Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
In Italy you must have a Green Pass (downloaded after complete vaccination) to access any closed space--including public transportation and schools. Masks are required everywhere and in schools and public transport-- pff2. Schools must be "aired" and since most schools here in Central Rome are very old, that means opening a window. We're having a cold snap (for us) and the poor kids are freezing with coats, hats, gloves, and blankets. I can't even imagine going to school under these conditions. I'm glad my kids are grown.
PS: For my disagree fairy--just reporting the facts.18 -
with the latest US decision for the workforce by the supreme court yesterday, My company is now pivoting. Last week we had the mandatory testing in place for unvaccinated employees. Going forward it is now optional for them but still available. Our workplace is seeing the largest spike in folks isolating and folks positive since the pandemic began. HR is struggling to keep up.
PS: for my disagree fairy - just reporting the facts.
14 -
The CDC recommendations are now optional for cruises. I can't imagine taking a cruise now or in the near future.13
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?10 -
Wow that seems ridiculously inadequate length of time.
here in Australia isolation if positive has gone from 10 days to 7 days - one can come out of isolation after 7 days if asymptomatic by day 62 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.
That statement is the one thing that I've been thinking since Day One of this thing. Nature is always going to have its way with us. We can bob and weave and mitigate but we aren't going to control it.
7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.
In CA, asymptomatic COVID positive nurses are now continuing to work in hospitals due to staffing shortages.
At my work, over 1/4 of all of our cases since the start of the pandemic have been within the last several weeks. Although folks are faring well without being hospitalized or ending up in the ICU, It's beginning to takes it's tole with the number of people out sick.9 -
Hubby made it home from Florida yesterday. My opinion is that he would have been logically exposed to COVID on they flight.
If he remains asymptomatic, on what day post flight would you use up a precious home Rapid test to see if he is carrying the virus? There are family members that we are trying hard to not expose to COVID.4 -
They're saying Omicron is symptomatic in one or two days. If he isn't symptomatic I wouldn't test until you're going to visit with family members.3
-
@ChelzFit
I agree there are some that cannot handle the vaccine and I feel badly for those that truly can't or are afraid of having another vaccination after such terrible results from previous a one. My sister still refuses to take a flu shot because of some terrible reactions in the past.
But I wonder how many there really are out of all the people who've refused that have had real issues? How many are afraid of it? How many don't want to be told what to do; their rights are being taken away? How many still think it's all a political farce? Those are the ones that need to make a compromise.
My niece works in her dh's doctor's office and she's relayed stories you wouldn't believe, about just refusing to wear a mask.
IMO there are too many people in this world who feel it's all about them and don't think of the other guy. How about keeping as many people out of the hospital as possible? The hospitals should not have to be making choices about who to turn away or let die or not being able to see emergency patients because they're over worked, understaffed, etc., etc.
I hadn't had a flu shot since I had a bad reaction in 1990. But in 2020, I decided to get one, because medical professionals were encouraging it and I didn't want to have the flu, seek medical care, and contract COVID.
Pre-COVID, I wouldn't necessarily seek medical care for the flu, but in 2020 I definitely would for potentential COVID, and wouldn't know which it was. I wanted to be able to rule out the flu, so I got the shot. No reaction other than a sore arm for a few days
8 -
@ChelzFit
I agree there are some that cannot handle the vaccine and I feel badly for those that truly can't or are afraid of having another vaccination after such terrible results from previous a one. My sister still refuses to take a flu shot because of some terrible reactions in the past.
But I wonder how many there really are out of all the people who've refused that have had real issues? How many are afraid of it? How many don't want to be told what to do; their rights are being taken away? How many still think it's all a political farce? Those are the ones that need to make a compromise.
My niece works in her dh's doctor's office and she's relayed stories you wouldn't believe, about just refusing to wear a mask.
IMO there are too many people in this world who feel it's all about them and don't think of the other guy. How about keeping as many people out of the hospital as possible? The hospitals should not have to be making choices about who to turn away or let die or not being able to see emergency patients because they're over worked, understaffed, etc., etc.
In at least some contexts, people who have a true medical contraindication to this vaccination (such as a serious allergy to one of the components) are able to get a medical exemption, not be penalized for being unvaccinated. (Yes, that does add to community risk. That there will be people like this, for any given vaccination, is one reason that herd immunity is important.)
The ones who sincerely believe this is a political farce, or a plot to control us (injectable microchips, or whatever) believe they are absolutely, righteously correct, and that those of us who believe the pandemic is real, and that the vaccine works, are dupes in a plot against us all. They tend to think that masks are dangerous. They see themselves as noble warriors in the good fight. I don't know what fraction of the population is firm in that type of belief, but it is a thing that some think (to be specific, a few people I know do clearly think that). They are not going to compromise.
Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US.
I think those who can (medically) be vaccinated should be vaccinated. I think people do have a choice in practice here in the US to not be vaccinated (I may wish it could be otherwise, but I don't see viable mechanisms to change that). I resent the idea that there should be no inconvenient or unpleasant consequences to them for that decision. That's not how choice works in all cases.
My aunt is in this camp. She's not going to compromise. I'm ok with there being unpleasant consequences for that.
My partner's nephew was in the "I'm young and invulnerable" camp. We saw him (outdoors and masked) on Christmas Eve. He'd finally received his first shot. Restrictions DID persuade him, albeit lamentably slowly.
People like my aunt are a lost cause; people like the nephew are not. Let's hope there are enough of those for us to reach herd immunity.7 -
Hubby made it home from Florida yesterday. My opinion is that he would have been logically exposed to COVID on they flight.
If he remains asymptomatic, on what day post flight would you use up a precious home Rapid test to see if he is carrying the virus? There are family members that we are trying hard to not expose to COVID.cmriverside wrote: »They're saying Omicron is symptomatic in one or two days. If he isn't symptomatic I wouldn't test until you're going to visit with family members.
Nothing new to add other than the above sounds good.
My sister, husband, and two boys flew from MA to UT after Christmas. My BIL contracted COVID; the rest did not. He thinks it likely it happened in a restaurant rather than the plane. He was vaxxed and boosted and symptoms were mild enough that he would have gone to work had it not been contagious. He isolated at home, and the rest of the family did not get it.9 -
@kshama2001 @cmriverside Thanks for the input. It will be interesting to see what does or does not transpire this week.4
-
Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US
That is exactly the rules in Washington State.
We have to show vax cards to enter any restaurant. I believe all the major sports teams also require it at their venues. Admittedly it's difficult to enforce against the restaurants and people will use fake cards, but there is a website and phone number to report violations and there have been quite a few reports and fines issued. I'm not sure about gyms or theaters, but I haven't been to a gym or theater. I know in New York vax proof is required in theaters.
We're trying. I'm in a Blue state so any and all regulations are fair game. The governor just called up some National Guard to help at the swamped hospitals.
6 -
@kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
I was also in the military when I had the bad reaction in 1990. Hmm...0 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
I am not sure that is true. It may be part of the reason why this variant has spread so quickly is people who were nonsymptomatic and tested negative felt like they could go to get together’s safely.0 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
They were saying that about the contagiousness in December but have since reversed course and now say it can be contagious for two days before testing positive on a rapid test. As far as when to test, the article I read said test at five days after exposure because before then it’s more likely to be a false negative. So, we’re back at basically guessing!1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
They were saying that about the contagiousness in December but have since reversed course and now say it can be contagious for two days before testing positive on a rapid test. As far as when to test, the article I read said test at five days after exposure because before then it’s more likely to be a false negative. So, we’re back at basically guessing!
I would not use a precious RAT if he is asymptomatic because RATs are less accurate (more likely to give false negative) in the absence of symptoms. I would save your RATs for right before a visit with a vulnerable person or when symptoms are present. FWIW, the UK has deployed RATs much more extensively during the omicron wave than the US, and much of the data about the relationship between period of contagion vs. period of RAT detectable comes from there.
I'm in a similar situation with DH taking 2 work trips this coming week and early Feb. We plan to keep apart 5 days following his return home. If no symptoms after 5 days, we plan to stop isolating. If we have more RATs by then, we will confirm with a test at day 5. Neither of us have had covid yet, at least that we know of. And I really do not want it (even though as a healthy boosted person I'm likely to have a mild case). One daughter had it twice (2020 pre-vaccine & 2021 post-vaccine/pre-boost) and another daughter had a breakthrough (2021 pre-boost). Both recovered fine with no lingering effects, but both felt really sick for 7 days.
DH's work normally relies heavily on travel, and in a way he wants to return to the old normal and in a way he dreads being exposed and bringing it home. The holidays were really hard on my octogenarian parents who felt isolated. They paid the highest price for the socializing the daughters did, not the daughters. Even the one who got sick felt like the timing of it was advantageous for her. I mean, sure, she felt really sick, but she was not alone on Christmas and it didn't wreck any of her social plans. It was almost 80F here and we were together outside and ate a fabulous (if I may say so) meal outside. Even outside, it was too much risk for the octogenarians to be around an actively sick person. I am hearing friends that age saying that they are reevaluating their risk tolerance for 2022 because the isolation is becoming increasingly difficult to bear. Sometimes you have to go with the least bad of all bad options.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US
That is exactly the rules in Washington State.
Yeah, the rules in Chicago too. There were various places (some restaurants and bars, all theaters and music venues I am aware of, my gym, some workplaces) that were requiring either vaccines or (in some cases) either the vaccine or a negative test, but as of 1/3, proof of vaccine has been required for restaurants, bars, gyms, etc.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
They were saying that about the contagiousness in December but have since reversed course and now say it can be contagious for two days before testing positive on a rapid test. As far as when to test, the article I read said test at five days after exposure because before then it’s more likely to be a false negative. So, we’re back at basically guessing!
Yeah, that's what I've read too. I would test when symptomatic (since apparently it tends to be more reliable when one has symptoms and the symptoms are so similar to a cold or the like) or if not, I'd wait as long as possible before the people you are trying to protect.
I've also heard that planes aren't really that risky given something to do with how the air is circulated (beats me) vs some other venues. Good luck to him in not getting a positive!0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US
That is exactly the rules in Washington State.
Yeah, the rules in Chicago too. There were various places (some restaurants and bars, all theaters and music venues I am aware of, my gym, some workplaces) that were requiring either vaccines or (in some cases) either the vaccine or a negative test, but as of 1/3, proof of vaccine has been required for restaurants, bars, gyms, etc.
Also here in NYC but not in the neighboring towns and municipalities. In NYC, you cannot go into any indoor place without a vax card. Also, everyone who works in the private sector has to be vaccinated. Now there is a black market for vax cards. Crazy.1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.
Yes, and empty them of unvaccinated patients too.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
I am not sure that is true. It may be part of the reason why this variant has spread so quickly is people who were nonsymptomatic and tested negative felt like they could go to get together’s safely.
I remember people in this group discussing doing so (we even did it for our holiday). I just did a quick internet search and "holiday" advice was to test yourself just before a get together. In that search, the first 10 hits included ones from Harvard Medical; Bloomerberg new; ABC, CBS & Fox news; NY Times, a local city newspaper and a major radio station. On another search, the CDC even mentioned it.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211222/cdc-director-covid-test-holidays
So roughly two weeks ago, we were being told that was the safe way to get together. Was it bad advice? I have no idea. I'm doing the best that I can.1 -
Lots of advice and I do appreciate all the responses. I think my plan of attack with still "waste" one test on my husband either Wednesday or Thursday, even is he is asymptomatic. Then the following weekend, I am have my parents, DD, SIL and grandson over to celebrate parents 85 & 87 birthdays as well as grandson's 2nd. I will likely use up two more tests on my husband and myself as a precaution that morning. We'll see how that all shakes out.11
-
Re air circulation on planes: I am very sensitive to air quality. While it is true that there is great air circulation while the plane is *moving,* when last I flew regularly, 11 years ago, while the plane was on the ground there was a distinct decrease in air quality. Looks like that was still true in 2020:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-clean-is-the-air-on-your-airplane-coronavirus-cvd
...That’s why, in addition to good filters, airline cabins also need good passengers. This means everyone onboard should wear a mask.
That’s both because of masks’ proven protective qualities and the fact that HEPA filters and rapid-air circulation don’t work at max effectiveness until the plane is airborne. This means that the sometimes-interminable period between grabbing your seat and takeoff (or between landing and disembarking) is when you’re most likely to inhale a cloud of air from a person infected with COVID-19.
That stale, warm air you occasionally notice when a plane is on the ground sitting at the gate or idling might mean there’s little circulation through those filters.5 -
Eww cloud of covid. That was a disturbing mental image. 😳 🤢😷5
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Re air circulation on planes: I am very sensitive to air quality. While it is true that there is great air circulation while the plane is *moving,* when last I flew regularly, 11 years ago, while the plane was on the ground there was a distinct decrease in air quality. Looks like that was still true in 2020:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-clean-is-the-air-on-your-airplane-coronavirus-cvd
...That’s why, in addition to good filters, airline cabins also need good passengers. This means everyone onboard should wear a mask.
That’s both because of masks’ proven protective qualities and the fact that HEPA filters and rapid-air circulation don’t work at max effectiveness until the plane is airborne. This means that the sometimes-interminable period between grabbing your seat and takeoff (or between landing and disembarking) is when you’re most likely to inhale a cloud of air from a person infected with COVID-19.
That stale, warm air you occasionally notice when a plane is on the ground sitting at the gate or idling might mean there’s little circulation through those filters.
Your discussion is causing me to remember something from early on in the pandemic. Back in the beginning, weren't they "idling" the plane to keep those filters going? If so, I am not noticing that now.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions