Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayabusa85
It is the principle of it and in his position he should be setting the example for the public to follow.
|
but isn't self-isolation even if you are asymptomatic but might have come in contact with someone that has it what you want the public to follow?
Quote:
|
Self isolation doesn't mean gather the press in your front lawn to do something that could have been setup over Skype with media outlets (Even then with his spread of false information he shouldn't have a platform at all to speak on) which would have more impact on the picture it paints. Yes they were likely far enough back to not catch it if he does have it but I bet they were huddled together if one of them have it. Contrary to initial reports it can live up surfaces for multiple days so the person touching the mic he just used is also a way it can spread from one person to another. If he is willing to gather the press then I have no reason to believe he isn't willing to gather members of parliament at his house too with their no symptoms no spread rhetoric.
|
I think this has more to do with your dislike of the guy (and I get why, I am not a fan of him either) then any serious issues with the announcement.
It went from he will spread it because there were a handful of questions afterword's to people will get it from the Mic and other journalists. How do you know the podium won't just get moved into the garage until the net one or get disinfected....). As for the press how do you even know they were there? I am just asking because one of the people that asked a question was also at the PR done by the ministers back at the parliament and I don't know if at least one of them was not live(and so it was possible for someone to be at two places at the same time) but how do you know that any of them were even there? all you heard were their voices.
Quote:
|
Most cases of this have few symptoms or mild symptoms. By your logic only the severe cases would be getting tested or returning positive results and the morality rate would really be causing panic then. Asymptomatic people will still provide positive results if the virus is present and unlike what he claimed can very much pass it on.
|
1) where did I say only severe cases should be tested and only they will come back positive? it is that as long as you are asymptomatic that the test is meaningless and doing it can be dangerous (i.e. imagine if Trudeau decided to test himself, it came back negative (too early) did not go into isolation and spread it to a bunch of people and then , since he was already tested when the symptoms appear he decided since the test was negative before he can still go around)
2) saying something stupid does not make it true
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/def...e-criteria.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ecdc
SARS-CoV-2 virus can initially be detected 1–2 days prior to symptom onset in upper respiratory tract samples;
|
since a person can be with out symptoms much longer then a day or two the test is useless for people that are not showing symptoms. If you do it three days before symptoms show up they will come back negative if you have it or not.
Quote:
The world is trying to prevent the spread of this (Other than the UK herd immunity stuff I guess) so again somebody that would have had contact with a lot of people should be getting tested so a path of possible infection can be monitored and handled appropriately. And again a world leader should be setting the example to follow. Also you have a funny idea of who likely doesn't have it. If one spouse has it then the other likely has it. He is far more likely to have it than 90% of the people around the world that are getting tested who just have the flu or nothing at all. But anybody with even the slightest chance even if it is just flu paranoia should be getting tested.
Countries that have done that have had better results controlling the spread.
|
first no country tests people that have yet to show symptoms because everyone, except for you, realizes a negative too early is 100% meaningless.
That being said, if we could do infinite tests and the results would come back in minutes then yes add one of those test "machines" at each "front door" and have everyone get tested going in and out. But that scenario is not even remotely close to reality. And the test take a very long time and are in extremely limited supply. So yes testing a guy that is living with someone that has Covid-19 that has isolated himself from the rest of the world is 100% a waste of test that could be better used on the person coughing that is running around town saying "nah, I am OK, I don't feel that sick"
Quote:
|
Canada and US only want to test people that have traveled and show symptoms.
|
no, the US has started to test internaly since there are many cases from none-travellers, Some Canadian provinces have done the same.
Quote:
|
You act like there are shortages in test kits which China are pumping out in the millions by week and that the test is a complex process that doctors would have to be attending to him to conduct. It is a cotton swab sent to labs.
|
again your "facts" are all wrong.
1) Yes Ma that owns Alibaba (think of it as the Amazon on steroids of China) has promised to send 1/2M tests to the US but they are in extremely short supply and even with that it would just be a drop in the basket.
2) You can do a single Upper respiratory tract (aka nose swab) test but that can give a false negative, what you really need to do (to be thorough is 2-3 tests)
- Upper respiratory tract (aka nose swab)
- lower respiratory tract (aka throat swab)
- Sputum (aka swab of phlegm/ spit up if that is one of the symptoms)
3) yes a swab (or 3) is no big deal. But now all you have are a bunch of dirty cotton swabs. What about the hours and work needed for each of those swabs at the lab to actually do the test? Someone needs to do all that work .
that is where the real problem lies and why many labs are working on better tests.
[quote]
We would be perfectly fine with a border closure. Border closures can still allow essentials through in a monitored manner. [qupte]
and how do those essentials come in?
Quote:
|
And yes with a lot of the Canadian cases having links to US travel we should be shutting down the US border for sure. Eventually Trump will realize his travel bans mean nothing if people can connect through Canada and shut it down anyway. Canada have been awful with travel bans including from the hot spots. One of the few countries that couldn't even be bothered with a China travel ban.
|
Yes Canada has no ban from China. I will admit getting idiots to stop traveling aboard and coming back with deadly diseases is not a negative IMHO. But lets be realistic, do travel bans work? Italy was the first European country to ban travel to china (Jan31) , Iran the first in the middle east (jan 31) and the The US was the first in NA (Feb 2) did it help those countries? each one of them is doing the worst in their respective regions.
all that bans manage to do is force potentially sick people to rush back overwhelm an ill prepared checkpoint and bring the disease into the country. What did Canada do? it did the opposite, told them to wait a bit, got things ready, sent planes to bring them home and checked them so the people coming back with Covid-19 could be quarantined before they spread it.
It also gives a fake sense of security " no one with Covid-19 is coming in so we are safe" while they forget all those people bringing in "essential goods" as you put it that are coming in and out and might be sick.
Quote:
|
The faster the spread can be slowed the faster the economy can start to recover so every step to stop the spread should be taken. If countries from the start were not more concerned about the bottom line (And in the cases of countries like Canada and the US still more concerned about that) and took actions that countries like Signapore took from the start then this would be a lot more contained than it is. And that would have had less economic impact than the mess that has been allowed to happen now.
|
1) Singapore is doing OK but I am not sure of your point, they have roughly the same number of cases that we do and their population and Geography are both a fraction of ours
2) trying to slow down the spread is about health and life. It gives medical institutions time to react (create vaccine for the yet to be infected, find meds that help with the sick) as well as spread out the issue (having 10 people over 10 weeks that need hospitalization is better then having 1000 people all in the hospital that same week. But that is the UKs point making sure everyone gets sick, some people die fast but the rest will get better fast and go on with their life.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
...I actually went to the pharmacy on Friday to pick up a thyroid medication for my mom. I called in advance to make sure it was ready to be picked up. I go there, and it was actually a blood pressure medication they had ready for pick-up, which my mom didn't need right now. So the clerk started handing it back to the pharmacist, and the pharmacist is like "He doesn't want it?"..So I told them I'll just take it, since she will need it eventually (they do 90 day supply prescriptions). She apparently couldn't get her thyroid meds until the 15th, and they said come back then, even though they know they're closed on the 15th..
Linear Mode
