Covid-19 discussion and humor thread [Was: CDC says don't touch your face to avoid Covid19...Vets to the rescue!

[plenzmd1]

11 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

I agree. We are seeing spikes in places that already dealt with covid cases and shut down once. People keep saying these states with large outbreaks are just dealing with covid for the first time but that’s not entirely true. Texas issued disaster and emergency declarations way back in March. Florida dealt with a large covid outbreak in April. And AFAIK All of these states currently dealing with outbreaks have had covid cases for months. 
 

 

I don't see the large outbreaks. All states issued disaster and emergency declarations to open up federal funds and assistance when everyone shut down in March .

 

I don't see the spike you are talking about in these states before late June. Graphs courtesy of worldometers, maybe there is a different sire that shows something different? BTW, i am somewhat technologically challenged, TBD would not let me post the CA graph, will do in the next post. But CA was one of the first to close and last to open, and graph looks quite similar to Florida and Texas. 

 

I am not making the argument that people's behavior does not impact the spread of the virus. I am saying we erred as a country shutting down the entire country when it appears, at least to me, lockdowns should have occured, and should be occurring now, in those areas that have these types of outbreaks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by plenzmd1

[plenzmd1]

All very similar patterns to NY ..my gut says if we had testing in January and February, NY would look just like these graphs 

 

[BillsFan4]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

I don't see the large outbreaks. All states issued disaster and emergency declarations to open up federal funds and assistance when everyone shut down in March .

 

I don't see the spike you are talking about in these states before late June. Graphs courtesy of worldometers, maybe there is a different sire that shows something different? BTW, i am somewhat technologically challenged, TBD would not let me post the CA graph, will do in the next post. But CA was one of the first to close and last to open, and graph looks quite similar to Florida and Texas. 

 

I am not making the argument that people's behavior does not impact the spread of the virus. I am saying we erred as a country shutting down the entire country when it appears, at least to me, lockdowns should have occured, and should be occurring now, in those areas that have these types of outbreaks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CA is also seeing another spike. I probably should have included them with the other states I mentioned.
 

I went over some of the numbers from Florida within the last few pages of this thread. I posted a timeline of covid in Florida. They had over 20,000 covid cases in April. DeSantis shut down specifically to get covid under control. 
 

On 7/20/2020 at 1:55 PM, BillsFan4 said:

Florida already had to shut down once a few months ago to get an outbreak under control.
 

30 day stay at home order, issued April 1st:

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/04/01/coronavirus-florida-governor-issues-statewide-30-day-stay-at-home-order/
 

timeline of covid in Florida:

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/03/20/timeline-the-spread-of-coronavirus-in-florida/

 

6000 cases on March 31st. Over 12,000 by April 5th. Over 21,000 positive cases by April 13th (almost double in 8 days. Starting to find thousand+ new cases every day). Over 26,000 by April 19th. Over 29,000 by April 23rd and 1000+ deaths. 

37,000 by May 4th.
 

Then they started opening again in mid May, with bars, tattoo shops (etc) and some theme parks opening in early-mid June. 
 

I don’t know if I’d call it a second spike or just a continuation of their first wave?

 

If the above isn’t an outbreak, then what is? 

 

The first outbreak in Texas wasn’t as bad as Florida, but they still had an outbreak. Their first case was way back in March. 
 

and again, I don’t think you need to have a large outbreak before you’re able to start limiting the spread of covid. The goal of all these guidelines is to avoid these large outbreaks at all.

Edited July 25, 2020 by BillsFan4

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 7/24/2020 at 7:07 AM, plenzmd1 said:

no matter what ya think of Fauci, this is pretty damn funny

 

 

 

Did I call it, or What?  I said he'd muff it!  But LOL at the comment!  He was social distancing that pitch!

 

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

All very similar patterns to NY ..my gut says if we had testing in January and February, NY would look just like these graphs 

 

 

I think your gut is correct.  There is a true statement being misinterpreted widely in the media right now.

The true statement is right now, the demographics of positive tests are showing more younger people infected.

The misinterpretation is "more young people are being infected than were infected in February/March".

 

The point is, we weren't testing asymptomatic people or contact tracing and testing in February and March.  We barely had enough tests to test sick people.  We weren't even broadly testing employees of nursing homes!!!!!  If we had been, I think what we'd see is this:

-young people get infected with few or no symptoms

-young people are the fuel who carry the fire to adults and elders

-~4-6 weeks later, enough adults and elders become seriously ill to fill up the hospitals

-18-21 days later, death rate starts to soar

[plenzmd1]

38 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

CA is also seeing another spike. I probably should have included them with the other states I mentioned.
 

I went over some of the numbers from Florida within the last few pages of this thread. I posted a timeline of covid in Florida. They had over 20,000 covid cases in April. DeSantis shut down specifically to get covid under control. 
 

 

If the above isn’t an outbreak, then what is? 

 

The first outbreak in Texas wasn’t as bad as Florida, but they still had an outbreak. Their first case was way back in March. 
 

and again, I don’t think you need to have a large outbreak before you’re able to start limiting the spread of covid. The goal of all these guidelines is to avoid these large outbreaks at all.

Well, i can tell you right now in Virginia we are averaging over 1K cases a day..or 30K a month..and certainly no talk here about an "outbreak" or cutting back on any thing that is open today..restaurants, churches, gyms( i am doing hot yoga again)..all retail..everything except inside bars really. So no, i would not agree that 20K cases in the 3rd most populous state in April would be considered an outbreak.

 

Agree on last sentence..i believe Northam's mask mandate was wise here in VA early on, before most states. As said, i think the hotspot states right now should have stricter lockdowns..but i dont think NY should ..do you? NY  had 906 new cases yesterday...900x30= 27K new cases over a month...less than the 20K cited above

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

I don't see the large outbreaks. All states issued disaster and emergency declarations to open up federal funds and assistance when everyone shut down in March .

 

This becomes a quibble about "what constitutes a large outbreak?"

 

The point is, covid-19 was in these states and widespread enough, with clear enough indications of community transmission, that public health officials looked at the daily case logs and said "yeah, this will blossom Big Time unless we shut stuff down until we get our testing and contact tracing in place"

 

But then instead of waiting for their metrics to meet the CDC guidelines and reopening gradually, these states all said "Outbreak?  We don't see no Stinkin' Outbreak here!  We don't need to do what NY did!  We're OPEN!"

 

It's not that the disease is magically travelling to places it hasn't been before WRT cities in FL, Texas, Arizona, Cali.   From a public health standpoint, there were significant outbreaks in many of these places.  They just figured they didn't need to do what NYC etc did because the disease wasn't that bad or something.  And now they're seeing that's wrong.

 

There ARE places where the disease was not a significant problem during the shutdown who are now seeing heavy blooms.  Places like SW MO and many rural counties in MO would be an example.  Again, these are places where the disease was unable to spread during a shutdown, but it was there - a few cases here and there - and once they re-opened, it spread.

People don't "Get It".  They're like "my county has 4 cases so why does my bar (or my church, or both) need to shut down and we need to abstain from large family social events?"  They don't "get it" that maybe their county only has 4 cases BECAUSE those things were shut down.

 

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Well, i can tell you right now in Virginia we are averaging over 1K cases a day..or 30K a month..and certainly no talk here about an "outbreak" or cutting back on any thing that is open today..restaurants, churches, gyms( i am doing hot yoga again)..all retail..everything except inside bars really. So no, i would not agree that 20K cases in the 3rd most populous state in April would be considered an outbreak.

 

Agree on last sentence..i believe Northam's mask mandate was wise here in VA early on, before most states. As said, i think the hotspot states right now should have stricter lockdowns..but i dont think NY should ..do you? NY  had 906 new cases yesterday...900x30= 27K new cases over a month...less than the 20K cited above

 

It all depends upon the distribution of those new cases, the amount and availability of testing that is being done, and the % positive tests.

To just look at statewide data (VA or NY) and make statements like this - well, you aren't an epidemiologist.

 

The Devil is always in the details.

 

[plenzmd1]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This becomes a quibble about "what constitutes a large outbreak?"

 

The point is, covid-19 was in these states and widespread enough, with clear enough indications of community transmission, that public health officials looked at the daily case logs and said "yeah, this will blossom Big Time unless we shut stuff down until we get our testing and contact tracing in place"

 

But then instead of waiting for their metrics to meet the CDC guidelines and reopening gradually, these states all said "Outbreak?  We don't see no Stinkin' Outbreak here!  We don't need to do what NY did!  We're OPEN!"

 

It's not that the disease is magically travelling to places it hasn't been before WRT cities in FL, Texas, Arizona, Cali.   From a public health standpoint, there were significant outbreaks in many of these places.  They just figured they didn't need to do what NYC etc did because the disease wasn't that bad or something.  And now they're seeing that's wrong.

 

There ARE places where the disease was not a significant problem during the shutdown who are now seeing heavy blooms.  Places like SW MO and many rural counties in MO would be an example.  Again, these are places where the disease was unable to spread during a shutdown, but it was there - a few cases here and there - and once they re-opened, it spread.

People don't "Get It".  They're like "my county has 4 cases so why does my bar (or my church, or both) need to shut down and we need to abstain from large family social events?"  They don't "get it" that maybe their county only has 4 cases BECAUSE those things were shut down.

 

 

It all depends upon the distribution of those new cases, the amount and availability of testing that is being done, and the % positive tests.

To just look at statewide data (VA or NY) and make statements like this - well, you aren't an epidemiologist.

 

The Devil is always in the details.

 

so just to play devils advocate..when should places open up? What constitutes an "outbreak"....purely low positivity rates? how many tests per capita?# of cases? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

18 hours ago, Buddo said:

 

Hopefully, someone sues him. Seems to me that unnecessarily removing local government powers, has directly impacted those communities. In a very bad way.

 

In far too many places, around the world, politics has got well in the way of attempts to mitigate covid.

 

A classic case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

 

I'm not a fan of lawsuits.  But it does seem to be an observation that some folks are against government overreach and interference with local government issues - right up until it gores their political Ox.  Then they're all for it.  Convenient.

Historically, local governments and states were given precedence to issue orders for the Public Health because it was recognized that the government of (say) St Louis needed latitude to deal effectively with a typhoid epidemic from contaminated water that wasn't state-wide.  And at times, disease outbreaks were recognized as multi-state issues (malaria mosquitos don't recognize state lines, I promise!) and the Federal government took a hand.  Widespread PR campaigns, promotion of window screens, and spraying of DDT in houses in Southern states during WWII is an example.

 

History lesson: When was the US Center for Disease Control established and why?  Answer: it was established in 1946, as the Malaria Control in War Areas project was coming to an end, because it was recognized that some Public Health threats affect the entire country or entire regions of the country if left unchecked, therefore as the war effort ramped down, continued coordinate Federal action on these was necessary for the health and safety of the country (which allow it to function as a Country)

 

By 1951, Malaria was considered eliminated in the United States, and at this point (69 years later) seems we've completely forgotten the Public Health lessons of the past.

If a local government or state government feels a public health measure is necessary in their area, given their demographics and their situation, interference should be cautious.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so just to play devils advocate..when should places open up? What constitutes an "outbreak"....purely low positivity rates? how many tests per capita?# of cases? 

 

Well, the actual CDC guidelines seem to be working pretty well in NYS.

 

But what would have made sense, IMO, was to follow the CDC guidelines (at least the guidelines as of April) which specify: how many tests must be done per 100,000 population to maintain surveillance; how many contact tracers must be in place; a specific decline in positive tests and % of positive tests for 14 days while test targets per 100,000 are still being met; and specific targets for capacity in hospital beds and ICUs. 

For a disease like this where we're still learning about transmission, phased reopening from perceived lowest risk, to highest risk with a chance to pause if things start to flare also makes sense. 

 

All from an epidemiological perspective.  It was epidemiology that set the # tests/100,000; # contact tracers/100,000; positive test %, and decline guidelines.

 

As for your question about "what constitutes an outbreak", it's not susceptible to a simple cut-and-dried answer. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_outbreak

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

I am not making the argument that people's behavior does not impact the spread of the virus. I am saying we erred as a country shutting down the entire country when it appears, at least to me, lockdowns should have occured, and should be occurring now, in those areas that have these types of outbreaks.

 

In other words, we should have waited to lock the barns until AFTER the horse fled? 

 

All the countries which shut down, and now have the virus contained - Italy, Spain, Germany, etc etc - faced this exact same situation on a smaller scale.  There were stricken areas, and there were areas with few cases, and they all shut down.

 

Why?  Because while necessary commerce takes place and travel is not strictly prohibited, contagious disease will spread.  You can't stop the spread of disease by shutting down local areas in the age of unrestricted automobile and airplane travel.  You need to deal with it in a coordinate way. 

 

And clear, effective communication about the need for these measures and the when/why of lifting them must take place.  There can not be mixed messages.

 

I think we erred in the opposite direction.  I just put this article up in the Facts thread.  Consider this figure:

 

The top is the impact of measures in NYC.  The blue smear in the bottom panel, indicates the time period over which variable measures were enacted in different states.  I don't think it takes a very vivid imagination to see that if there had been a single blue line, covid-19 across the country would have leveled off shortly after that point, and if the face coverings had been uniformly enacted at the same point, the same decline could have occurred.  Then the level of disease in the community would have been lowered to the point where testing and contact tracing could have contained it, country wide.

[BillsFan4]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Well, i can tell you right now in Virginia we are averaging over 1K cases a day..or 30K a month..and certainly no talk here about an "outbreak" or cutting back on any thing that is open today..restaurants, churches, gyms( i am doing hot yoga again)..all retail..everything except inside bars really. So no, i would not agree that 20K cases in the 3rd most populous state in April would be considered an outbreak.

 

Agree on last sentence..i believe Northam's mask mandate was wise here in VA early on, before most states. As said, i think the hotspot states right now should have stricter lockdowns..but i dont think NY should ..do you? NY  had 906 new cases yesterday...900x30= 27K new cases over a month...less than the 20K cited above

We will agree to disagree I guess.

 

NY issued their state wide stay at home order when there was 21,000 total cases in the state.
 

MA issued theirs with less than 1000 total cases in the state.

 

MI had 1,791 cases when they issued their stay at home orders.

 

NJ had 1,327 at the time of the stay at home order

 

Those were all places considered to have early outbreaks.

 

edit - my only real point was that Florida isn’t seeing this current surge because covid just got to their state.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by BillsFan4

[Figster]

At this point it appears testing is only catching 10% of the actually true number of people walking around with Covid 19. The long incubation period is making it impossible to control.

 

Home test kits and a per individual lockdown until testing negative twice through a one week time span might be the best way to corral Covid 19 in my humble opinion. One month and we could have the US back on track for a full recovery IMO. Having 90% of our Covid 19 case load walking the streets does not cut it.  

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BillsFan4 said:

We will agree to disagree I guess.

 

NY issued their state wide stay at home order when there was 21,000 total cases in the state.
 

MA issued theirs with less than 1000 total cases in the state.

 

MI had 1,791 cases when they issued their stay at home orders.

 

NJ had 1,327 at the time of the stay at home order

 

Those were all places considered to have early outbreaks.

 

Given the limited testing capacity, all of those responses were late in coming.

New Zealand, which has limited its covid-19 cases to ~1500, went to level 4 lock down mid-March when they had ~100 cases.

As the prime minister said: "we only have 100 cases now, but Northen Italy had 100 cases at one time"

An effective pandemic response requires containment action BEFORE the problem outgrows the capacity of the government in question to test, trace, and isolate.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

At this point it appears testing is only catching 10% of the actually true number of people walking around with Covid 19. The long incubation period is making it impossible to control.

 

The first statement may be correct in some parts of the US but not all.  Would you mind giving a source though? 

 

The "impossible to control" is an indefensible statement. It's a self-justificatory excuse for politicians who lack the public interest or the balls and the guts to actually take effective action to control covid-19, and for citizens who accept and enable this behavior. 

 

Norway - controlled. Denmark- controlled.  Ireland - controlled.  S. Korea - controlled.  Austria - controlled. Switzerland - controlled.  Germany - controlled.  Canada - controlled.  Italy - controlled.  Portugal - controlled.  Belgium - controlled.  France - controlled.  All Democracies.  Many of them miles of open borders.  (source: Worldometer)

 

354 million people live in those countries.

 

That's not to say it's easy - there are also a couple countries where control looks tenuous (Greece) or which had the epidemic reined in, but didn't have the proper containment measures in place when they eased off too far and are now surging - Spain, Australia, Japan, Israel (so much for "only flaring in places where it hasn't been before").

 

But to say it's "impossible to control" simply flies in the face of evidence of many countries which ARE controlling it - many of which were closed for less time and now have fewer restrictions.

 

By the way, It's not the "long incubation period" that's the challenge, it's pre- or a-symptomatic transmission, combined with the large number of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers.

 

If people mask up in public to cut down on transmission, avoid the highest-risk situations (being unmasked in crowds especially indoors), covid-19 can be contained as long as there's enough tracing capacity to trace all contacts, enough testing capacity to get prompt results on all contacts as well as to conveniently test all people who are symptomatic and all workers in care homes, there's no epidemiologic reason covid-19 can't be controlled.

 

Quote

Home test kits and a per individual lockdown until testing negative twice through a one week time span might be the best way to corral Covid 19 in my humble opinion. One month and we could have the US back on track for a full recovery IMO. Having 90% of our Covid 19 case load walking the streets does not cut it. 

 

1) we do not have accurate home test kits at the present time, let alone kits with high sensitivity

2) epidemiologically, your per individual timeline would not work on a one week time span.  

 

Nevertheless, there are measures that would work, with the tools we have in hand today.  We just don't want to use them.  I guess it's normal that everyone thinks he's an epidemiologist, but the fundamental problem here is not that we don't have damned good experienced epidemiologists who can figure out measures to take (short of locking down except in a few areas that are out of control currently - locking down was always a "hail Mary" desperation move).  It's that we're not giving authority to our epidemiologists with wholehearted and unconflicted support of our political leaders.

[Figster]

38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The first statement may be correct in some parts of the US but not all.  Would you mind giving a source though? 

 

The "impossible to control" is an indefensible statement. It's a self-justificatory excuse for politicians who lack the public interest or the balls and the guts to actually take effective action to control covid-19, and for citizens who accept and enable this behavior. 

 

Norway - controlled. Denmark- controlled.  Ireland - controlled.  S. Korea - controlled.  Austria - controlled. Switzerland - controlled.  Germany - controlled.  Canada - controlled.  Italy - controlled.  Portugal - controlled.  Belgium - controlled.  France - controlled.  All Democracies.  Many of them miles of open borders.  (source: Worldometer)

 

354 million people live in those countries.

 

That's not to say it's easy - there are also a couple countries where control looks tenuous (Greece) or which had the epidemic reined in, but didn't have the proper containment measures in place when they eased off too far and are now surging - Spain, Australia, Japan, Israel (so much for "only flaring in places where it hasn't been before").

 

But to say it's "impossible to control" simply flies in the face of evidence of many countries which ARE controlling it - many of which were closed for less time and now have fewer restrictions.

 

By the way, It's not the "long incubation period" that's the challenge, it's pre- or a-symptomatic transmission, combined with the large number of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers.

 

If people mask up in public to cut down on transmission, avoid the highest-risk situations (being unmasked in crowds especially indoors), covid-19 can be contained as long as there's enough tracing capacity to trace all contacts, enough testing capacity to get prompt results on all contacts as well as to conveniently test all people who are symptomatic and all workers in care homes, there's no epidemiologic reason covid-19 can't be controlled.

 

 

1) we do not have accurate home test kits at the present time, let alone kits with high sensitivity

2) epidemiologically, your per individual timeline would not work on a one week time span.  

 

Nevertheless, there are measures that would work, with the tools we have in hand today.  We just don't want to use them.  I guess it's normal that everyone thinks he's an epidemiologist, but the fundamental problem here is not that we don't have damned good experienced epidemiologists who can figure out measures to take (short of locking down except in a few areas that are out of control currently - locking down was always a "hail Mary" desperation move).  It's that we're not giving authority to our epidemiologists with wholehearted and unconflicted support of our political leaders.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cdc-study-covid-19-cases-may-be-10-times-higher-than-reported-214522682.html

 

Its averaged out and again 10 is the reoccurring number I keep hearing.

 

Myself personally, its obvious we don't have all the tools and resources needed to get a handle on the virus in my humble opinion Hapless.  For many of the reasons mentioned. I beg to differ on the long incubation period. 

 

Priortize the work force and begin testing at testing centers.  

 

2 week time span on testing negative, thanks

 

In other countries hit hard the virus has thoroughly run its course through them and built up some herd immunity IMO.     

Edited July 25, 2020 by Figster

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 minutes ago, Figster said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cdc-study-covid-19-cases-may-be-10-times-higher-than-reported-214522682.html

Its averaged out and again 10 is the reoccurring number I keep hearing.

 

Thanks.  Note that the study was conducted between March 23 and May 12, when case counts were higher and testing capacity lower.
 

Example from NYS (because they make it easy to find # tests, # positive tests, % positive tests):

https://forward.ny.gov/percentage-positive-results-region-dashboard
 

Note that during that time frame, the number of daily tests was lower, and the fraction of tests that were positive was much higher - 40% at one point!

With more tests and lower positivity rate, 10x no longer applies.

 

Now of course, in states which have a % positive rate and a # infected that is starting to look more like NYC in March, it could now be true again.

 

You "beg to differ" on the control aspect of the long incubation period of up to 14 days, then you propose as a solution having everyone test negative twice in a 1 week time span as a control measure?  I mean no offense, Figster, but you don't have to be an epidemiologist to see that 1) this is illogical - if the 14 day incubation period is what makes control problematic, two negative tests in a week won't cut it 2) ...Nah, I can't even.  Go offer your services to epidemiologists as a disease control expert and see what they say "is it a long incubation that makes a disease hard to control if people only become contagious once they're symptomatic?" "is a short incubation time easy to control if many infectious people are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?" 

 

See what they say

 

I notice you had nothing to say about my rebuttal to your "impossible to control" excuse.

[Figster]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks.  Note that the study was conducted between March 23 and May 12, when case counts were higher and testing capacity lower.
 

Example from NYS (because they make it easy to find # tests, # positive tests, % positive tests):

https://forward.ny.gov/percentage-positive-results-region-dashboard
 

Note that during that time frame, the number of daily tests was lower, and the fraction of tests that were positive was much higher - 40% at one point!

With more tests and lower positivity rate, 10x no longer applies.

 

Now of course, in states which have a % positive rate and a # infected that is starting to look more like NYC in March, it could now be true again.

 

You "beg to differ" on the control aspect of the long incubation period of up to 14 days, then you propose as a solution having everyone test negative twice in a 1 week time span as a control measure?  I mean no offense, Figster, but you don't have to be an epidemiologist to see that 1) this is illogical - if the 14 day incubation period is what makes control problematic, two negative tests in a week won't cut it 2) ...Nah, I can't even.  Go offer your services to epidemiologists as a disease control expert and see what they say "is it a long incubation that makes a disease hard to control if people only become contagious once they're symptomatic?" "is a short incubation time easy to control if many infectious people are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?" 

 

See what they say

 

I notice you had nothing to say about my rebuttal to your "impossible to control" excuse.

 

 The virus running its course through a country I don't consider controling. The virus running its course around the world I don't consider control. Instead of the allowing the virus to run its course here in the US we tried to intervene. Without a unified plan in place it created a situation that extended and worsened the hardships of the pandemic on the American people IMO. 

 

Allow me to explain myself,  If you test at the middle of the two week stay at home order and at the end you would have covered the incubation period IMO. ( two negatives a week apart) If you tested negative on the 1st day of a 14 day stay at home I don't think it tells you anything. Thus, why I thought two test at the middle and end of the 14 day stay at home would work as a double check and a wiser use of resources IMO. 

 

Updated Article on 90% of Covid 19 case load (on average) going undetected.

 

https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/antibody-tests-show-coronavirus-rates-10-times-higher-than-reported-cases-in-most-u-s-regions-cdc/

 

 The 14 day incubation period does present a problem IMO. Especilly considering you can spread the virus before or without symptoms.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Figster

[plenzmd1]

9 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

We will agree to disagree I guess.

 

NY issued their state wide stay at home order when there was 21,000 total cases in the state.
 

MA issued theirs with less than 1000 total cases in the state.

 

MI had 1,791 cases when they issued their stay at home orders.

 

NJ had 1,327 at the time of the stay at home order

 

Those were all places considered to have early outbreaks.

 

edit - my only real point was that Florida isn’t seeing this current surge because covid just got to their state.

 

And sure as chit as soon as I said no talk of walking back...

 

lord knows  we are all screwed up with this thing. 
 

sorry if I come across as an ass, ( course it’s cause I am) this poop is just getting to me. 
 

 

[BillsFan4]

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

And sure as chit as soon as I said no talk of walking back...

 

lord knows  we are all screwed up with this thing. 
 

sorry if I come across as an ass, ( course it’s cause I am) this poop is just getting to me. 
 

 

It’s all good. Nothing to apologize for. I understand. I think this stuff is taking its toll on a lot of us.