GoldZ
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 932
Well ok den, if da Volnation sez it.....it must be correct, kinda like dat internet thingy! Just blowing off some cabin fever YJF2018. :>)
- Status
ncjacket79
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,237
As red has already said nothing in this post is accurate. 2 people who didn’t show symptoms is meaningless. I hope you never know anyone who is infected and has serious complications or death but that doesn’t prove a thing.
LibertyTurns
Banned
- Messages
- 6,216
Germany’s population affected is much younger than anyone else’s. Is that due to testing more people, due to the outbreak was centered in the Alps at ski resorts or something else?
The idea of hospital staff driving to residences to check on those infected instead of everyone going to the hospital seems to be a good tactic as is the blood testing to figure out when to put people on a ventilator. They’re also doing group testing of hospital people instead of individual tests, doubling back if someone pops hot. I guess they get more testing that way.
- Messages
- 5,902
FWIW, my gut is that once sports returns to the US, it will be professional leagues first.
They have deeper pockets and players who are being paid, so they are more likely to give it a go first as well as having the financial resources to potentially set something up that would be deemed safe enough.
I can't see college administrators or the NCAA give any approval to allowing 'student-athletes' to play until some professional league in the US first shows it is willing to do it and can make it work .
the University System of Georgia has already announced that summer school will be remote. So I don't see their being any students on campus (including student-athletes) as long as that is in place. That would push the earliest any students could return to campus into August. And I don't see them making an exception for student-athletes. Would sort of undermine their whole rationale for doing it in the first place. The USG didn't even guarantee that students would be on campus in the fall they just said they hope they will be able to.
They have deeper pockets and players who are being paid, so they are more likely to give it a go first as well as having the financial resources to potentially set something up that would be deemed safe enough.
I can't see college administrators or the NCAA give any approval to allowing 'student-athletes' to play until some professional league in the US first shows it is willing to do it and can make it work .
the University System of Georgia has already announced that summer school will be remote. So I don't see their being any students on campus (including student-athletes) as long as that is in place. That would push the earliest any students could return to campus into August. And I don't see them making an exception for student-athletes. Would sort of undermine their whole rationale for doing it in the first place. The USG didn't even guarantee that students would be on campus in the fall they just said they hope they will be able to.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
Well, we’re testing 3x more per week. So you also have to ask what the cost-benefit is if you truly are getting 98% negatives on your tests. Our biggest problem has always been compliance, not lack of tests. New York City only closed its playgrounds and parks in April, and the subways are still full every day. Remember, we’re testing about 1,000,000 per week, and that’s AFTER pre-screening, and we’re still getting 85% negatives. America is a super fat country unlike no other, and that continues to be a major risk factor with this virus.
Last edited by a moderator:
LibertyTurns
Banned
- Messages
- 6,216
You got a point. How come health professionals are wrong 49 times out of 50 determining whether or not someone has it? You’d think they should be a bit closer by now, like 50-50. A lot of tests are being wasted.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
Could be liability? Test more than medically necessary in case they’re wrong so they don’t get sued?
Jim Prather
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,044
That's spectacular. Thank you for finding that.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
If I’m reading the data correctly, and if the data is correct, France had by far it’s worse daily numbers yet. By a country mile. I wonder if people were fleeing from Spain or something. France May be the next European death whack-a-mole.
GT_EE78
Banned
- Messages
- 3,605
responses in bold
That article is a huge mixed bag of both good and misleading info.
I'm only going to respond to misleading items.
Anything that reminds one that masks aren't perfect and don't replace other guidelines is a good thing!
1. If we use all the medical grade masks, medical personnel face an even worse shortage than they face now
Prioritizing them is necessary but media also need to be asking when the good masks will be available for everyone.
They need to be available for everyone to purchase asap IMHO.
CDC had only one job yet once again they are way behind on this issue.
2. Masks are somewhat effective, but if they give a false sense of confidence then people will expose themselves more while wearing masks.
You can't fix stupid. This changes nothing and is a poor message, There are already people who ignore "stay at home" and social distancing.
I get it. You want to do *anything* you can to prevent the spread of this virus to you and your loved ones.
As it should be
2. There is no evidence that “mask-wearing countries” have lower rates of spread *because of* mask wearing.
There is no evidence that “mask-wearing countries” DO NOT have lower rates of spread *because of* mask wearing.
I'll err on the side of caution.
China,S Korea,Japan,Taiwan,Singapore all knew about masks from the get go. and so did the USA in 1918.
I've already posted info for DIY masks and cleaning
3. Remember: the masks that you will be using let in (& out) 60-97% of viral particles, depending on the mask you use.
60-97% is just plain wrong.maybe some are as poor as 3% filtering but many are better than the 40% filtering she falsely advertises
half of virus particles are 4 micron or larger and an N95 blocks 95% of those - hence the name
masks also reduce hand to face contact especially hand to mouth.
4. The virus can enter and infect you through your eyes.
Unless one has been eating batwings, people don't inhale thru their eyes.
Technically this is true but it's mostly because of hand to face contact except when one is ib a highly concentrated atmosphere like in a patient area.
virus particles aren't like gnats who will make a beeline to eyes,ears,nose.
Healthcare workers are using googles and/or face shields because of this.
technically true but primarily Healthcare workers are using face shields to protect the mask from patient cough or sneeze.
7. Your mask becomes contaminated when it is exposed to the virus. When you take it off, do it outside or in your garage, grasping it with one finger by the ear straps and put it in the trash. Immediately do thorough hand washing or sanitizing. Cloth masks should be washed.
people don't know when they are exposed.
due to limited supply for citizens the masks need to be reused. hang drying it by the strap(3-4 days) allows the particles to die.
much of this article is poorly written
8. Masks are *meant* to protect other people from you, not you from other people. Misleading to FALSE
surgicals were meant to protect others but also protect the wearer
(see my previous JAMA linked post where 78% of virus nurses were protected by surgical masks)
the N95 etal were always intended to protect the wearer. She should have known better than to have written this.
Mask wearing works best if sick people have them on.
Mask wearing works best if Healthy people AND sick people have them on.
some 10% to 40% of spreaders are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. so yes having them on sick people is huge!
below are CDC guidelines circa 2002 for SARS
Do surgical masks provide protection against SARS?
Surgical masks are not designed for use as particulate respirators and do not provide as much protection as an N-95 respirator.
If surgical masks do not protect against airborne diseases, why are surgical masks suggested for use against SARS when no N-95 respirators are available?
Surgical masks are recommended only as a last resort for health care and medical transport workers exposed to SARS patients when no NIOSH-approved respirator equivalent to or greater than the N-95 is available.
> N95 clearly better but see the other link i posted where each was 78% effective for virus Nurses. Don't poopoo the masks
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/factsheets/respsars.html
9. Consider the social consequences and harm to communities of color when they wear masks. Do not socially shame them if they make a different decision than you. I still can't imagine why this was included.
chris975d
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 903
This is where I’m at with it as well. If students can’t be on campus until Fall at the earliest, I’d say it’s safe to say athletes won’t either. So no organized anything (practice, etc) until Fall at the earliest? How could we have anything remotely resembling a traditional season with that? At best, at best we would have a shortened season, and I don’t see anyone risking that. I’ve personally resigned myself to thinking that there’s no college football this year, and just maybe I’m wrong.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,152
Very useful post. But you left out laughing. That can spread virus as effectively as coughing.
- Messages
- 15,724
The NYC Subways are full because, for good reason, service has been cut. For all we know, the people on the subways are deemed essential workers or traveling to gather food & supplies.
MTA ridership is at all time lows.
I feel confident there is lack of compliance on Social Distancing in the parks. Unfortunately, I was part of that yesterday at the supermarket where some aisles just left limited choice to be near people, but I moved quickly as possible through any choke points. That said, except for the supermarket 1-2 times/week, I haven't left my building for 4 weeks already, which I'm OK with, given the situation.
I will say that the streets near me are quite empty with significant declines in foot & car traffic.
Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
Number 9 is disgusting, and I agree with you on why it was included.
gtchem05
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 394
There is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people misinterpreting the facts. My interpretation is far from perfect either, but I want to share a few thoughts that I hope are helpful and might perhaps clear up some misconceptions.
I really like RamblinRed's posts because they are based mostly in the land of fact. So I am going to piggyback on a couple of things that he is said.
On Michael Cunningham's article in the AJC:
Cunningham references comments from Dr. Vivek Murthy, former US Surgeon General. Here is a link to the comments: I have listened to Dr. Murthy speak in person and he appears to be a very articulate and thoughtful physician. Unfortunately, Cunningham extrapolates Murthy's comments about a second wave of coronavirus as reason for alarm and canceling sports this fall. Murthy neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
On waves of COVID-19:
Yes, it is true there will be additional waves of the virus. Probably by the time it reaches a third wave, individual waves will not really be distinguishable. Regardless, like an aftershock from an earthquake, each wave is less severe than the previous. A second wave of coronavirus is very unlikely to overwhelm the medical system. Please remember that the whole reason our society is doing the isolation/mitigation is to avoid overwhelming the medical system. That is the only reason. It prevents some deaths because we do not have to ration critical supplies like ventilator machines, but it does not prevent any cases. It just spreads them out over time. If you look at the attached flattened curve graphic it is important to note that the area under the curve stays the same. The number of people with COVID-19 is the area under the curve. Now, it is true that an individual could consider isolating him or herself extremely stringently and potentially avoid exposure to COVID-19. This is very cumbersome and impractical for anyone except the extreme elderly and chronically ill. I get the impression that some people think they are going to avoid coming into contact with COVID-19 until after a vaccine or treatment comes out. To that I say good luck but don't hold your breath. Just like its other coronavirus predecessors, COVID-19 will become endemic. Within this year a large number and perhaps even a majority of us will have been exposed to it. In the next 2 to 3 years, the vast majority will have been exposed to the virus. Which brings me to the next couple of topics that I'm going to put in another post since this one is getting long.
I really like RamblinRed's posts because they are based mostly in the land of fact. So I am going to piggyback on a couple of things that he is said.
On Michael Cunningham's article in the AJC:
Cunningham references comments from Dr. Vivek Murthy, former US Surgeon General. Here is a link to the comments: I have listened to Dr. Murthy speak in person and he appears to be a very articulate and thoughtful physician. Unfortunately, Cunningham extrapolates Murthy's comments about a second wave of coronavirus as reason for alarm and canceling sports this fall. Murthy neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
On waves of COVID-19:
Yes, it is true there will be additional waves of the virus. Probably by the time it reaches a third wave, individual waves will not really be distinguishable. Regardless, like an aftershock from an earthquake, each wave is less severe than the previous. A second wave of coronavirus is very unlikely to overwhelm the medical system. Please remember that the whole reason our society is doing the isolation/mitigation is to avoid overwhelming the medical system. That is the only reason. It prevents some deaths because we do not have to ration critical supplies like ventilator machines, but it does not prevent any cases. It just spreads them out over time. If you look at the attached flattened curve graphic it is important to note that the area under the curve stays the same. The number of people with COVID-19 is the area under the curve. Now, it is true that an individual could consider isolating him or herself extremely stringently and potentially avoid exposure to COVID-19. This is very cumbersome and impractical for anyone except the extreme elderly and chronically ill. I get the impression that some people think they are going to avoid coming into contact with COVID-19 until after a vaccine or treatment comes out. To that I say good luck but don't hold your breath. Just like its other coronavirus predecessors, COVID-19 will become endemic. Within this year a large number and perhaps even a majority of us will have been exposed to it. In the next 2 to 3 years, the vast majority will have been exposed to the virus. Which brings me to the next couple of topics that I'm going to put in another post since this one is getting long.
Attachments
- Messages
- 5,902
that's sort of the place i've come to Chris. I've come to accpetance that we may not have sports in the fall (not just college football, but NFL, PGA etc.)- and that if we do, then that is first a pleasant bonus, and second, means things are going really well against COVID19
gtchem05
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 394
On a vaccine:
I see people putting a lot of hope in a vaccine. I would caution against that. By the time a vaccine is actually developed, there is probably going to be a fair amount of herd immunity to COVID-19 and a vaccine may not even be warranted. But even if a vaccine is warranted there are other issues: Immunity to coronaviruses does not typically last very long, may be 2 to 3 years on average. The reason we do not have vaccines for other coronaviruses is twofold: one is because they do not cause significant mortality and the other is because a vaccine is unlikely to create immunity that would last for more than 2 to 3 years. I also do not expect to see a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine because COVID-19 outbreaks are likely to become sporadic rather than seasonal like the flu and COVID-19 doesn't seasonally mutate like the flu. Lastly, the population who would benefit most from a coronavirus vaccine are the elderly and immune suppressed, and unfortunately, elderly and immune suppressed people are the ones that respond poorest to a vaccine. On a more positive note, if a vaccine is going to be developed we certainly have the best and brightest working on it. I am hopeful that this will happen. If it does, we need to encourage everyone including the young and healthy to get it in order for it to have the best chance of success.
On a treatment:
Sorry to be a Debbie-downer, but I have similar pessimism about a treatment. We have been trying to come up with a treatment for the other coronaviruses that cause the common cold for many years. All we have to show for it is Vicks vapor rub and NyQuil. I would love more than anything for a proven treatment to be developed and hopefully it is, but I am also not holding my breath on this one either.
Isn't COVID-19 just a bad cold like the other coronaviruses or the flu?:
Hell no! COVID-19 is way worse than other coronaviruses because it has a protein structure that allows it to bind to and invade respiratory epithelial cells much more effectively than its predecessors. As Red mentioned above, it is super contagious - much more contagious than MERS or SARS. The mortality rate of COVID-19 speaks for itself. Of note, the mortality rate that does not speak for itself is influenza. The number of influenza-caused deaths in this country, and therefore the mortality rate, are likely much lower than the CDC estimates. I am not some sort of weird conspiracy theorist, but I have read on its own website in detail how the CDC makes this calculation and I think it is poorly-contrived at best. They do not actually use death certificates, but they have weird formulas that make a lot of assumptions about who may have had flu and who may have died from it. I will spare you any additional comments on that but bottom line is that the flu deaths are a gross underestimate. Think about it. How many celebrities or prominent figures have you already heard of that have died of COVID-19? Now, how many have you heard of that have died of influenza this season? COVID-19 isn't just a little bit more deadly than the flu, it's way more deadly than the flu especially in the elderly and chronically ill.
I see people putting a lot of hope in a vaccine. I would caution against that. By the time a vaccine is actually developed, there is probably going to be a fair amount of herd immunity to COVID-19 and a vaccine may not even be warranted. But even if a vaccine is warranted there are other issues: Immunity to coronaviruses does not typically last very long, may be 2 to 3 years on average. The reason we do not have vaccines for other coronaviruses is twofold: one is because they do not cause significant mortality and the other is because a vaccine is unlikely to create immunity that would last for more than 2 to 3 years. I also do not expect to see a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine because COVID-19 outbreaks are likely to become sporadic rather than seasonal like the flu and COVID-19 doesn't seasonally mutate like the flu. Lastly, the population who would benefit most from a coronavirus vaccine are the elderly and immune suppressed, and unfortunately, elderly and immune suppressed people are the ones that respond poorest to a vaccine. On a more positive note, if a vaccine is going to be developed we certainly have the best and brightest working on it. I am hopeful that this will happen. If it does, we need to encourage everyone including the young and healthy to get it in order for it to have the best chance of success.
On a treatment:
Sorry to be a Debbie-downer, but I have similar pessimism about a treatment. We have been trying to come up with a treatment for the other coronaviruses that cause the common cold for many years. All we have to show for it is Vicks vapor rub and NyQuil. I would love more than anything for a proven treatment to be developed and hopefully it is, but I am also not holding my breath on this one either.
Isn't COVID-19 just a bad cold like the other coronaviruses or the flu?:
Hell no! COVID-19 is way worse than other coronaviruses because it has a protein structure that allows it to bind to and invade respiratory epithelial cells much more effectively than its predecessors. As Red mentioned above, it is super contagious - much more contagious than MERS or SARS. The mortality rate of COVID-19 speaks for itself. Of note, the mortality rate that does not speak for itself is influenza. The number of influenza-caused deaths in this country, and therefore the mortality rate, are likely much lower than the CDC estimates. I am not some sort of weird conspiracy theorist, but I have read on its own website in detail how the CDC makes this calculation and I think it is poorly-contrived at best. They do not actually use death certificates, but they have weird formulas that make a lot of assumptions about who may have had flu and who may have died from it. I will spare you any additional comments on that but bottom line is that the flu deaths are a gross underestimate. Think about it. How many celebrities or prominent figures have you already heard of that have died of COVID-19? Now, how many have you heard of that have died of influenza this season? COVID-19 isn't just a little bit more deadly than the flu, it's way more deadly than the flu especially in the elderly and chronically ill.
RyanS12
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,084
- Location
- Flint Michigan
My wife being a nurse and talking with infectious disease doctors about a vaccine was told that it could be a year before a vaccine that actually works will be available. My wife asked about giving one to our kids when it firsts comes out and he advised her to hold off because they won’t be completely sure of side effects and if it will even help.
gtchem05
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 394
I see comments suggesting that we can't have football this fall because the players will need to be tested way too frequently and fans would need to be screened before going into the stadium. It's true, something like that would be incredibly cumbersome and difficult to pull off. I do not think is going to be necessary though. Remember this virus is going to be endemic. If you are football fan this fall and you want to go to a game then you have already accepted that you are going to get exposed to COVID-19 just like you might get exposed to it at work, shopping, from your kids, or lots of other places. If you are elderly or chronically ill this fall, you might want to stay away from things like football games, movies theaters, shopping malls and snotty kids. As far as the legal part goes, I am not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be pretty easy for ticket vendors to put in that long list of fine print that includes a check box saying that you 'accept terms and conditions' to include that the host stadium is not responsible for exposure to COVID-19 or other viruses.
As far as the players go, they will probably have to sign some sort of waiver about exposure, but the big key here is that immunity testing will be available by the fall and may play a key role in understanding exactly how much risk the players are exposing themselves to. Certainly those who have demonstrated immunity will not need to have any additional testing performed and would be at very low risk for both contracting and spreading the virus.
Looking forward to cheering on the Jackets this fall!
P.S. One last thing on treatment:
Although it will likely only be available to the critically ill, convalescent serum treatment may actually be a viable option. https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/03/ho...s-first-plasma-transfusion-to-treat-covid-19/
As far as the players go, they will probably have to sign some sort of waiver about exposure, but the big key here is that immunity testing will be available by the fall and may play a key role in understanding exactly how much risk the players are exposing themselves to. Certainly those who have demonstrated immunity will not need to have any additional testing performed and would be at very low risk for both contracting and spreading the virus.
Looking forward to cheering on the Jackets this fall!
P.S. One last thing on treatment:
Although it will likely only be available to the critically ill, convalescent serum treatment may actually be a viable option. https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/03/ho...s-first-plasma-transfusion-to-treat-covid-19/
Last edited:
- Status