Coronavirus prep

1490491493495496747

Replies

  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    edited January 2021
    lokihen wrote: »
    On the news this morning, some areas of CA are no longer transporting patients with no chance of living. We have reached a really sad state of affairs in the US that could have been 100% prevented. Ambulance drivers are being asked to make triage types of decisions on who lives and who dies.

    AZ is back to being number one in the world in per capita new infections. Not completely surprising. When it reaches the 30s and 40s, people all pack inside again for a few months. Just like the Summer, we are tolerating it outside only when we eat out. Yeah, at times it's very cold to eat on patios at 50 degrees or less, but we do it. Most places have propane heaters, fires or overhead patio heaters which make it much better and tolerable.

    When the local news stations announced we're back to being worst in the world for new infections, you see the comments (on social media) and understand why. People putting up crap like "masks are proven to not work..." or similar.

    I still see the chin strap masks, masks that are a complete joke (I saw one very unhealthy looking cashier with a face shield that allowed all air in the other day), some still not wearing masks in stores and the gyms are packed. Many in AZ are poor, so schools are in session. And the wealthy -- many of them, for political reasons, are still deniers. We will likely have it around longer than many other states since this is our new wave, which started later because of our Winter not getting cold until this month.

    North and South Dakota numbers are dropping rapidly. Looks like they have nearly reached herd immunity. But it took massive amount of deaths to get to that point. Just sad.

    Here in South Dakota our positivity rates are still in the 30 to 60% range daily.

    Didn't mean to minimize it. As terrible as it is there, the numbers seem (at least to outsiders) like they have peaked and are at least starting to head down. What your state has been through is awful, and was IMHO, completely preventable with common sense.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/

    @smithker75 -- with all the crazies here, I'd love to take you up on that. But with my businesses, that would be hard to do until I retire! And I have no plans on retiring soon. My wife, kids and I have long dreamed of Australia or New Zealand or both!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,792 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Good source for state data: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/tracker/overview

    Given the differences in testing, I continue to think the main useful numbers are positivity rate (and yes, SD is still bad) and deaths per capita.

    While acknowledging that you've been following the statistics very carefully and thoughtfully, and I haven't, I've wondered about the effects of testing rules and test availability on positivity rate - how comparable the positivity rates are from place to place.

    Locally, we've had various changes in test availability (simple supply issues) and in rules (whether you needed a doctor's prescription, needed to be symptomatic, that sort of thing) here, and it has sometimes seemed to have a modest effect on positivity rates. (I'd expect the statistical impact to be spread out somewhat, from a change in a localized area, since there are issues of communication and understanding that may change prospective testees' behavior: Not everyone becomes aware instantly that tests are easier or harder to get, basically. In terms of generalized conclusions from statistics, I'd expect some of that localized timespan spreading-out effect to drop out of significance as numbers might be rolled up to look at a variety of places with similar test availability/uptake).

    Do you have a perspective on issues of positivity rates vs. test availability, in terms of impact on comparability across areas?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Fuzzipeg wrote: »
    Vaccinations are a wonderful possibility, but If you consider how long it took to eradicate smallpox I hope it will not take anything like as long as the 200 years. To take as long with covid is unthinkable. It seems ultimately even when most of the population were covered by vaccine it was only when a doctor in some really remote place was faced with a massive outbreak and only relatively few vaccines available with no extra supplies due. he/she did the only thing they could, prioritise. They sought out all the active cases and then vaccinated those people round them and eventually each case was ringfenced and the virus was ultimately eliminated because it had no where to go. This is possibly the way we need to go in each and every country because with our more mobile populations reinfection with covid could so easily occur.

    To those who say these vaccines have been produced too quickly to be safe. The issue comes down to the amount of money and scientific experience has been directed towards this result. in the region of 200 years working on different viruses, that makes a mountain of knowledge.

    Thankfully this is the first time a rogue virus has gone international, not been stopped by the intense actions in/of the first infected country. Ebola was a hard fought battle because of some extended spread, with international help it has been stopped. Then the one which was a virus rife in South America which was a problem for pregnant mothers and their neonates. There have been others stopped by prompt action.

    This time, many of the world governments have thrown money at the problem. From the outset scientists have provided information to each other so they all could bring their areas of expertise to the international effort. There are quite a few vaccines on the horizon, each one will be being assessed at each and every step. This means that with continuous on going assessment progress is quicker. Unlike in the past many companies do not need to wait for funding at each and every stage because research is not one companies property, the process has been able to be much more efficient.

    The best thing about the second vaccine I know of is, it will be produced and supplied at cost, said to be between £3 or £4 UK, per dose, to many countries once production is scaled up sufficiently with other production facilities coming on line, this one gives more hope because it can also be stored in clinic fridges and for a while in cool boxes rather than at -70 degrees C

    Best wishes to every one.

    This is not the first time a virus has gone rogue.....HIV is a good example. It's still an issue, with no vaccine yet.

    Like there is Safe Sex of HIV control we may need to follow Safe Social Distancing for Covid-19 long term. Covid-19 does not seem to mutate like HIV however. It will be interesting to see if the new Covid-19 mutation out of Africa responds well to the current vaccines.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Early on it was reported 12 people got Covid-19 from mink farms but then there is not solid science when it comes to Covid-19 today.
  • lokihen
    lokihen Posts: 382 Member
    A local news report just stated that due to changes that went into effect on Jan. 1, not all covid tests will be covered by insurance. If not, the average cost is $260.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    lokihen wrote: »
    A local news report just stated that due to changes that went into effect on Jan. 1, not all covid tests will be covered by insurance. If not, the average cost is $260.

    Here, in Italy, pharmacies are doing testing for $20, as well as other testing centers. Usually they have a tent right outside and one registers, pays, and stands in line. It's quick and doesn't cost much and the results are also immediate (quick testing). If you get a positive, you can go to get a more thorough test at a center.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,062 Member
    lokihen wrote: »
    A local news report just stated that due to changes that went into effect on Jan. 1, not all covid tests will be covered by insurance. If not, the average cost is $260.

    Where are you located? Hubby and I have done some of the Massachusetts free, but then opted into some of the asymptomatic "paid" options. Hubby went to one place, $150, then I found a better - same day PCR for $120. Excellent response. He will be using that source in two weeks after traveling home again.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,062 Member
    Getting thoughts on behalf of daughter. Yesterday, she came to me (I was babysitting during their work from home) and said she had a question and was stressing. Basically, her boss wants all staff to get the COVID vaccine now (she works for a hospital, but does not have contact with any patients). DD wants the vaccine, but feels very guilty accepting it as she feels that she would be taking a vaccination from someone in more critical need. I don't want to bias your responses, so I will not share my response. Curious what yours might be.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    RE: testing and positivity rates...

    Since I've returned to work about a month ago, my company has been testing us twice a week, using a private lab. I imagine a lot of companies are doing the same. Im curious if they report the results, both positive and negative, to the local heath authorities. I just wonder if it's up to the private company if they want to report their numbers, or if they are required to.

    The results from a private company, who is testing everyone, would actually give you a better idea of the community positivity rate. Most people who are getting tested at public sites are going because they have symptoms or have been exposed, which is going to skew the numbers.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,062 Member
    edited January 2021
    RE: testing and positivity rates...

    Since I've returned to work about a month ago, my company has been testing us twice a week, using a private lab. I imagine a lot of companies are doing the same. Im curious if they report the results, both positive and negative, to the local heath authorities. I just wonder if it's up to the private company if they want to report their numbers, or if they are required to.

    The results from a private company, who is testing everyone, would actually give you a better idea of the community positivity rate. Most people who are getting tested at public sites are going because they have symptoms or have been exposed, which is going to skew the numbers.

    That may depend on where you are. Hubby and I have never been exposed, but between us, we have done 3 tests and 4th in two weeks. All have been precautionary due to travel. And given the state of my county, travel is IMO less concerning than just living at home, so a little illogical in our case, but following state guidelines.