Ebola round 2

[pacu mom]

Made a quick dash into Home Depot yesterday early in the morning to avoid the crowds. Man at the entrance was wiping down shopping carts and courteously handing out masks to the people who tried to enter without a mask.

 

[skjl47]

This is not just a case of medical capacity, but more importantly keeping those working the front lines, free from stress overload. I have seen the result of that where I work, and we have yet to even come close to the flames. It doesn’t matter how much PPE is available, if we don’t have people to wear it.

Hello; We again have common ground. I include medical staff as part of the capacity not only equipment. Either without the other is not good.

 

[pacu mom]

Scuttlebutt from two sources is that a physician in our community is now infected. Really scary if this is true.

 

[jaws7777]

Hello; I have a somewhat different take on what appears to be happening in Sweden. By not doing the more strict lockdowns It was my understanding they could have and likely would have a higher infection rate early on in the course of the event. With the higher infection rate the likelihood of a higher per capita death rate would follow. This strategy should get the total number of infections to a percentage level that generates "herd" immunity sooner than the strict lockdown places.

In countries undergoing a more strict lockdown the hope was to blunt the initial infection rate for fear of the medical capacity becoming overwhelmed. At least that was the very early story with the flatten the curve rhetoric. The early version also then conceded that while slowing the infection rate, the flatter curve, that the total number of infections over time would be the same. The infection rate would be reduced day to day with the hope the hospital capacity could keep pace which indeed has happened. Under this plan It should take longer for the number of total infections to reach a "herd" immunity level.

Both plans should wind up with similar overall results depending on how a few circumstances play out. The big gamble for a less restriction plan such as Sweden's likely will to be the capacity of the medical facilities to keep up. As of this writing I do not personally know if their medical facilities have been able to keep up. Another gamble of this strategy could be a "game changer" medical treatment coming along early enough to make a big difference in the total overall results. If such a game changer did happen then any early deaths could be a liability for the less restriction plans. It is unknown by me, so far, if either or both of these gambles paid off or failed.

The big gamble of the more restricted plans appears to be the damage from the side effects of the more strict lockdowns. Here also the jury is still out for the total results, but some damage is already known. There appear to be at least two camps.

One camp seems to have a strong focus on only the loss of life actually caused directly by the virus itself with little consideration for the collateral damage. I guess if in the end they can point to a lower overall death rate they can declare a pyric victory of sorts.

Another camp has looked at the strict lockdowns with an eye to the overall damage from both the virus and the lockdowns. An additional point is not only the restrictions of the lockdowns but also the length of the lockdowns. At first the lockdowns were to be 14 days. Then they were extended several times even after it became clear the medical capacity could cope. It is too early to take a true measure of the damage of the lockdowns. Had a "game changer" medical treatment come along early in the lockdowns then that gamble would have seemed different. Such has not happened so we have the effects of the virus along with the effects of the lockdowns.

A last item seems to be that the people have now voted with their feet so to speak. Regardless of the outcome huge numbers of people in the USA have recently decided to ignore the lockdown and safe distancing restrictions. I guess they have just had all the restrictions they can take.

I got a phone call yesterday morning from a friend with an invitation to go for a ride with him and his son. Over the years when his son comes in we three would ride around just to be out and about. Do some shopping or sightseeing and eat at a good restaurant. I declined yesterday saying it is too early to be running around. His reply was they are healthy. I told him he could not actually know if they were infected for sure. I do not know if they ran around but I stayed home.

Nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong but i wonder if the admission was public relations damage control. I also wonder if she advised lock downs for h1n1 and sars? Ahh probably irrelevant.

I dont blame you for not going on the bike ride. Just not worth it at this point. We've had to do the same... which is basically stay away from all our friends.

wiping down shopping carts and courteously handing out masks to the people who tried to enter without a mask.

This is something i hope doesnt go away if and when we get out of this.

Scuttlebutt from two sources is that a physician in our community is now infected. Really scary if this is true.

Uh oh. Have you or anyone you've been in contact with seen this dr ?

 

[Jexnell]

My county is now on hold till they completely track down a outbreak at a local fruit packaging plant. So far 165 test of workers and 84 close contacts have yielded 69 infected workers and 14 family/close contacts who have tested positive.

The plant is now shut down for cleaning.

 

[RD.]

And the CDC now reports that antibody tests are not exactly fool proof. In fact they might be wrong up to half the time.

Labs

COVID-19 resources and guidelines for labs and laboratory workers.

www.cdc.gov

 

[skjl47]

And the CDC now reports that antibody tests are not exactly fool proof. In fact they might be wrong up to half the time.

Labs

COVID-19 resources and guidelines for labs and laboratory workers.

www.cdc.gov

Hello; After a quick read thru this morning I determined the link needed a more careful study. I just spent some time going thru the entire report. I did find the bit about some antibody tests may only be around 50% accuracy under specific testing conditions. There is also the bit about a couple of the tests being around 95% to 99% accurate under specific conditions. For my personal reasons I want a test I can have confidence in under very general conditions. Those conditions being I walk in off the street. Take a test and get reliable results. The case may be there are not yet any tests to have confidence in. The case may also be such a test exists but the "researchers" have not done enough checking it out yet to be willing to hang their reputations on.

The report is written in "science speak" with a lot of CYA thrown in. I am often guilty of such speak because in science it is often hard to have a 100% absolute without describing very specific conditions. I know I want an antibody test to tell me that yes I have the antibodies specifically for the new covid19 virus or no I do not have those specific antibodies. I also would want this test to mean by having the specific antibodies that I am immune to becoming infected and will not become ill again. So far the researchers are not willing to make such absolute statements. They do concede a guarded likelihood that having survived an initial infection of covid19 you will be immune to a later infection. They are just not ready to make that call yet. My personal take is once a reliable antibody test is available and if I test positive, then for my own purposes I will figure to be immune to that strain of covid19.


I also gathered some of the issues with these antibody tests are the many other corona type virus (SARS)(common cold) that have been around. Could be I misunderstood that segment, but my take is someone who had one of the other corona type virus infections may show a positive because of that other infection. That would be of little value since it could not be sure you had and successfully recovered from the new covid19 strain. A false positive in the sense you have antibodies for the other virus and not necessarily for covid19.

A good thing to take away is the varied and numerous problems are being identified. The kinks are being worked on.

 

[pacu mom]

A little over a week and a half ago, we had four total cases of COVID-19, all "recovered" This pm the health department stated that we have 43 diagnosed cases with 29 active cases and 179 tests still pending. Over half the cases were found by contact tracing and the people had NO symptoms. We are definitely going the wrong way. And yes, our community is starting to open up--churches, hair salons, barber shops, small business. Churches--masks indoors, 25% capacity or <100 people, whichever is less. They recommend all high risk people continue to stay at home.

 

[skjl47]

A little over a week and a half ago, we had four total cases of COVID-19, all "recovered" This pm the health department stated that we have 43 diagnosed cases with 29 active cases and 179 tests still pending. Over half the cases were found by contact tracing and the people had NO symptoms. We are definitely going the wrong way. And yes, our community is starting to open up--churches, hair salons, barber shops, small business. Churches--masks indoors, 25% capacity or <100 people, whichever is less. They recommend all high risk people continue to stay at home.

Hello; first let me say this may not be the answer to the increased number of cases before I go on. One of the comments I have heard of late is that as the testing capacity increases then so will the number of confirmed cases increase. My interpretation of this being it may not be a situation of finding new cases that did not previously exist, but may be a situation of identifying already existing cases with the increased testing capacity.
Again I may be wrong in looking at this way, but that is what the "experts" appeared to be saying. Even with the enhanced testing of the last days or weeks only a little over 4% of the total population of the USA has been tested is what I read today. For a long time who got tested was restricted by various criteria. (Note- I am talking about tests for active covid19 infections.) It is not clear to me that all restrictions are removed yet. I hear varying stories about this.
In my county there were 5 confirmed cases for a long time. I did not figure that to mean only five people were infected. For example I was sick in February but never went to a doctor. I have spoken to a few others who were ill around then and not tested. Your comment that when traced down over 50% who tested positive were asymptomatic seems very important to me.

Back many weeks ago when I first heard about significant numbers of the infected having little or no symptoms an idea was sprouted in my head. My other active brain cell latched onto that and generated a theory. As time has gone by the numbers of infected without symptoms increases. Some have figured as much as 50% or more as in your report. The CDC has published 35% as being reliable I believe. My theory hinges on a few things.
First is the virus got out into human populations as early as November 2019.
Next that it is easy to spread (Note - I still suspect it is more aerosol than just cough or sneeze droplets.)
Next is the more seriously ill from the infection, the old and otherwise infirmed, did not trigger much suspicion when they died. In other words that the old or people already otherwise having health issues dying did not raise an alarm like the young and healthy would have.
Next is even early on the death rate was not super scary like an Ebola outbreak would be.
Then when it started to become known that so many had picked up the virus and never even knew it a theory emerged.
I began to think the virus may turn out to have moved thru the population more thoroughly than suspected. I think I may have used this phrase already, but like generals are often accused of fighting the last war and are slow to adjust to new tactics or new weapons. I suspect our "experts" are waging against this new virus the same as they did against past infections. Can I be very, very wrong about this? Yes I can. It is so far not supported by much. There are a few other points that could be made but that is the crux of the theory.

 

[Ogertron3000]

Hello; first let me say this may not be the answer to the increased number of cases before I go on. One of the comments I have heard of late is that as the testing capacity increases then so will the number of confirmed cases increase. My interpretation of this being it may not be a situation of finding new cases that did not previously exist, but may be a situation of identifying already existing cases with the increased testing capacity.
Again I may be wrong in looking at this way, but that is what the "experts" appeared to be saying. Even with the enhanced testing of the last days or weeks only a little over 4% of the total population of the USA has been tested is what I read today. For a long time who got tested was restricted by various criteria. (Note- I am talking about tests for active covid19 infections.) It is not clear to me that all restrictions are removed yet. I hear varying stories about this.
In my county there were 5 confirmed cases for a long time. I did not figure that to mean only five people were infected. For example I was sick in February but never went to a doctor. I have spoken to a few others who were ill around then and not tested. Your comment that when traced down over 50% who tested positive were asymptomatic seems very important to me.

Back many weeks ago when I first heard about significant numbers of the infected having little or no symptoms an idea was sprouted in my head. My other active brain cell latched onto that and generated a theory. As time has gone by the numbers of infected without symptoms increases. Some have figured as much as 50% or more as in your report. The CDC has published 35% as being reliable I believe. My theory hinges on a few things.
First is the virus got out into human populations as early as November 2019.
Next that it is easy to spread (Note - I still suspect it is more aerosol than just cough or sneeze droplets.)
Next is the more seriously ill from the infection, the old and otherwise infirmed, did not trigger much suspicion when they died. In other words that the old or people already otherwise having health issues dying did not raise an alarm like the young and healthy would have.
Next is even early on the death rate was not super scary like an Ebola outbreak would be.
Then when it started to become known that so many had picked up the virus and never even knew it a theory emerged.
I began to think the virus may turn out to have moved thru the population more thoroughly than suspected. I think I may have used this phrase already, but like generals are often accused of fighting the last war and are slow to adjust to new tactics or new weapons. I suspect our "experts" are waging against this new virus the same as they did against past infections. Can I be very, very wrong about this? Yes I can. It is so far not supported by much. There are a few other points that could be made but that is the crux of the theory.

I think your theory may be correct. In Germany they have done testing for antibodies and were shocked at the amount of people who had been infected and had no idea. We have ramped up the testing here and cases have jumped a bit, from 1 or 2 a day up to 15 some days. Apparently the idea is more about studying how and where it is spreading more than identifying new cases.
I guess your analogy about old wars is right, purely because this is so new and the "experts" don't really know what to do. The only thing they can do, especially at the beginning of the outbreak is what's worked in the past until they can figure out what would work better.
As I've said, our government has actually done a very good job controlling it and "flattering the curve" we have only 100 deaths since it started. Now we will see how the economy has been hit over the next few years. My 2 main concerns are that everyone is acting like it's all over and we will get hit with a second wave and also this virus will become a seasonal thing and come back every year like the flu. Obviously we can't do a lockdown every year and I'm doubtful a vaccine will truly work against a virus that can mutate like the flu.