Myfitnesspal

Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Coronavirus prep

1522523525527528649

Replies

  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Member Posts: 3,151 Member Member Posts: 3,151 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »

    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.

    And if you right click on the photo in Chrome, you can search for it elsewhere on the internet. 😃
  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Member Posts: 3,151 Member Member Posts: 3,151 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 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)
    Furthermore, public schools are more likely to be in-person where spread is low, so that also skews the in-person data towards lower risk populations.

    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?

    It detects for the virus. And the virus needs to be at levels which can be detected. I’m testing twice a week and my labs always come back “no virus detected” not “negative.”

    I don’t know if the PCR tests can also be used for antibodies. Ours aren’t. We’re also doing saliva tests now. Don’t know about that one for antibodies, either. I always thought it was a separate test. I could definitely be wrong! 😃
  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Member Posts: 3,151 Member Member Posts: 3,151 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 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)
    Furthermore, public schools are more likely to be in-person where spread is low, so that also skews the in-person data towards lower risk populations.

    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.

    We don’t retest cleared positive people until 90 days have passed for that reason.
  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Member Posts: 3,151 Member Member Posts: 3,151 Member
    Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.

    https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
  • lokihenlokihen Member Posts: 349 Member Member Posts: 349 Member
    Just a pessimistic note on the British variant. It was first identified in September in Kent and the surge came four months later in January. This is why there are cautionary watches on March for the US.
  • jenilla1jenilla1 Member Posts: 11,078 Member Member Posts: 11,078 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.

    https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog

    That's vile. 👎
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 9,097 Member Member Posts: 9,097 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 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)
    Furthermore, public schools are more likely to be in-person where spread is low, so that also skews the in-person data towards lower risk populations.

    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.

    Thanks for the info.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 9,097 Member Member Posts: 9,097 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 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)
    Furthermore, public schools are more likely to be in-person where spread is low, so that also skews the in-person data towards lower risk populations.

    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?

    It detects for the virus. And the virus needs to be at levels which can be detected. I’m testing twice a week and my labs always come back “no virus detected” not “negative.”

    I don’t know if the PCR tests can also be used for antibodies. Ours aren’t. We’re also doing saliva tests now. Don’t know about that one for antibodies, either. I always thought it was a separate test. I could definitely be wrong! 😃

    Not covid-specific, but in many cases the medical tests for some disease/infection/condition is actually testing for the immune response, not for the disease itself. I can't think of specific examples, but I know I've heard of cases where such testing yielded false negative results because of an undiagnosed immuno-compromised individual. Of course, the question is whether I heard that on a medical drama like "House" or in an account of a real-world event. :smile:

    Anyway, that was why I asked. Nothing specific to covid.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 9,097 Member Member Posts: 9,097 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.

    https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog

    Yeah, when you consider that places that were so lax in their hiring and vaccine-handling oversight that they allowed hundreds of doses to be destroyed by their employees continued to receive vaccines, this seems like a crazy enforcement policy (yes, I know that was Wisconsin and Florida, not Georgia, but it still seems absurdly inconsistent)

    Even the DPH official they interview admits it wasn't deliberate, while trying to use weasel words to imply it was deliberate. "almost a deliberate manner." So, almost. Meaning not actually.

  • snowflake954snowflake954 Member Posts: 6,634 Member Member Posts: 6,634 Member
    A friend sent this to me for my brother. I'm not sure if my SIL will do it but I'm pushing her to. My brother can't be beyond 10 days symptomatic in order to qualify. He does qualify on all the rest of the criteria. This is the same antibody cocktail that Trump received. The only cost, assuming you qualify, is from the hospital -- but not for the drug. I had no idea this was available until a friend of mine told me that his high risk brother got it.

    https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/i-have-covid-19-now/monoclonal-antibodies-high-risk-covid-19-positive-patients?fbclid=IwAR1KX492pGJxg2p07_bA_N_1oHtHQBxxTsX0eo4mj5cL_tlJFlOne5qjhEo

    This is on the News in Italy today. We will be producing this cocktail to use against COVID.
  • RetiredAndLovingItRetiredAndLovingIt Member Posts: 1,031 Member Member Posts: 1,031 Member
    Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Sign In or Register to comment.