Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
BULLL!!!!
Merck discontinued the clinical trials because their vaccine didn't have enough efficacy. it was a mot point and a waste of money considering that others in the market are much more efficient.
7 -
Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
I don't know about any of that. I doubt that the Chinese government tampered with the virus, but their abhorantly lax live food handling regulations definitely led to the outbreak.3 -
Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
Handy guide to almost-certain BS these days:
* Uses the term "fake news"
* Says "do your own research" (and often offers a link to some YouTube train wreck video, or equivalent, as a starting point)
There are some other less notable indicators in there, too.
In general, if you ask me, be suspicious of anything (other than jokes) that uses multiple exclamation points multiple times, in any context.
It's the usual conspiracy theory nonsense. Don't go down that rabbit hole. Sure, follow virologists - real ones, like that podcast @kimny72's mentioned. Among my friends are tuned-in epidemiologists & other level headed medical professionals. They follow and support the CDC's conclusions, generally speaking.
You beat me to it.
I’m going to ask you, does this seem like a reliable and intelligent post to you otherwise? Do the people you respect and go to for advice in other aspects of your life sound like this? This person doesn’t post like someone I would trust for advice on how to weatherproof my car, set up an exercise routine, cook a lasagna, or write a resume. This person writes like an idiot. Why would this person be smarter than all the professionals? Why would I trust this random idiot over a doctor?
When a conspiracy theorist says, “Do your own research,” what they mean is, “I know the internet is set up so the crazy floats to the top - if you search for these crazy theories that is what you will find, and when you find them all over the internet, I have faith that the average reader on the internet is too stupid to tell a reliable source from a bad source and will believe that if so many people say the same thing it must be true.”
Don’t fall for it. 1,000,000 idiots all saying the same thing are still idiots, just louder.15 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also can't see why schools are not considered to be a risk. My assumption is that it is because most children do not get severe illness. This idea ignores teachers and support staff, family members of those teachers and support staff, and family members of students who bring it home after catching from a fellow student. How is that not a concern?!
Agree with all you have said. I'll take a stab at how schools are not considered a risk (although I personally do not agree with that conclusion).
My hypothesis starts with the assumption that the school transmission data available is skewed by disproportionate representation by private schools, I.e.:- more school resources
- less classroom crowding
- vastly fewer special needs kids that might have distancing difficulty or require close contact
- ability to immediately expel/suspend kids who don't follow rules
- comparatively wealthy student body, where wealth correlates inversely to probability of infection (more likely to WFH, less likely to need public transportation or have public facing jobs, less dense living circumstances so better able to isolate within the home)
Hence, in-person school data is overrepresented by kids less likely to show up at school infected. Remote schooling data overrepresented by kids living in conditions where they are more likely to become infected. So while it appears in-person compares favorably to remote schooling, what is really going on is you see the effects of comparing a disproportionately wealthy population to a disproportionately poor one. The outcome has more to do with the risk profiles the groups you are comparing, not whether they attend in-person or remote.
I think you may be on to something. In Israel schools were indeed a severe factor in community transmission, so the idea that children don’t transmit the disease can’t be accurate.
Locally in Memphis, they are claiming schools are not a risk but school sports are a major factor. However, over 65% of our cases, the contact tracing fails to identify where it came from, so how do they know enough about anything to even make remarks like that? Clearly they are missing something when more than half of cases come who knows where.
Thanks, I didn't know what that number was, but it's what I always wonder about when some institution (like gyms or restaurants) claim they haven't had any COVID transmissions at their business/facility. I always think, "not that you know about."
It's much easier to trace transmissions to households, coworkers, or events like weddings and funerals, where you know who was exposed to whom. If you pick it up from a stranger on public transportation, in a bar/restaurant/gym or from an asymptomatic child who brings it home from school where they got it from another asymptomatic child who got it from an adult in their household with a mild case who never got tested and convinced themself it was just a cold or an allergy so they could continue sending their kid to school ... well, those would be the transmissions I would expect to fall into the 65%.
What our county CT has encountered is people unwilling to cooperate. They won’t give information about where they’ve been or who they’ve seen. Makes it really difficult to limit spread.
On campus, the students have to cooperate. And they’ve been really good about following policies and working with the tracers.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »My 83 yo mother FINALLY got an appointment for next week for the vaccine. My sister and I had been trying every day at 4 locations on our state's website. Mom had a mammogram at the local hospital recently and THEY called HER to give her a number where she could call to make an appt. This location is NOT on my state's website.
Congratulations @kshama2001 My parents (86 tomorrow and 84) have received emails (MGH, my father, and Beth Isreal, my mom) stating invitations to sign up. They are waiting to hopefully get two from he same medical organization so they can do it at the same time together.
Thanks! Mom's call was from Beth Israel.1 -
Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
Merck DID stop work on their vaccine - because of disappointing results" and presumably because they were so far behind two and soon to be three other companies.
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/merck-coronavirus-vaccine-discontinue-study-fail/593865/
"Do your own research" is generally a tell. This is supposed to make someone confident enough in the source that they don't bother to research, but you were smarter than that and asked
Reminds me of when I was online dating and got a bad feel about someone. He said, "Google me." Well, I'm a little more sophisticated than that and Florida's public records are quite searchable, so I was easily able to find a record of two domestic violence convictions, two different women, years apart.14 -
rheddmobile wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I confused about all the discussion of water temp. Here are CDC's instructions for washing a mask. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-to-wash-cloth-face-coverings.html
Remember, when you are cleaning COVID from your hands, it is soap/detergent that matters. No one scalds there hands to remove the virus.
I spray my cloth mask with a disinfectant and then wash. As for hands, alcohol (gel) immediately kills COVID, so some of that before handwashing will be safer.
I have similarly disinfected my mask by spraying down with rubbing alcohol.
I bought this Tide antibacterial spray for fabric, I use that and then hand wash with detergent.
Something to know about coronaviruses, they hate soap. Regular old soap, doesn’t even have to be detergent. You don’t need specific antibacterial products (a virus is not a bacteria anyway) and in fact soap works faster against coronaviruses than some of the hardcore disinfectants such as bleach and alcohol. A Coronavirus has a lipid envelope which, when in the presence of water and soap, has to be both at once, absorbs the water and pops the envelope, killing the virus.
I know it seems like disinfectant or alcohol would be better, but really in the case of this one type of virus, soap is the best thing there is at killing it.
That goes against what most of us were taught about viruses - I was always taught that viruses weren’t killed by hand washing, it was just that washing physically removed them from hands - but that advice is about different viruses.
I remember all that being discussed in the early months. I know I referenced detergent, but I think of that as what one using on fabric, and soap on my hands. Not sure that I know the difference between the two except the words are not the same.
There’s actually a difference between the two! I looked this up on Wikipedia to be sure I remembered it right. According to them soap is created by mixing fats and oils with a base, as opposed to detergent which is created by combining chemical compounds in a mixer. Both are surfactants which means they change surface tension of liquids, making dirt soluble so it can be rinsed away. Wikipedia also points out that when mixed with water, soap kills microorganisms by disorganizing their membrane lipid bilayer and denaturing their proteins.
In practical terms you are correct that hands are mostly washed with soap, while laundry detergent is mostly detergent. And some products such as dishwashing soap may have both.
However, my main point was that there’s no need to get fancy, if it’s soap it will kill Covid just as well as an “anti microbial” product or disinfectant.5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
Handy guide to almost-certain BS these days:
* Uses the term "fake news"
* Says "do your own research" (and often offers a link to some YouTube train wreck video, or equivalent, as a starting point)
There are some other less notable indicators in there, too.
In general, if you ask me, be suspicious of anything (other than jokes) that uses multiple exclamation points multiple times, in any context.
It's the usual conspiracy theory nonsense. Don't go down that rabbit hole. Sure, follow virologists - real ones, like that podcast @kimny72's mentioned. Among my friends are tuned-in epidemiologists & other level headed medical professionals. They follow and support the CDC's conclusions, generally speaking.
You beat me to it.
I’m going to ask you, does this seem like a reliable and intelligent post to you otherwise? Do the people you respect and go to for advice in other aspects of your life sound like this? This person doesn’t post like someone I would trust for advice on how to weatherproof my car, set up an exercise routine, cook a lasagna, or write a resume. This person writes like an idiot. Why would this person be smarter than all the professionals? Why would I trust this random idiot over a doctor?
When a conspiracy theorist says, “Do your own research,” what they mean is, “I know the internet is set up so the crazy floats to the top - if you search for these crazy theories that is what you will find, and when you find them all over the internet, I have faith that the average reader on the internet is too stupid to tell a reliable source from a bad source and will believe that if so many people say the same thing it must be true.”
Don’t fall for it. 1,000,000 idiots all saying the same thing are still idiots, just louder.kshama2001 wrote: »Ok, so someone posted this on another site I visit which I've copied/pasted below. This sounds like a bunch of hooha to me but I'm the first to admit I haven't kept up nearly as well as most of you have. Any opinions on this??
"No ..No...No...look up reports on virology. Merck..stopped making it...Moderna has had way too many oops!!!! This was a natural occurring virus...the Chinese tampered with it....The Fake news is telling you its ok. Do your own research..please...!!! our government is lying to us....and the masks....our children will have side effects..Fauci worked with the chinese govt and has invesments there.....CDC is in bed with big.pharma."
Merck DID stop work on their vaccine - because of disappointing results" and presumably because they were so far behind two and soon to be three other companies.
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/merck-coronavirus-vaccine-discontinue-study-fail/593865/
"Do your own research" is generally a tell. This is supposed to make someone confident enough in the source that they don't bother to research, but you were smarter than that and asked
Reminds me of when I was online dating and got a bad feel about someone. He said, "Google me." Well, I'm a little more sophisticated than that and Florida's public records are quite searchable, so I was easily able to find a record of two domestic violence convictions, two different women, years apart.
That's why I came here, to reveal the truth and back-up my thoughts of what a bunch of malarkey this particular poster was trying to spread and cause fear about. None of what she said made sense to me and when I replied to her post asking for credible links,......crickets.....
I also didn't want to google these false claims and spend my time searching through all the crazy theories when I knew I could ask here and get the straight scoop. You all have a good handle on the correct information.
So thanks y'all!!15 -
Radio news says Johnson and Johnson are submitting for approval of their vaccine this week, with hope if getting it next month. Also, they say it is 100% effective in avoiding death and hospitalization.
IIRC, this is a single dose and has a 67% effectiveness, less than Pfizer and Moderna advertised (see a few pages back about why that is questionable and may really be 29%). But it sounds like J&J may not always prevent illness, but helps make it a less severe case.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Radio news says Johnson and Johnson are submitting for approval of their vaccine this week, with hope if getting it next month. Also, they say it is 100% effective in avoiding death and hospitalization.
IIRC, this is a single dose and has a 67% effectiveness, less than Pfizer and Moderna advertised (see a few pages back about why that is questionable and may really be 29%). But it sounds like J&J may not always prevent illness, but helps make it a less severe case.
Also, J&J phase 3 trial is in the presence of variants/mutations that were not present for Pfizer and Moderna. May not be a completely fair comparison. A J&J booster to address the variants has been discussed, in which case it's 2-shot regimen effectiveness could be comparable. Still several unknowns, but good news!6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also can't see why schools are not considered to be a risk. My assumption is that it is because most children do not get severe illness. This idea ignores teachers and support staff, family members of those teachers and support staff, and family members of students who bring it home after catching from a fellow student. How is that not a concern?!
Agree with all you have said. I'll take a stab at how schools are not considered a risk (although I personally do not agree with that conclusion).
My hypothesis starts with the assumption that the school transmission data available is skewed by disproportionate representation by private schools, I.e.:- more school resources
- less classroom crowding
- vastly fewer special needs kids that might have distancing difficulty or require close contact
- ability to immediately expel/suspend kids who don't follow rules
- comparatively wealthy student body, where wealth correlates inversely to probability of infection (more likely to WFH, less likely to need public transportation or have public facing jobs, less dense living circumstances so better able to isolate within the home)
Hence, in-person school data is overrepresented by kids less likely to show up at school infected. Remote schooling data overrepresented by kids living in conditions where they are more likely to become infected. So while it appears in-person compares favorably to remote schooling, what is really going on is you see the effects of comparing a disproportionately wealthy population to a disproportionately poor one. The outcome has more to do with the risk profiles the groups you are comparing, not whether they attend in-person or remote.
I think you may be on to something. In Israel schools were indeed a severe factor in community transmission, so the idea that children don’t transmit the disease can’t be accurate.
Locally in Memphis, they are claiming schools are not a risk but school sports are a major factor. However, over 65% of our cases, the contact tracing fails to identify where it came from, so how do they know enough about anything to even make remarks like that? Clearly they are missing something when more than half of cases come who knows where.
Thanks, I didn't know what that number was, but it's what I always wonder about when some institution (like gyms or restaurants) claim they haven't had any COVID transmissions at their business/facility. I always think, "not that you know about."
It's much easier to trace transmissions to households, coworkers, or events like weddings and funerals, where you know who was exposed to whom. If you pick it up from a stranger on public transportation, in a bar/restaurant/gym or from an asymptomatic child who brings it home from school where they got it from another asymptomatic child who got it from an adult in their household with a mild case who never got tested and convinced themself it was just a cold or an allergy so they could continue sending their kid to school ... well, those would be the transmissions I would expect to fall into the 65%.
What our county CT has encountered is people unwilling to cooperate. They won’t give information about where they’ve been or who they’ve seen. Makes it really difficult to limit spread.
On campus, the students have to cooperate. And they’ve been really good about following policies and working with the tracers.
On topic of college tracing, one daughter lives in a very small off campus apartment (1 bathroom) with 3 other girls and across the hall from another 4 girls. They lived together last year, and the 8 consider themselves a single living group. They have been in the habit of coordinating their testing. After exposure to another living group, one of the 8 woke with a fever and tested positive. The college health center contact traced the other 7 and administered PCR tests within 3 hours. The results took another hour or so. By that time, the remaining girls were already isolating and had had rapid tests, but it was nonetheless reassuringly fast action.
All the other roommates have tested negative.... except for one. That one had covid in May and received 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine in early December (Mass General nurse, first dose was I think on first day vaccine was approved for public). She nonetheless is now testing positive (PCR). Again. Thankfully, she is completely asymptomatic. Not sure if it suggests anything about the vaccine being protective vs. sterilizing, but it is an unusual data point.9 -
Sounds like most NM school districts will be going back to in class learning on a hybrid model at the end of February...not APS though. They just had a vote last night and determined they couldn't effectively manage things across the district. It is the largest school district in the state and actually one of the largest school districts in the country and there have been discussions for years that it needs to be broken up into something more manageable.
Our kids' elementary school was pushing the district to leave it up to individual schools...which I understand from their point of view, but also understand why the district wouldn't want to go down that path and lose control. Our school is a bit of an oddity within the district...we are part of APS, but we are not Albuquerque...we are our own township/village. All other APS schools are either in Albuquerque or unincorporated Bernalillo county...we aren't even in the same county as all other APS schools.
Our school is very small as we are a small community with a total population of about 8,500. The majority of our population is older adults at or near retirement. Our school feels much more like a small private school than the other behemoths in APS. We have also had only three reported COVID cases in our village since last March...I just feel so bad for my kids. They were very excited at the prospect of getting back to class.
The only possible silver lining is that APS is considering sending K, 6, 9, and high school seniors back to in person...doesn't help my kids at all, but at least it's something for others.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Well, coronavirus prep has translated to less winter storm prep needed. Normally the shelves would have been bare and stores mobbed yesterday and the day before, but we must be all stocked up here in Massachusetts.
I placed a grocery order to be delivered a day ahead of the storm, because I hadn't shopped or ordered for four weeks. For the first time since about last May, I encountered a paper goods shortage. Out of a whole page of various brands and package sizes for paper towels, there was only one that wasn't out of stock when I placed my order. And by the time they filled my order, even that option was out of stock. I assumed/hoped it was because of the storm and not a new pandemic shortage.
Yeah, same here. I ordered a bunch of stuff from HD and tried to add toilet paper and they were low, although I'm supposed to get what I ordered (will see). Can stillget a 4-pack at my 7-11 no problem, however.
I did find that the snow is affecting grocery delivery. Instacart is fine, but amazon from WF has been much worse than usual. It's clearly weather-related here.
I'm thinking that a shortage must be localized, whether storm-related or otherwise. Here (mid-Michigan) Costco was heavily stocked with the full range of paper products, many brands/types, when I was there on Friday 1/29. (We didn't get major snow in our forecast over the weekend.) I was in two other stores, one of the WF, the other a similar local store. For sure the latter had paper products, but I don't remember being in that aisle in WF.
I haven't noticed a shortage in actual stores (I haven't looked at Costco), just when trying to include it in a curbside pickup order from a specific HD. So I don't know how much there's an actual shortage here vs maybe a small increased demand that the store was unprepared for pre snow.1 -
Just got toilet paper this morning at the grocery store.(it’s snowing here today, again, below zero temperatures on the way, some white out conditions out here in the country) They were well stocked with paper products (Minnesota). Actually, the store seemed well stocked with everything. They had a lot of displays set up with snacky type things. I’m assuming for the Super Bowl. This is the first time I’ve seen a good supply of paper products since the problems began last year.5
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also can't see why schools are not considered to be a risk. My assumption is that it is because most children do not get severe illness. This idea ignores teachers and support staff, family members of those teachers and support staff, and family members of students who bring it home after catching from a fellow student. How is that not a concern?!
Agree with all you have said. I'll take a stab at how schools are not considered a risk (although I personally do not agree with that conclusion).
My hypothesis starts with the assumption that the school transmission data available is skewed by disproportionate representation by private schools, I.e.:- more school resources
- less classroom crowding
- vastly fewer special needs kids that might have distancing difficulty or require close contact
- ability to immediately expel/suspend kids who don't follow rules
- comparatively wealthy student body, where wealth correlates inversely to probability of infection (more likely to WFH, less likely to need public transportation or have public facing jobs, less dense living circumstances so better able to isolate within the home)
Hence, in-person school data is overrepresented by kids less likely to show up at school infected. Remote schooling data overrepresented by kids living in conditions where they are more likely to become infected. So while it appears in-person compares favorably to remote schooling, what is really going on is you see the effects of comparing a disproportionately wealthy population to a disproportionately poor one. The outcome has more to do with the risk profiles the groups you are comparing, not whether they attend in-person or remote.
I think you may be on to something. In Israel schools were indeed a severe factor in community transmission, so the idea that children don’t transmit the disease can’t be accurate.
Locally in Memphis, they are claiming schools are not a risk but school sports are a major factor. However, over 65% of our cases, the contact tracing fails to identify where it came from, so how do they know enough about anything to even make remarks like that? Clearly they are missing something when more than half of cases come who knows where.
Thanks, I didn't know what that number was, but it's what I always wonder about when some institution (like gyms or restaurants) claim they haven't had any COVID transmissions at their business/facility. I always think, "not that you know about."
It's much easier to trace transmissions to households, coworkers, or events like weddings and funerals, where you know who was exposed to whom. If you pick it up from a stranger on public transportation, in a bar/restaurant/gym or from an asymptomatic child who brings it home from school where they got it from another asymptomatic child who got it from an adult in their household with a mild case who never got tested and convinced themself it was just a cold or an allergy so they could continue sending their kid to school ... well, those would be the transmissions I would expect to fall into the 65%.
What our county CT has encountered is people unwilling to cooperate. They won’t give information about where they’ve been or who they’ve seen. Makes it really difficult to limit spread.
On campus, the students have to cooperate. And they’ve been really good about following policies and working with the tracers.
On topic of college tracing, one daughter lives in a very small off campus apartment (1 bathroom) with 3 other girls and across the hall from another 4 girls. They lived together last year, and the 8 consider themselves a single living group. They have been in the habit of coordinating their testing. After exposure to another living group, one of the 8 woke with a fever and tested positive. The college health center contact traced the other 7 and administered PCR tests within 3 hours. The results took another hour or so. By that time, the remaining girls were already isolating and had had rapid tests, but it was nonetheless reassuringly fast action.
All the other roommates have tested negative.... except for one. That one had covid in May and received 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine in early December (Mass General nurse, first dose was I think on first day vaccine was approved for public). She nonetheless is now testing positive (PCR). Again. Thankfully, she is completely asymptomatic. Not sure if it suggests anything about the vaccine being protective vs. sterilizing, but it is an unusual data point.
Do PCR test actually test for the presence of the virus, or do they test for antibodies? If the latter, could it just be detecting the immune response from the vaccine?1 -
There was a really good, in-depth interview of Fauci by Terry Gross, broadcast today, that I found super interesting. (I admit it may've been more history-interesting, politics-interesting, or character-revealing-interesting, as opposed to Covid-interesting . . . but OK, whatever. 😉😆).
Text summary and full audio available here:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/04/963943156/fauci-on-vaccinations-and-bidens-refreshing-approach-to-covid-19
IMO, it's a really interesting insight into the character of Fauci, as a human. Also, some tidbits about Covid response, so arguably on topic?8 -
The nursing home at the end of my street has 87 confirmed cases in a facility with 90 patients. First death occurred tonight.26
-
There is a nursing home a few miles from me that hasn't had a single covid case until a few weeks ago. No one has died which is strange. There is a 105 year old lady I know there that tested positive but almost no symptoms and doing ok.10
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also can't see why schools are not considered to be a risk. My assumption is that it is because most children do not get severe illness. This idea ignores teachers and support staff, family members of those teachers and support staff, and family members of students who bring it home after catching from a fellow student. How is that not a concern?!
Agree with all you have said. I'll take a stab at how schools are not considered a risk (although I personally do not agree with that conclusion).
My hypothesis starts with the assumption that the school transmission data available is skewed by disproportionate representation by private schools, I.e.:- more school resources
- less classroom crowding
- vastly fewer special needs kids that might have distancing difficulty or require close contact
- ability to immediately expel/suspend kids who don't follow rules
- comparatively wealthy student body, where wealth correlates inversely to probability of infection (more likely to WFH, less likely to need public transportation or have public facing jobs, less dense living circumstances so better able to isolate within the home)
Hence, in-person school data is overrepresented by kids less likely to show up at school infected. Remote schooling data overrepresented by kids living in conditions where they are more likely to become infected. So while it appears in-person compares favorably to remote schooling, what is really going on is you see the effects of comparing a disproportionately wealthy population to a disproportionately poor one. The outcome has more to do with the risk profiles the groups you are comparing, not whether they attend in-person or remote.
I think you may be on to something. In Israel schools were indeed a severe factor in community transmission, so the idea that children don’t transmit the disease can’t be accurate.
Locally in Memphis, they are claiming schools are not a risk but school sports are a major factor. However, over 65% of our cases, the contact tracing fails to identify where it came from, so how do they know enough about anything to even make remarks like that? Clearly they are missing something when more than half of cases come who knows where.
Thanks, I didn't know what that number was, but it's what I always wonder about when some institution (like gyms or restaurants) claim they haven't had any COVID transmissions at their business/facility. I always think, "not that you know about."
It's much easier to trace transmissions to households, coworkers, or events like weddings and funerals, where you know who was exposed to whom. If you pick it up from a stranger on public transportation, in a bar/restaurant/gym or from an asymptomatic child who brings it home from school where they got it from another asymptomatic child who got it from an adult in their household with a mild case who never got tested and convinced themself it was just a cold or an allergy so they could continue sending their kid to school ... well, those would be the transmissions I would expect to fall into the 65%.
What our county CT has encountered is people unwilling to cooperate. They won’t give information about where they’ve been or who they’ve seen. Makes it really difficult to limit spread.
On campus, the students have to cooperate. And they’ve been really good about following policies and working with the tracers.
On topic of college tracing, one daughter lives in a very small off campus apartment (1 bathroom) with 3 other girls and across the hall from another 4 girls. They lived together last year, and the 8 consider themselves a single living group. They have been in the habit of coordinating their testing. After exposure to another living group, one of the 8 woke with a fever and tested positive. The college health center contact traced the other 7 and administered PCR tests within 3 hours. The results took another hour or so. By that time, the remaining girls were already isolating and had had rapid tests, but it was nonetheless reassuringly fast action.
All the other roommates have tested negative.... except for one. That one had covid in May and received 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine in early December (Mass General nurse, first dose was I think on first day vaccine was approved for public). She nonetheless is now testing positive (PCR). Again. Thankfully, she is completely asymptomatic. Not sure if it suggests anything about the vaccine being protective vs. sterilizing, but it is an unusual data point.
Do PCR test actually test for the presence of the virus, or do they test for antibodies? If the latter, could it just be detecting the immune response from the vaccine?
PCR detects rna, not antibodies. I looked this up, and a positive PCR without new symptoms within 90 days of initial infection is more likely to be ongoing shedding of rna from the first infection than a new infection. This RNA is not considered to be “replication competent”, in other words it’s busted bits of dead virus, and doesn’t cause disease.10 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »The nursing home at the end of my street has 87 confirmed cases in a facility with 90 patients. First death occurred tonight.
That's so sad. Hopefully they can pull through. A single home here has accounted for 85% of our district's total deaths, they've been in outbreak since November. There have been outbreaks at five or six other facilities but they've been managed much better with no spread and no deaths.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions