Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I just had a cousin pass today who was only 32 with no pre existing conditions. She was in the hospital for almost 3 months. I am just devastated. She was so young. She was a NP.
I'm so sorry for your loss, @Noreenmarie1234
3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I just had a cousin pass today who was only 32 with no pre existing conditions. She was in the hospital for almost 3 months. I am just devastated. She was so young. She was a NP.
Very, very sorry for your loss. May our cousin finally rest in piece without more suffering after spending almost three months in the hospital. Devastating.4 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »I have read a few articles about people who died in car accidents or gun shots who were listed as Covid deaths. No names that I remember.
Our local coroner went public early on saying that the state (PA) was classifying as Covid deaths people who did not die of Covid, according to their autopsy. The state dropped the number of deaths in our county by 10 or so after he raised the issue. That created a lot of distrust of the government numbers.
I've never seen any actual articles or evidence supporting this...just Facebook and other social media relaying these accounts, but nobody has ever been able to give me any kind of actual evidence other than conspiracy sites.14 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »Here's another article on that same topic.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-accurate-is-illinois-count-of-deaths-caused-by-coronavirus-we-asked-the-experts/
This article points out that if someone dies from Covid-19 and there's been a positive diagnosis, it might possibly be counted as a Covid-19 death (which to some seems concerning). But what the article also points out is that many more aren't ever tested and pass away from Covid-19, so likely the numbers are much higher.
Hunh? If "someone dies from Covid-19," why shouldn't it "be counted as a Covid-19 death." Why would someone find that "concerning"?4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Here's another article on that same topic.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-accurate-is-illinois-count-of-deaths-caused-by-coronavirus-we-asked-the-experts/
This article points out that if someone dies from Covid-19 and there's been a positive diagnosis, it might possibly be counted as a Covid-19 death (which to some seems concerning). But what the article also points out is that many more aren't ever tested and pass away from Covid-19, so likely the numbers are much higher.
Hunh? If "someone dies from Covid-19," why shouldn't it "be counted as a Covid-19 death." Why would someone find that "concerning"?
Bad phrasing. If someone dies and had Covid-19, it's going to be counted as Covid-19, regardless of how much the other comorbidity contributed to the death, significantly or not. That is concerning for many, though, as the article points out, it's the best way to count people and many are not counted at all without testing.
2 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I just had a cousin pass today who was only 32 with no pre existing conditions. She was in the hospital for almost 3 months. I am just devastated. She was so young. She was a NP.
I'm so sorry.
There is no rhyme or reason. (HUGS)2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Here's another article on that same topic.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-accurate-is-illinois-count-of-deaths-caused-by-coronavirus-we-asked-the-experts/
This article points out that if someone dies from Covid-19 and there's been a positive diagnosis, it might possibly be counted as a Covid-19 death (which to some seems concerning). But what the article also points out is that many more aren't ever tested and pass away from Covid-19, so likely the numbers are much higher.
Hunh? If "someone dies from Covid-19," why shouldn't it "be counted as a Covid-19 death." Why would someone find that "concerning"?
Bad phrasing. If someone dies and had Covid-19, it's going to be counted as Covid-19, regardless of how much the other comorbidity contributed to the death, significantly or not. That is concerning for many, though, as the article points out, it's the best way to count people and many are not counted at all without testing.
From a public health standpoint, it is most likely valuable to understand which Covid-19-related deaths involve comorbidities and which don't. But when it comes to understanding the IMPACT this is having on our country, I don't see an honest way to count it without tracking how many people have died, including those with comorbidities.
(I know you're not arguing otherwise, just adding my two cents).6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Here's another article on that same topic.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-accurate-is-illinois-count-of-deaths-caused-by-coronavirus-we-asked-the-experts/
This article points out that if someone dies from Covid-19 and there's been a positive diagnosis, it might possibly be counted as a Covid-19 death (which to some seems concerning). But what the article also points out is that many more aren't ever tested and pass away from Covid-19, so likely the numbers are much higher.
Hunh? If "someone dies from Covid-19," why shouldn't it "be counted as a Covid-19 death." Why would someone find that "concerning"?
Bad phrasing. If someone dies and had Covid-19, it's going to be counted as Covid-19, regardless of how much the other comorbidity contributed to the death, significantly or not. That is concerning for many, though, as the article points out, it's the best way to count people and many are not counted at all without testing.
From a public health standpoint, it is most likely valuable to understand which Covid-19-related deaths involve comorbidities and which don't. But when it comes to understanding the IMPACT this is having on our country, I don't see an honest way to count it without tracking how many people have died, including those with comorbidities.
(I know you're not arguing otherwise, just adding my two cents).
Agreed. It's likely very, very hard to figure out causation and this is the best way to count statistics. I can't imagine how political it would get without a uniform definition of fatalities that are Covid-19 related, no matter how imperfect. While I understand some saying this might inflate the numbers on occasion, it's more concerning that it might make many put their guards down.2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Here's another article on that same topic.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-accurate-is-illinois-count-of-deaths-caused-by-coronavirus-we-asked-the-experts/
This article points out that if someone dies from Covid-19 and there's been a positive diagnosis, it might possibly be counted as a Covid-19 death (which to some seems concerning). But what the article also points out is that many more aren't ever tested and pass away from Covid-19, so likely the numbers are much higher.
Hunh? If "someone dies from Covid-19," why shouldn't it "be counted as a Covid-19 death." Why would someone find that "concerning"?
Bad phrasing. If someone dies and had Covid-19, it's going to be counted as Covid-19, regardless of how much the other comorbidity contributed to the death, significantly or not. That is concerning for many, though, as the article points out, it's the best way to count people and many are not counted at all without testing.
Ah. OK.0 -
Since there has been a lot of folks minimizing the Coronavirus as "the flu" or "a cold" again all over social media, though this is a horrific story, it's also a reminder anyone can die from this. This amazing young woman's family has been all over the news lately (likely not on certain networks, though, that like to underplay the virus).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/28-year-old-doctor-dies-from-covid-19-family-says/ar-BB19jvRW?ocid=uxbndlbing4 -
Good article from one of my Linkedin scientist contacts. Basically, from what I can gather from this because I haven't had time to digest it and my non-scientific mind can't grasp all of it, we're in this for the long haul and vaccines will only be a small part of keeping this thing at bay. It's also going to be around, though after this next Spring to a much lesser extent, for a long, long time (assuming you believe in science).
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd73434 -
Warning: Basically chattiness, not much more.
Had to have a Covid swab test as part of lead-up to (sigh) colonoscopy, and went to a drive-through at a local hospital. They were set up with supplies on a cart, in a sheltered portico area. A fully PPE-ed worker periodically went down the line of cars, providing intake forms to pre-fill, and in a separate pass taking ID/insurance cards. This was a site that permitted both symptomatic and presumed healthy people to be tested, same line of cars. The rest is some stuff I found interesting/amusing.
Once the form was returned, the worker lightly stuck a bar code sticker on top of my side mirror housing. (I think this might have been the label that went on the test-tube the swab was put in, but not sure, may've been extra/duplicate.)
When the IDs were collected, I wondered how sanitary that was, since the worker had a bunch of them in her hand. When they were brought back, I was relieved of concern: The worker had a handful of plastic bags (like sandwich bags). At my car, she careful opened the plastic bag, and kind of butterflied/rolled the edges open with the IDs sticking out an inch or two, without touching them. When I took them, they were slightly damp. I assume they'd been washed or sanitized. (I sanitized them right away anyway!)
I completely stayed in my car for the test, but found I had to recline my driver seat to be relaxed at the angle she needed.
Having the swab in my nose pushed all the way to the back was kind of ooky, and there was a tiny discomfort (like if you slightly rubbed the sensitive upper tissues of my nostril, but back further), but I didn't have any inciination to gag, and it wasn't even remotely what I'd call painful or difficult, FWIW.
In this mid-sized metro area, I know of two drive throughs (there may be more): One does many labs (in a former Sears auto repair facility!) including Covid testing and bloodwork. The one I went to is reportedly less busy, but I was in the line of cars for about 40 minutes. (The other facility has more lines, but often longer waits than this.) My immunocompromized friends who need regular bloodwork are really appreciating ability to get this in a drive-through.11 -
In thinking about individual an herd immunity, I'm often hearing it spoken of as a binary: Either we have it - personal or herd immunity - or we don't.
That isn't how I've been thinking about it, exactly. Wondering if anyone with actual science expertise can comment authoritatively.
From what I'd heard/read, my impression was that there was at least some hope that individual immunity (from either disease or vaccine) might result in milder cases, and/or maybe a better chance to naturally fight off smaller viral loads, even if it wasn't able to fully prevent catching the virus. (Also, that if the immunity is limited-time, that that would eventually be declining immunity over a period of time, with possible partial effects later on, rather than "immune one day, not immune the next" kind of thing.)
If that's true, it seems like the herd immunity might be more complicated than just "50% immunity" or "70% immunity" or whatever in the population, kind of in three ways:
1. On the bad side, if people have partial iimmunity, perhaps there might be more incidence of asymptomatic (or near asymptomatic) cases, so that more people with mild cases might be walking around in regular life thinking they were well, or having a seasonal repiratory allergy bout, or something.
2. On the plus side, it seems like if there are relatively fewer cases (because some individual people are fully immune, don't get it, can't spread it), that has the potential to reduce the effective spread in the population, even bif we haven't reached what we'd call full herd immunity. Bascially, it seems like that wider but not full-herd immunity would metaphorically make the virus walk a maze to find its next victim, instead of just barreling down the wide sidewalk full speed ahead hitting everyone and setting off new chains of cases along the way.
3. Also on the plus side, and this would be minor for sure, if there are badly behaved people who are going to go out amongst others even with symptoms (which clearly there are), perhaps milder cases have a slightly lower communicability because the idiot in question isn't cough/sneeze-spewing into the environment quite as much, just breathing out the ick with less force.
So, any authoritative opinions? Is partial immunity (milder cases) a useful thing, individually or for "the herd"? Is this a continuum of possible immunity, individual and herd, vv. a simple yes/no?
3 -
In thinking about individual an herd immunity, I'm often hearing it spoken of as a binary: Either we have it - personal or herd immunity - or we don't.
That isn't how I've been thinking about it, exactly. Wondering if anyone with actual science expertise can comment authoritatively.
From what I'd heard/read, my impression was that there was at least some hope that individual immunity (from either disease or vaccine) might result in milder cases, and/or maybe a better chance to naturally fight off smaller viral loads, even if it wasn't able to fully prevent catching the virus. (Also, that if the immunity is limited-time, that that would eventually be declining immunity over a period of time, with possible partial effects later on, rather than "immune one day, not immune the next" kind of thing.)
If that's true, it seems like the herd immunity might be more complicated than just "50% immunity" or "70% immunity" or whatever in the population, kind of in three ways:
1. On the bad side, if people have partial iimmunity, perhaps there might be more incidence of asymptomatic (or near asymptomatic) cases, so that more people with mild cases might be walking around in regular life thinking they were well, or having a seasonal repiratory allergy bout, or something.
2. On the plus side, it seems like if there are relatively fewer cases (because some individual people are fully immune, don't get it, can't spread it), that has the potential to reduce the effective spread in the population, even bif we haven't reached what we'd call full herd immunity. Bascially, it seems like that wider but not full-herd immunity would metaphorically make the virus walk a maze to find its next victim, instead of just barreling down the wide sidewalk full speed ahead hitting everyone and setting off new chains of cases along the way.
3. Also on the plus side, and this would be minor for sure, if there are badly behaved people who are going to go out amongst others even with symptoms (which clearly there are), perhaps milder cases have a slightly lower communicability because the idiot in question isn't cough/sneeze-spewing into the environment quite as much, just breathing out the ick with less force.
So, any authoritative opinions? Is partial immunity (milder cases) a useful thing, individually or for "the herd"? Is this a continuum of possible immunity, individual and herd, vv. a simple yes/no?
There was an article written by a doctor in Sweden, I believe, that declares they have achieved herd immunity despite a rather low infection rate overall. This is based on not having many current cases that are severe, but that is not my understanding of what herd immunity means either. I agree it isn't a single thing we have or don't have. The gray area is going to become a debate - some will say reduced cases proves herd immunity before others.3 -
@AnnPT77 I can't speak to a lot of that, but on This Week in Virology they were discussing how even a vaccine that was 50% effective can help, because every vector you eliminate slightly slows community spread. I would think that holds as well for a % of a community having natural immunity, even if it's not herd immunity yet. And they did say it's possible that a vaccine would slowly "wear off" so that towards the end of it's effectiveness you were more like resistant than immune.
They also discussed that it "seems" that viral load "can" affect the seriousness of the case, absent health conditions that make a mild case more serious obviously.
Unfortunately, the consistent theme in every one of those podcasts is that most of this is still maybes and mights. They continue to say that if anyone, even someone with credentials, acts like they 100% know what this does or what will happen, you should assume they have skin in the game and are trying to build a following or sell something!
In line with what you were pondering though, I think people prefer binary answers, so there's like a goal line where we can consider ourselves safe and close the door entirely on the issue. But realistically I'd bet your theorizing is on the right track. This is going to be more like a tapering off over several years, where more and more people get vaccinated or are recovered with some level of partial immunity/resistance and community spread periodically slows and eventually we look back and realize we probably hit the herd immunity level recently as cases have basically stopped.
ETA: Based on previous talks I have listened to about vaccines, I believe your analogy of a virus having to walk a maze as opposed to a straight line is spot on.
7 -
Ann -- I believe you're spot on. I saw a scientist debate on Linkedin the other day where even the scientists can't agree. One scientist I'm connected to mentioned that vaccines will be a "part of" the 70% needed to reach herd immunity. The bulk of the debate was do we even need 70% with many having limited immunity or strong T Cell protection.
I stayed away from this debate because I'm not a scientist. But it was the same debate we've had on here, even prior to seeing this on among the scientists. So, I guess no one knows for sure.2 -
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mother-who-was-kicked-off-a-flight-because-her-toddler-wouldnt-wear-a-mask-wants-airlines-to-change-their-policies/ar-BB19mc7l?li=BBnb7Kz
I am just seeing this article. I am a pro-masker, but I feel badly for this parent for all she went through due to her ds's refusal to wear a mask. He's TWO. Two year olds aren't exactly the most cooperative little souls. The mom, her ds, her mother she was traveling with and even a gentleman trying to help the little boy cooperate, were all kicked off the flight. I feel that was very extreme. And I agree with her suggestion that the airlines change their policies. I'm pretty sure(not 100% positive though) that children under 3 are not expected to keep their masks on when in preschool or daycare around here. It's the nature of the beast. Also, I realize being on a flight is very different from being in a classroom setting but still.....there has to be some common sense here. 9 -
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mother-who-was-kicked-off-a-flight-because-her-toddler-wouldnt-wear-a-mask-wants-airlines-to-change-their-policies/ar-BB19mc7l?li=BBnb7Kz
I am just seeing this article. I am a pro-masker, but I feel badly for this parent for all she went through due to her ds's refusal to wear a mask. He's TWO. Two year olds aren't exactly the most cooperative little souls. The mom, her ds, her mother she was traveling with and even a gentleman trying to help the little boy cooperate, were all kicked off the flight. I feel that was very extreme. And I agree with her suggestion that the airlines change their policies. I'm pretty sure(not 100% positive though) that children under 3 are not expected to keep their masks on when in preschool or daycare around here. It's the nature of the beast. Also, I realize being on a flight is very different from being in a classroom setting but still.....there has to be some common sense here.
She should have gotten the kid accustomed to wearing a mask as soon as she bought the tickets. If she had made that effort, I think she would have been fine. More likely, she is an anti-masker teaching her kids to be anti-maskers. A 2 year old won't suddenly understand and accept a rule change.9 -
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mother-who-was-kicked-off-a-flight-because-her-toddler-wouldnt-wear-a-mask-wants-airlines-to-change-their-policies/ar-BB19mc7l?li=BBnb7Kz
I am just seeing this article. I am a pro-masker, but I feel badly for this parent for all she went through due to her ds's refusal to wear a mask. He's TWO. Two year olds aren't exactly the most cooperative little souls. The mom, her ds, her mother she was traveling with and even a gentleman trying to help the little boy cooperate, were all kicked off the flight. I feel that was very extreme. And I agree with her suggestion that the airlines change their policies. I'm pretty sure(not 100% positive though) that children under 3 are not expected to keep their masks on when in preschool or daycare around here. It's the nature of the beast. Also, I realize being on a flight is very different from being in a classroom setting but still.....there has to be some common sense here.
I'm kind of mixed on this. Two is young and as the article states, WHO advises kids over 5 to wear a mask. Though the last time I flew in February, I sat in front of a child around two that hacked and coughed the entire flight. I had a mask in my carry on and chose not to wear it. I regretted it. I was flying for my stepson's wedding. I ended up brutally sick the entire weekend for the wedding. I was miserable.
I think if an airline is that concerned, don't have kids fly. I do think kids can be superspreaders, especially in an enclosed space. They cough and they don't cover their mouths, it's just like a sickness explosion with the crying and coughing.
That might sound uncaring but planes don't have the best ventilation to keep people safe. Perhaps until we get Covid-19 under control, don't let young children fly. But on the other hand, if the policies were in place then as they are now, I also doubt the child that I sat in front of would have been allowed on the plane because she would have likely failed a temperature check.9 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mother-who-was-kicked-off-a-flight-because-her-toddler-wouldnt-wear-a-mask-wants-airlines-to-change-their-policies/ar-BB19mc7l?li=BBnb7Kz
I am just seeing this article. I am a pro-masker, but I feel badly for this parent for all she went through due to her ds's refusal to wear a mask. He's TWO. Two year olds aren't exactly the most cooperative little souls. The mom, her ds, her mother she was traveling with and even a gentleman trying to help the little boy cooperate, were all kicked off the flight. I feel that was very extreme. And I agree with her suggestion that the airlines change their policies. I'm pretty sure(not 100% positive though) that children under 3 are not expected to keep their masks on when in preschool or daycare around here. It's the nature of the beast. Also, I realize being on a flight is very different from being in a classroom setting but still.....there has to be some common sense here.
I'm kind of mixed on this. Two is young and as the article states, WHO advises kids over 5 to wear a mask. Though the last time I flew in February, I sat in front of a child around two that hacked and coughed the entire flight. I had a mask in my carry on and chose not to wear it. I regretted it. I was flying for my stepson's wedding. I ended up brutally sick the entire weekend for the wedding. I was miserable.
I think if an airline is that concerned, don't have kids fly. I do think kids can be superspreaders, especially in an enclosed space. They cough and they don't cover their mouths, it's just like a sickness explosion with the crying and coughing.
That might sound uncaring but planes don't have the best ventilation to keep people safe. Perhaps until we get Covid-19 under control, don't let young children fly. But on the other hand, if the policies were in place then as they are now, I also doubt the child that I sat in front of would have been allowed on the plane because she would have likely failed a temperature check.
My niece (4 years old) got it and then gave it to my mom and nephew (2 years old). Kids can definitely still spread it, even under 5.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions