Coronavirus prep

1693694696698699726

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,772 Member
    My allergist uses the same one, too. 😂

    Literally every medical professional does...and has for ages.
  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,175 Member
    Speaking of oximeters. I have one of the little finger ones I bought online also. I also have a feature on my apple watch which will take my blood O2 on my wrist. I don't think either of them are extremely accurate but what is funny was when I went to my PCP last fall I told him about my watch and he hoohawed it saying "that is not a medical equipment valid test". Then he proceeded to bring out one of the online ones for my finger and use it as if it was "medical equipment". :D

    I bought an oximeter too, back in the early days of Covid, probably as a result of discussions on this thread. I test every so often to make sure the batteries are still good, and to drive my dogs nuts with the pulse beeps.

    Just got a Fitbit Charge 5 which also has the oximeter feature. It consistently reads a bit low, usually 94 or 95, whereas my finger oximeter says 99. I'd trust the finger machine over the Fitbit.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 10,523 Member
    Isn't the Fitbit one overnight when you are "expected" to sometimes drop a little as a you sleep and slow down? Though I can see where 94 to 99 would be a good size spread.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 3,313 Member
    I believe both the fitbit and the watch use the same type of light to measure as the finger but I agree they are definitely not as accurate. What I have found with the watch is that if I measure right after I put it on it is more accurate but if I measure when I have been wearing it several hours it is not. Probably because I keep it pretty tight.

    My Dr NEVER took my O2 stat until this past year when I mentioned to him about my watch. I think they don't call the fitbit or watch medical equipment because those companies do not want to deal with the extra rules and regs surrounding that type of product.

  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,116 Member
    OK I have a possibly stupid question maybe the medical people here can answer.
    I keep reading that Omicron infects the upper airway but doesn't infiltrate the lungs like the other variants do - so what are people being hospitalized for in this wave? I know the hospitalization rate is lower but there are still loads of people in the hospital and ICU here - but it doesn't say what they are presenting with. Does Omicron attack other organs or something?
    I have read that Covid can push people's pre-existing chronic illnesses "over the edge" so to speak, so they might need hospital care, but does that account for all the hospital cases?
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,116 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    OK I have a possibly stupid question maybe the medical people here can answer.
    I keep reading that Omicron infects the upper airway but doesn't infiltrate the lungs like the other variants do - so what are people being hospitalized for in this wave? I know the hospitalization rate is lower but there are still loads of people in the hospital and ICU here - but it doesn't say what they are presenting with. Does Omicron attack other organs or something?
    I have read that Covid can push people's pre-existing chronic illnesses "over the edge" so to speak, so they might need hospital care, but does that account for all the hospital cases?

    For starters, Delta is still out there. Omicron is the most dominant strain at the moment, but Delta is still out there. Also, it does appear that omicron is less virulent, but also appears far more contagious and spreads much faster which means hospitalizations will likely remain high just given the sheer volume of cases.

    Just as an example (these are not real numbers), if you have 10,000 cases of some other less contagious but more virulent variant and 10% of those require hospitalization, that's 1,000 hospitalizations out of 10,000 cases. Now a much more contagious variant comes about and you have 100,000 cases but it is much less virulent and only 1% of cases require hospitalization...that's still 1,000 people in the hospital. Just by sheer volume of cases, even if less of those cases require hospitalization, hospitalization will remain high because there are so many more contracting the virus.

    I'm pretty sure my wife and I both have it now. She started displaying minor symptoms on Tuesday evening and I started displaying symptoms yesterday evening. Mine are more pronounced than hers and I feel like I have a bad head cold and with lots of head and nasal congestion and sneezing with some coughing...she pretty much has an annoying runny nose. She is scheduled to get tested tomorrow but I couldn't get a test until Sunday morning.

    Yeah I get that a lower hospitalization rate of a larger number of infections still means more hospitalizations. My questions was what are they being hospitalized for? If Omicron doesn't infect the lungs, and most Covid hospitalizations were for lung involvement - basically I am asking what does a severe Omicron infection that requires hospitalization look like.

    Hope you and your wife recover OK. My husband and daughter both had it over Christmas and recovered fine. (We are all vaxx'd).
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,842 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    OK I have a possibly stupid question maybe the medical people here can answer.
    I keep reading that Omicron infects the upper airway but doesn't infiltrate the lungs like the other variants do - so what are people being hospitalized for in this wave? I know the hospitalization rate is lower but there are still loads of people in the hospital and ICU here - but it doesn't say what they are presenting with. Does Omicron attack other organs or something?
    I have read that Covid can push people's pre-existing chronic illnesses "over the edge" so to speak, so they might need hospital care, but does that account for all the hospital cases?

    So, math. A study finding that Omicron is 60% less likely to infiltrate the lungs (not actual number but if I recall correctly it was in this ballpark) still leaves 40%. If there are twice as many cases, that’s pretty much the same number of cases infiltrating the lungs. But it’s not twice as many cases - it’s way more than that.

    Not too many people are good at thinking through the implications of math. So, for example, if you hear that Omicron is only half as bad, and previously there were several million hospitalized, then you are still dealing with a whole heck of a lot of sick people.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,772 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    OK I have a possibly stupid question maybe the medical people here can answer.
    I keep reading that Omicron infects the upper airway but doesn't infiltrate the lungs like the other variants do - so what are people being hospitalized for in this wave? I know the hospitalization rate is lower but there are still loads of people in the hospital and ICU here - but it doesn't say what they are presenting with. Does Omicron attack other organs or something?
    I have read that Covid can push people's pre-existing chronic illnesses "over the edge" so to speak, so they might need hospital care, but does that account for all the hospital cases?

    So, math. A study finding that Omicron is 60% less likely to infiltrate the lungs (not actual number but if I recall correctly it was in this ballpark) still leaves 40%. If there are twice as many cases, that’s pretty much the same number of cases infiltrating the lungs. But it’s not twice as many cases - it’s way more than that.

    Not too many people are good at thinking through the implications of math. So, for example, if you hear that Omicron is only half as bad, and previously there were several million hospitalized, then you are still dealing with a whole heck of a lot of sick people.

    Yuppers...
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,551 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ythannah wrote: »
    what do you mean you didnt report it?

    Don't you have to report positive RATS tests and/or follow up with official PCR test?

    Here in Ontario, public health testing is becoming overwhelmed and the latest guideline restricts eligibility for PCR tests. Contact tracing and testing is out the window at this point. So, no, a positive rapid antigen test will not be followed up with a PCR for the majority of people.

    I haven't seen or heard of any requirement to report rapid test results, unless there is something to that effect in whatever literature accompanies the test itself (I've never seen one).

    eta I have no idea where Sarah7591 resides, just reporting the current state of testing here

    The instructions on the rapid test tell you to follow up with a PCR test, but there is nothing about reporting it. We did follow up with PCR tests - mostly because my rapid tests kept coming back negative even though I obviously had extensive exposures - I wanted to confirm with a more sensitive test. (Our PCR tests were on December 24 so we were using the guidelines at the time - I know they have changed since then.)

    Of course my PCR test got lost and never was uploaded to the system. The pharmacist checked with the lab and told me verbally it was negative, but he also said it would be uploaded within 24 hours and it never was so who knows.

    well, no, there is nothing about reporting it in patient instructions here in Aust either - patients don't have to report PCR tests, their medical service does so.

    They are meant to follow up any positive RATS tests with PCR test though - which if positive then gets reported to Communicable Disease branch by your medical provider

    Yes our PCR tests are reported by the provider as well. I was talking about the rapid tests you do at home. Unless you follow up with a PCR (which we can't even do now) they do not get reported anywhere.

    will be interesting to see how this plays out in Australia now one does not have to follow up a positive RATS test with a PCR test.

    PCR tests are reported by your medical provider

    You are suppossed to let your medical provider know of positive RATS test so they can report it - whether everyone does so will be another matter.

    I guess quite a lot will because they want to do the right thing and/or will want medical certificates for school, work etc - but I doubt everyone will.
  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,175 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Isn't the Fitbit one overnight when you are "expected" to sometimes drop a little as a you sleep and slow down? Though I can see where 94 to 99 would be a good size spread.

    Yes, the figure it generates is supposed to be the average of values during sleep.

    I don't know enough about what O2 saturation actually means physiologically to say whether it's something that drops during sleep, like heart rate typically does.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,359 Member
    There are also a lot of people who are hospitalized with covid but not because of covid. So, someone goes in the hospital because of a kidney infection, is tested and has Covid. Covid didn't put them in the hospital, but they are still listed as a covid patient in the hospital. On the news they said that that was often the case with children in the hospital, they tested postitive but were in the hospital for other reasons.
  • tiptoethruthetulips
    tiptoethruthetulips Posts: 3,301 Member
    edited January 7
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ythannah wrote: »
    what do you mean you didnt report it?

    Don't you have to report positive RATS tests and/or follow up with official PCR test?

    Here in Ontario, public health testing is becoming overwhelmed and the latest guideline restricts eligibility for PCR tests. Contact tracing and testing is out the window at this point. So, no, a positive rapid antigen test will not be followed up with a PCR for the majority of people.

    I haven't seen or heard of any requirement to report rapid test results, unless there is something to that effect in whatever literature accompanies the test itself (I've never seen one).

    eta I have no idea where Sarah7591 resides, just reporting the current state of testing here

    The instructions on the rapid test tell you to follow up with a PCR test, but there is nothing about reporting it. We did follow up with PCR tests - mostly because my rapid tests kept coming back negative even though I obviously had extensive exposures - I wanted to confirm with a more sensitive test. (Our PCR tests were on December 24 so we were using the guidelines at the time - I know they have changed since then.)

    Of course my PCR test got lost and never was uploaded to the system. The pharmacist checked with the lab and told me verbally it was negative, but he also said it would be uploaded within 24 hours and it never was so who knows.

    well, no, there is nothing about reporting it in patient instructions here in Aust either - patients don't have to report PCR tests, their medical service does so.

    They are meant to follow up any positive RATS tests with PCR test though - which if positive then gets reported to Communicable Disease branch by your medical provider

    Yes our PCR tests are reported by the provider as well. I was talking about the rapid tests you do at home. Unless you follow up with a PCR (which we can't even do now) they do not get reported anywhere.

    will be interesting to see how this plays out in Australia now one does not have to follow up a positive RATS test with a PCR test.

    PCR tests are reported by your medical provider

    You are suppossed to let your medical provider know of positive RATS test so they can report it - whether everyone does so will be another matter.

    I guess quite a lot will because they want to do the right thing and/or will want medical certificates for school, work etc - but I doubt everyone will.

    In Tasmania and Victoria those who have a positive RAT have to register details to the relevant health department not the patient's medical provider, I assume the same in NSW (if not its coming soon). Numbers are quite high and local clinics would be overrun it people had to report their medical provider.

    Tasmania has an online registration page as does Victoria. Not sure what's happening elsewhere.