Coronavirus prep

1699700702704705725

Replies

  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,067 Member
    @kshama2001 @cmriverside Thanks for the input. It will be interesting to see what does or does not transpire this week.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 3,308 Member
    @kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.

    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,578 Member
    @kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.

    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    I was also in the military when I had the bad reaction in 1990. Hmm...
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,067 Member
    @kshama2001
    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.

    As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 3,308 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001
    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.

    As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.

    I am not sure that is true. It may be part of the reason why this variant has spread so quickly is people who were nonsymptomatic and tested negative felt like they could go to get together’s safely.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,842 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001
    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.

    As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.

    They were saying that about the contagiousness in December but have since reversed course and now say it can be contagious for two days before testing positive on a rapid test. As far as when to test, the article I read said test at five days after exposure because before then it’s more likely to be a false negative. So, we’re back at basically guessing!
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,867 Member
    Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US

    That is exactly the rules in Washington State.

    Yeah, the rules in Chicago too. There were various places (some restaurants and bars, all theaters and music venues I am aware of, my gym, some workplaces) that were requiring either vaccines or (in some cases) either the vaccine or a negative test, but as of 1/3, proof of vaccine has been required for restaurants, bars, gyms, etc.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,867 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001
    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.

    As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.

    They were saying that about the contagiousness in December but have since reversed course and now say it can be contagious for two days before testing positive on a rapid test. As far as when to test, the article I read said test at five days after exposure because before then it’s more likely to be a false negative. So, we’re back at basically guessing!

    Yeah, that's what I've read too. I would test when symptomatic (since apparently it tends to be more reliable when one has symptoms and the symptoms are so similar to a cold or the like) or if not, I'd wait as long as possible before the people you are trying to protect.

    I've also heard that planes aren't really that risky given something to do with how the air is circulated (beats me) vs some other venues. Good luck to him in not getting a positive!
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,346 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US

    That is exactly the rules in Washington State.

    Yeah, the rules in Chicago too. There were various places (some restaurants and bars, all theaters and music venues I am aware of, my gym, some workplaces) that were requiring either vaccines or (in some cases) either the vaccine or a negative test, but as of 1/3, proof of vaccine has been required for restaurants, bars, gyms, etc.

    Also here in NYC but not in the neighboring towns and municipalities. In NYC, you cannot go into any indoor place without a vax card. Also, everyone who works in the private sector has to be vaccinated. Now there is a black market for vax cards. Crazy.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,457 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    allother94 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    @allother94,
    It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO

    They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…

    When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.

    So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?

    I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.

    If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.

    What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?

    Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?

    My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).

    Edit: Is that specific enough?!
    Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!

    I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.

    I agree with this.

    And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?

    Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?

    Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.

    Yes, and empty them of unvaccinated patients too.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,067 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001
    @SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.

    Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.

    As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.

    I am not sure that is true. It may be part of the reason why this variant has spread so quickly is people who were nonsymptomatic and tested negative felt like they could go to get together’s safely.

    I remember people in this group discussing doing so (we even did it for our holiday). I just did a quick internet search and "holiday" advice was to test yourself just before a get together. In that search, the first 10 hits included ones from Harvard Medical; Bloomerberg new; ABC, CBS & Fox news; NY Times, a local city newspaper and a major radio station. On another search, the CDC even mentioned it.

    https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211222/cdc-director-covid-test-holidays

    So roughly two weeks ago, we were being told that was the safe way to get together. Was it bad advice? I have no idea. I'm doing the best that I can.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,067 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Re air circulation on planes: I am very sensitive to air quality. While it is true that there is great air circulation while the plane is *moving,* when last I flew regularly, 11 years ago, while the plane was on the ground there was a distinct decrease in air quality. Looks like that was still true in 2020:

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-clean-is-the-air-on-your-airplane-coronavirus-cvd

    ...That’s why, in addition to good filters, airline cabins also need good passengers. This means everyone onboard should wear a mask.

    That’s both because of masks’ proven protective qualities and the fact that HEPA filters and rapid-air circulation don’t work at max effectiveness until the plane is airborne. This means that the sometimes-interminable period between grabbing your seat and takeoff (or between landing and disembarking) is when you’re most likely to inhale a cloud of air from a person infected with COVID-19.

    That stale, warm air you occasionally notice when a plane is on the ground sitting at the gate or idling might mean there’s little circulation through those filters.

    Your discussion is causing me to remember something from early on in the pandemic. Back in the beginning, weren't they "idling" the plane to keep those filters going? If so, I am not noticing that now.