moving from one solution that sucks to an other.

Um no, even if we were to take extreme measures like that, it won’t be “forever.” If people we’re literally locked in their homes, the virus would have no place to go and then the pandemic will be over within a couple of months.