Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Here, in Italy, some masks are becoming fashion statements. The guy at the coffee bar has a big black mustache on his. In Rome, most are wearing masks and there are no protests as in the States. Some refuse to wear one, but can't enter stores, or other establishments without. I would put forward that fashion is a huge motivator. If famous people started wearing them and were interviewed, I dare say things might change.
I would suggest that most people not wearing masks couldn't give a rat's behind what some "influencer" (man I hate that word) or self-defined fashion expert wearing a mask was saying.
Oh yeh? Don't hang around young folks much, do you?
It's not really the young people here not complying...it's mostly middle age, "you can't take my freedoms" people. It has also stupidly become a big partisan politics thing.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Politics lean waaaaaay to one direction here. I've been out with the wife quite a bit lately, both to the beach in Pacifica and to downtown San Carlos, Redwood City and San Mateo for walks and outdoor dining. What I've anecdotally experienced here is it's almost ALWAYS teens and adults in their 20's running around without masks and we have had new orders since last week mandating them except for very specific situations... and a bustling downtown where consistent social distancing is impossible on most streets isn't one of them. The older people, as in this thread, seem hyper aware of the dangers and are taking things much more seriously than most.
edit: not to mention the young parents in my neighborhood that have been meeting in the grassy commons for the last two months allowing their very young children to play together while they stand around, sans masks, talking to each other.
In NM we're only required to wear masks when going into a store, etc. They aren't required for just being out and about outside. If that was required, there would be massive non-compliance across the spectrum. I don't think most teens and 20s around here are ballsy enough to tell security at the front of the store to *kitten* off and not wear a mask.
Rebellion against government stipulations doesn't help anything. Where I am, nobody gets inside anywhere to shop without complying with all the measures being enforced at the door. The businesses do what the government suggests, and the customers comply with what the businesses implement.4 -
My kids and their families don't live nearby. One is in another state and the other lives close to a three hours’ drive, depending on the traffic. I haven't seen my older grandchildren since 12/28, and I missed my granddaughter's HS graduation. It was a drive-thru and a virtual event. I saw my younger grandchildren in January of this year, and I don't think that I will be seeing my family in person for the rest of 2020.
It really hurts. A lot. But the safety of all of us is more important. We use Skype, text, e-mail, and the phone. We are connected. We all understand and respect our choices.
My husband is 80 years old and I am in my mid 70s; both of us in a very high-risk age. All our friends are also old so we don't see each other at all since most of them don't live nearby either. We talk on the phone or we e-mail. Our closest neighbors left for the summer (too hot in town), and before that we were all in the same page. Distance, washing hand, masks.
So my husband and I are on our own since we canceled all our summer plans. It is not easy, sometimes boring but we keep busy with a big house and we do get along just fine. After all we have been married for 54 years and we have each other for support and care. Is better to be bored than dead. We still have a lot to do in this world.
Wear masks people, keep your distance and don't be a vessel of infection or death. Love, care, and respect your families, friends, and the community because we all have a lot to offer to this country and the world.
Very good. I love this. I know of two older families in your age group who absolutely refused to leave home after the announcement which said over-70s were a vulnerable group. One had their son's family doing their shopping and they only ever brought the goods to the front door and left. They'd open and retrieve the stuff after the vehicle drove away. They also stopped the home help caregiver from coming, because she travelled on public transport to get there (hence the possibility of bringing in the virus). Home helper continued to get her weekly pay while not coming to work, so no harm done there!!5 -
What country are you in?
I'm in the US and would consider random tests beyond what was approved by me to be illegal, and of course charges for unapproved tests improper. But I understood the first question to be asking whether they would offer to do antibody tests (i.e, ask for approval), since they were desired.
Can I ask why you care? I wouldn't care less if more tests are done on me as long as it's not hurting me or my bank balance. Maybe I'm too easy going, not sure. As long as we get rid of the virus I don't mind what is done.
I'd approve it if asked -- indeed, I'd like antibody tests. But testing in a way not disclosed would strike me as a huge privacy violation and I'm sure it would be illegal here.
I'm sorry but I don't really care about privacy when it comes to me or my loved ones. Being alive means more. Why care about that? You think lives are less important than privacy? Oh come on. I will never agree to that. I almost died this month for real so yeah I know what is important. I was in hospital 3 days. My mouth and nose blue. They can test me all they want as long as we live.
How would asking you (assuming you were conscious) or your next of kin be a problem? The idea that either we have secret testing without consent or your life is in danger doesn't make sense.
And yes, privacy is a high value when it comes to health care and violating privacy is usually illegal here.
And again, the question was whether they would run an antibody test if blood was tested (which has no obvious health benefit). Someone else assumed they meant without asking permission/disclosing that they would do that. I read the initial question as someone hoping that they would run the antibody test since many of us are curious whether we might have antibodies. My point was that of course the running of the antibody test would not be a surprise undisclosed to the patient in advance.9 -
What country are you in?
I'm in the US and would consider random tests beyond what was approved by me to be illegal, and of course charges for unapproved tests improper. But I understood the first question to be asking whether they would offer to do antibody tests (i.e, ask for approval), since they were desired.
Can I ask why you care? I wouldn't care less if more tests are done on me as long as it's not hurting me or my bank balance. Maybe I'm too easy going, not sure. As long as we get rid of the virus I don't mind what is done.
I'd approve it if asked -- indeed, I'd like antibody tests. But testing in a way not disclosed would strike me as a huge privacy violation and I'm sure it would be illegal here.
I'm sorry but I don't really care about privacy when it comes to me or my loved ones. Being alive means more. Why care about that? You think lives are less important than privacy? Oh come on. I will never agree to that. I almost died this month for real so yeah I know what is important. I was in hospital 3 days. My mouth and nose blue. They can test me all they want as long as we live.
I think that's not really the question.
She's said that she would agree to the test, that she would like to have the test. Most people would want the test (I think), and yeah, any decent person would agree to it.
I think the issue is that as a generality tests should not be done on our blood or bodies without our permission. There should be mechanisms to deal with it, if belligerant people object to a test that's needed for public health reasons, or even legal provisions that allow specific tests to be done without individual approval in a specific public health scenario (such as a pandemic).
The legal default should not be that any and all tests can be done without our knowledge or permission. That's the privacy issue. It's not just "privacy vs. lives". Should it be permissible to test without people's knowledge for pregnancy, drug use, markers of serious but not communicable diseases, inadequate nutrition, etc.? Effectively, it's a search of one's body without consent.
She has not said that she'd object to a legal requirement that her (and anyone's/everyone's) blood be tested for Covid in this situation. I, personally, wouldn't object to that. I object to "any lab or facility can do any test they want to on my blood, without my knowledge, just because they want to".
The point is that willy-nilly added blood tests, for whatever reason a facility or whoever things would be good, is not appropriate. We're not lab rats, to be randomly tested without our knowledge or any legal dictate that requires it.12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.2 -
What country are you in?
I'm in the US and would consider random tests beyond what was approved by me to be illegal, and of course charges for unapproved tests improper. But I understood the first question to be asking whether they would offer to do antibody tests (i.e, ask for approval), since they were desired.
Can I ask why you care? I wouldn't care less if more tests are done on me as long as it's not hurting me or my bank balance. Maybe I'm too easy going, not sure. As long as we get rid of the virus I don't mind what is done.
I'd approve it if asked -- indeed, I'd like antibody tests. But testing in a way not disclosed would strike me as a huge privacy violation and I'm sure it would be illegal here.
I'm sorry but I don't really care about privacy when it comes to me or my loved ones. Being alive means more. Why care about that? You think lives are less important than privacy? Oh come on. I will never agree to that. I almost died this month for real so yeah I know what is important. I was in hospital 3 days. My mouth and nose blue. They can test me all they want as long as we live.
I think that's not really the question.
She's said that she would agree to the test, that she would like to have the test. Most people would want the test (I think), and yeah, any decent person would agree to it.
I think the issue is that as a generality tests should not be done on our blood or bodies without our permission. There should be mechanisms to deal with it, if belligerant people object to a test that's needed for public health reasons, or even legal provisions that allow specific tests to be done without individual approval in a specific public health scenario (such as a pandemic).
The legal default should not be that any and all tests can be done without our knowledge or permission. That's the privacy issue. It's not just "privacy vs. lives". Should it be permissible to test without people's knowledge for pregnancy, drug use, markers of serious but not communicable diseases, inadequate nutrition, etc.? Effectively, it's a search of one's body without consent.
She has not said that she'd object to a legal requirement that her (and anyone's/everyone's) blood be tested for Covid in this situation. I, personally, wouldn't object to that. I object to "any lab or facility can do any test they want to on my blood, without my knowledge, just because they want to".
The point is that willy-nilly added blood tests, for whatever reason a facility or whoever things would be good, is not appropriate. We're not lab rats, to be randomly tested without our knowledge or any legal dictate that requires it.
Exactly this!3 -
Years ago, I got my birth control pills from Planned Parenthood. It was cheaper and easier than finding a doctor. They did blood tests for STDs that I didn't ask for or want. When I asked whether I would get the results from the tests, they said no, they were for statistical purposes. I didn't go back because I really didn't appreciate them using my blood without my permission.8
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
That's what they intend to do with all the sports leagues trying to get started back up as well. It's basically about playing the numbers - lots of protocols that can help a little adding up to a large benefit: masks, social distancing, small group quarantining, routine repetitive testing, temperature taking, etc.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
I live in Seattle...amazon JUST started regular employee testing, and it's not company-wide. This was in the last couple weeks.
There are very few employers with the kind of money amazon has. I can see having a questionnaire and maybe one of the touch-free thermometers, but it's not really economically feasible for employers to test every couple days.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/10/amazons-coronavirus-testing-for-workers-remains-rare-move-by-an-employer/#ce3a04f39b846 -
cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
I live in Seattle...amazon JUST started regular employee testing, and it's not company-wide. This was in the last couple weeks.
There are very few employers with the kind of money amazon has. I can see having a questionnaire and maybe one of the touch-free thermometers, but it's not really economically feasible for employers to test every couple days.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/10/amazons-coronavirus-testing-for-workers-remains-rare-move-by-an-employer/#ce3a04f39b84
Trying really hard to not veer into the political - one of the great things the federal govt could've done while we were locked down would've been funding mass production, supplying to local health depts, and arranging processing of crap tons of tests. But they didn't, so yeah compulsory testing isn't realistic in most places in the US.
I'm not sure exactly how many tests they could've pushed out, but considering how testing is available in some areas of the US right now for whoever wants it with hardly any fed govt help, I'd guess at least essential workers could've gotten weekly testing for a reasonable amount of time. That might be my Pollyanna side talking though.2 -
I live in Finland, and got tested for the virus in April. They asked me if I wanted to participate in a national research project about the virus, and gave me the consent forms as well as a questionnaire to fill out about all kinds of things (demographics like education, family status etc and risk factors like weight, smoking and drinking, pre-existing conditions etc.). I know they tested the blood samples for antibodies, that was the main point, but they probably did tons of other tests from those samples as well to research different aspects of the virus, how infectious it is, how the antibodies work, if there’s patterns for who gets symptoms and so on. I have no idea what exactly they tested in addition to antibodies, and I don’t care. The point is, they still asked for consent and I gave it.
In addition to the resource issue, in my experience taking the test from everyone regularly enough to be useful would not be possible for the simple reason that the test hurts. If it was just the moment of taking the test, fine. At least for me, the place up my nostril where they took the sample from hurt like hell continuously for two days. After the two days, it continued to feel sore if I blew my nose or something for a couple more days. Based on my experience, I’m not sure if taking the test weekly would allow for sufficient healing overtime, even if taken from alternate nostrils and given two weeks per side to heal.
Even with the pain, I would happily go get tested again if a healthcare professional thought I should. Just not weekly, I’d rather self-quarantine.12 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
That's what they intend to do with all the sports leagues trying to get started back up as well. It's basically about playing the numbers - lots of protocols that can help a little adding up to a large benefit: masks, social distancing, small group quarantining, routine repetitive testing, temperature taking, etc.
I just heard that our long term care facilities are going to start to permit pre-arranged outdoor visits with residents but that visitors will be required to have a negative test result prior to being approved. Considering it takes roughly 3 days to get the result, depending on how many tests are outstanding (I think they can only process 275 a day here), that's not a guarantee that the visitor hasn't picked up the virus between testing and result availability, but it's better than nothing. It's also a great incentive for someone to get tested.
Our provincial premier has been pushing for increased testing and my health unit catchment area has now tested almost 13% of the population. We have a .5% positivity rate, with about one or two new cases a week for the past couple of months. Most of the recent ones have been identified at the point of admission to hospital.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
I live in Seattle...amazon JUST started regular employee testing, and it's not company-wide. This was in the last couple weeks.
There are very few employers with the kind of money amazon has. I can see having a questionnaire and maybe one of the touch-free thermometers, but it's not really economically feasible for employers to test every couple days.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/10/amazons-coronavirus-testing-for-workers-remains-rare-move-by-an-employer/#ce3a04f39b84
I agree with that - for a lot of employers, the cost is too high unless they can get some kind of financial help (grants, etc.) to do it. With Amazon especially, I have to believe they are looking at it from a risk management perspective. They would likely incur serious costs anyway if they end up spreading the virus through packages handled by Amazon employees. Additionally, the social / public relations risk is a big factor. This is not something a lot of companies have to deal with. Even where I work, the parts made in the factory are going to move around quite a bit before they end up with the final consumer. By then, the virus likely will have died or been covered up. I suppose there may be a rare exception if someone buys a new car with a very short time from manufacture of our components to purchase by the end user, and then immediately takes it apart and touches all the internal components and then touches their nose, mouth. I just can't see that being an issue with my company. We still are trying not to have an entire factory get sick, so taking lots of precautions (including contact-less temp. scans when arriving on site), but we aren't likely to spread it to another region of the country or to an entirely different country as could happen with Amazon.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
I live in Seattle...amazon JUST started regular employee testing, and it's not company-wide. This was in the last couple weeks.
There are very few employers with the kind of money amazon has. I can see having a questionnaire and maybe one of the touch-free thermometers, but it's not really economically feasible for employers to test every couple days.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/10/amazons-coronavirus-testing-for-workers-remains-rare-move-by-an-employer/#ce3a04f39b84
Trying really hard to not veer into the political - one of the great things the federal govt could've done while we were locked down would've been funding mass production, supplying to local health depts, and arranging processing of crap tons of tests. But they didn't, so yeah compulsory testing isn't realistic in most places in the US.
I'm not sure exactly how many tests they could've pushed out, but considering how testing is available in some areas of the US right now for whoever wants it with hardly any fed govt help, I'd guess at least essential workers could've gotten weekly testing for a reasonable amount of time. That might be my Pollyanna side talking though.
Testing for anyone who wants it seems to be coming to more and more places - and yes, it is without federal government help and that is a big part of why it is available in some places and not others. Without a uniform and consistent plan, each state/county/city has to figure out their own thing.
We 'flattened the curve' (kind of... we didn't do as much as was suggested in all places - again because everyone did their own thing) to allow more time for the healthcare system to prepare. That was supposed to include not just more ICU beds and more ventilators, but more testing with faster results. IIRC, there was supposed to be a testing machine that could be run in 15 min. If it works, I don't understand why this machine isn't being produced in large quantities and sent everywhere. First to every medical facility (including pharmacies), then to all prisons and jails, and finally to schools and large employers. As more and more machines are produced, the ability to eventually have a machine at home should be an option so that we can all self-test every day if we want.0 -
I live in Finland, and got tested for the virus in April. They asked me if I wanted to participate in a national research project about the virus, and gave me the consent forms as well as a questionnaire to fill out about all kinds of things (demographics like education, family status etc and risk factors like weight, smoking and drinking, pre-existing conditions etc.). I know they tested the blood samples for antibodies, that was the main point, but they probably did tons of other tests from those samples as well to research different aspects of the virus, how infectious it is, how the antibodies work, if there’s patterns for who gets symptoms and so on. I have no idea what exactly they tested in addition to antibodies, and I don’t care. The point is, they still asked for consent and I gave it.
In addition to the resource issue, in my experience taking the test from everyone regularly enough to be useful would not be possible for the simple reason that the test hurts. If it was just the moment of taking the test, fine. At least for me, the place up my nostril where they took the sample from hurt like hell continuously for two days. After the two days, it continued to feel sore if I blew my nose or something for a couple more days. Based on my experience, I’m not sure if taking the test weekly would allow for sufficient healing overtime, even if taken from alternate nostrils and given two weeks per side to heal.
Even with the pain, I would happily go get tested again if a healthcare professional thought I should. Just not weekly, I’d rather self-quarantine.
There's a version of the test that's just a cheek swab, not the through-the-nose-brain-swab.
And much like getting blood drawn, the nostril swab experience depends a lot on the person doing the swabbing and the person being tested. Some people say they hardly feel a thing and others describe it more like you do.
Hopefully the cheek swab version catches on 3 -
Sad news. My husband's coworker recently transferred to Houston to be closer to family. They had some big welcome home party for him. Just found out he died from covid 19 this week. He had just turned 50 and seemed normal and healthy...no known pre-existing conditions, not obese. Cases like this are the disturbing ones. We kind of expect the old and sick people to succumb. When people without risk factors die, and especially when it's people you actually know, it really gets real!26
-
I just wanted to share today's stats from the nj.gov dashboard. The curve is seems to be finally flattening here; new cases are going down. Though, they just recently reopened pools and hair salons, and day care centers on the 15th, so we'll see if we can hold what we've got...
6 -
Your stats are scary! Please stay safe. My friend lives in the states and works on the front line. He got Covid and it was debilitating on top of his exhaustion levels. He’s recovered but it’s just a constant barrage of new cases. Terrifying and horrible for all.4
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »This article says 89% of the US population has worn a mask when leaving home in the last week.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/89percent-of-americans-wear-masks-in-public-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-persists-poll/ar-BB15YDVk?ocid=ientp
Not in my 'hood.
how could they possibly know that?
lol - it's MSN, that's an agenda-driven news story.
Back to the "being tested for antibodies..." Paperpudding, in the US blood is used for all kinds of testing without consent.
As far as T1D and his suggestion that more people should be tested - yes. But.
If reinfection and/or asymptomatic infection is possible, what's the point in testing everyone? There's no way to *actually* do comprehensive contact testing. Sure, they could catch some cases which I guess is better than none.
Then if reinfection is possible like they say, again what's the point? we just all need to be as careful as we can while science catches up.
That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't know they are infected, they spread it around. If everyone is tested, those same people can stay home and not spread it.
ETA: Nothing to do with contact tracing.
I'm not making my point very well.
I don't think there will be 100% Required Testing. There aren't enough resources, the testing is too ambivalent, and people (like me) won't go for it.
So.
If someone does test positive, they and everyone who is in their household quarantine for 14 days.
Not everyone in the house will get the virus - or they won't all test positive. Then in 15 days they go out. One of them gets it at the gas station. They don't go get tested because they're asymptomatic and/or they just came out of quarantine and maybe aren't willing to do that again. Unless they DO get tested right then, on Day 15 because they magically "know" they've caught it, they're spreading it.
So, are you suggesting that every person get tested every two weeks?
And what about all those who had it in, say, March and April? We don't know whether they can or cannot get it again.
So every person in every country will need a weekly or bi-weekly test. That's never going to happen.
We are going to have to live with the flawed system we have.
Everyone would need a test every 2-4 weeks. If a positive result, self-quarantine until testing negative... even if no symptoms. If symptoms, you self-quarantine anyway. This decreases asymptomatic spread.
Just because you had a negative test yesterday doesn't mean you're not positive today. Testing every 2 to 4 weeks would, on average, allow every infected person to spread the virus for 1 to 2 weeks before being tested again.
People need to wear their dang masks and not congregate in crowds, especially inside.
Yes, testing everyone would only reduce some of the asymptomatic spread, but not all of it. In no way am I suggesting that expanding tests to that level could eliminate the need to wear masks and reduce social interaction to that which is absolutely necessary.
Interestingly enough, someone told me that Amazon employees are regularly tested. Also, have heard of the same thing for healthcare providers and for patients who are scheduled for a procedure. So it isn't just me coming up with a crazy idea...
I live in Seattle...amazon JUST started regular employee testing, and it's not company-wide. This was in the last couple weeks.
There are very few employers with the kind of money amazon has. I can see having a questionnaire and maybe one of the touch-free thermometers, but it's not really economically feasible for employers to test every couple days.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/10/amazons-coronavirus-testing-for-workers-remains-rare-move-by-an-employer/#ce3a04f39b84
I agree with that - for a lot of employers, the cost is too high unless they can get some kind of financial help (grants, etc.) to do it. With Amazon especially, I have to believe they are looking at it from a risk management perspective. They would likely incur serious costs anyway if they end up spreading the virus through packages handled by Amazon employees. Additionally, the social / public relations risk is a big factor. This is not something a lot of companies have to deal with. Even where I work, the parts made in the factory are going to move around quite a bit before they end up with the final consumer. By then, the virus likely will have died or been covered up. I suppose there may be a rare exception if someone buys a new car with a very short time from manufacture of our components to purchase by the end user, and then immediately takes it apart and touches all the internal components and then touches their nose, mouth. I just can't see that being an issue with my company. We still are trying not to have an entire factory get sick, so taking lots of precautions (including contact-less temp. scans when arriving on site), but we aren't likely to spread it to another region of the country or to an entirely different country as could happen with Amazon.
I agree that it's risk management, but doubt that it's so much about the literal potential contamination of packages, and irisk of nfecting consumers from them. From my reading, CDC is saying surfaces are a low-probability source of transmission, and infection from packages "unlikely" (but caution appropriate). And it seems like Amazon would be considering like UV or other strategies for disinfecting package exteriors (and publicizing that) if that were the big deal. (I'm aware that UV isn't 100% proven against Covid, but seemingly does work on other coronaviruses).
From what I've read, it sounds like 3 days is on the outer edge of how long viable virus is detected on hard surfaces at typical room/outdoor temps (could be longer if frozen/refrigerated, I believe), and things like heat, sunlight, etc., shorten that.
I think there are a combination of risks to a company like Amazon: These days, they have a really complex, distributed fulfillment system. They give delivery-date promises (some of them aggressive) as a key part of their business model. If multiple workers at a warehouse get sick, they'll need to at least shut down for cleaning, which disrupts operations unpredictably, then the staffing shortages from quarantining exposed employees will complicate fulfillment. And the PR piece of it - that consumers will fear the packages, even if low risk to them - is probably relevant.
So, there are business-continuity, reliability/marketing, and PR risks to them. There's also a context where they've taken quite a bit of criticism of late for treating employees poorly, and I'm sure they don't want to underscore that bad reputation to the detriment of consumer approval.
I can't speak for other places, but hereabouts it's looking like it's becoming fairly standard for businesses with a multi-employee outbreak to close for at least overnight to 24 hours for deep cleaning, and for all probably-exposed employees to be quarantined for 14 days. That's an unpredictable disruption that it's worth making some investments to avoid.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions