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

[plenzmd1]

 

 

Posted 1 hour ago

  Quote

People like to keep saying this

What you seem to have skated by (it has been pointed out, up thread), is that

1) the high risk people - the people who have comorbid conditions identified as risk factors for more serious covid-19 disease/hospitalization - may include half of us.  Hypertension, obesity, diabetes, heart disease - the identified risk factors - affect roughly 50% of the American population, and certainly some of these affect NFL staff including coaches.  It probably includes a significant number of players since some of them are known to have diabetes (well controlled I assume), statistically some are likely to have high blood pressure (hopefully well controlled), and DL and OLmen are encouraged to "block a lot of daylight" and thus may be obese in terms of weight and body fat % - fit and amazingly athletic, but obese.

2) how exactly does this "high risk people stay home" thing work?  Obviously they can not attend sporting events, but what about the rest of life?  Don't answer here, but please consider answering in the Covid discussion thread on OTW.  How do these high risk people obtain groceries, medical care, money (if they need to work), personal care if they need assistance with "activities of daily living" or even just with driving and cleaning the house?

 

@Hapless Bills Fan

 

Will do my best to answer your here. 

 

First, i do not buy the argument that half of the US population carries higher risk factors and much higher risk of bad outcomes . I dont buy that, and think it highlights what many have dubbed "panic porn".

 

If that were the case, ;logically would not young people with those conditions be dying at the same rate as older people?  This has been proven to be much more fatal to older folks with one or more comorbidity factors...you would have to show me the numbers to convince me young and old affected the same , i have not seen numbers like that and have no idea where i could find them.

 

2nd. Not quite sure what your point is on #2 . If your thesis is that because 50% have high risk factors , we should continue with lockdown and only keep essential services open? Things like grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, Walmart etc?

 

If that is the case, one has to assume a good portion of those folks work in grocery stores, work picking up trash, work cleaning hospitals, provising personal care to the elderly..in other words people who are doing "essential" jobs now..make up 50% of those jobs as well.  We also know minorities  make up a higher portion of those jobs, so i would say that even higher than 50% rhigh risk factor make up those jobs now. We know minority is  truly a high risk factor due to more crowded living conditions and more multi generational housing.  

 

So, I will ask you how have those people getting those services/goods now? Is it okay for higher risks groups to continue to work and continue to place their families at risk while the rest of us stay home and get paid, order Grubhub, order Amazon everyday, go to Lowes cause I need to get my garden in, protest in groups of hundreds of thousands? Is it okay to continue to have migrant farm workers and hispanic workers at meat plants work as cases in those environments spike like crazy?  If so, please tell me why?

 

My answer is those with true , proven, high risk factors are guaranteed pay through we get a vaccine or  very extremly effective  therpy, and a guaranteed job upon return. If you have an elder in your home with comorbidity factors, they need to be self isolated as muchas possible and those families are giving the absolute top notch PPE that prevents transmission

[BillsFan4]

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/texas-players-coronavirus-longhorns-01eb43t8ys99

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Red states spiking

 

A Republican sheriff in Arizona who in April said he would refuse to continue enforcing the state’s coronavirus lockdown order has tested positive for the contagion during a visit to the White House.

 

 

Do I read that as - he went to visit the WH and was tested and refused entry?

[The Dean]

3 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

Red states spiking

 

A Republican sheriff in Arizona who in April said he would refuse to continue enforcing the state’s coronavirus lockdown order has tested positive for the contagion during a visit to the White House.

 

 

Do I read that as - he went to visit the WH and was tested and refused entry?

 

 

Lamb likely got infected at a June 14 reelection event, he said. Video from the event, in San Tan Valley, Arizona, shows Lamb greeting and interacting with supporters, according to the Casa Grande Dispatch.

Neither the sheriff nor the event's attendees wear masks in the video, it shows.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/us/gop-sheriff-arizona-covid-19-trnd/index.html

 

Complete freaking morons. What else is there to say?

[plenzmd1]

On 6/17/2020 at 1:11 PM, plenzmd1 said:

 

 

Posted 1 hour ago

  Quote

People like to keep saying this

What you seem to have skated by (it has been pointed out, up thread), is that

1) the high risk people - the people who have comorbid conditions identified as risk factors for more serious covid-19 disease/hospitalization - may include half of us.  Hypertension, obesity, diabetes, heart disease - the identified risk factors - affect roughly 50% of the American population, and certainly some of these affect NFL staff including coaches.  It probably includes a significant number of players since some of them are known to have diabetes (well controlled I assume), statistically some are likely to have high blood pressure (hopefully well controlled), and DL and OLmen are encouraged to "block a lot of daylight" and thus may be obese in terms of weight and body fat % - fit and amazingly athletic, but obese.

2) how exactly does this "high risk people stay home" thing work?  Obviously they can not attend sporting events, but what about the rest of life?  Don't answer here, but please consider answering in the Covid discussion thread on OTW.  How do these high risk people obtain groceries, medical care, money (if they need to work), personal care if they need assistance with "activities of daily living" or even just with driving and cleaning the house?

 

@Hapless Bills Fan

 

Will do my best to answer your here. 

 

First, i do not buy the argument that half of the US population carries higher risk factors and much higher risk of bad outcomes . I dont buy that, and think it highlights what many have dubbed "panic porn".

 

If that were the case, ;logically would not young people with those conditions be dying at the same rate as older people?  This has been proven to be much more fatal to older folks with one or more comorbidity factors...you would have to show me the numbers to convince me young and old affected the same , i have not seen numbers like that and have no idea where i could find them.

 

2nd. Not quite sure what your point is on #2 . If your thesis is that because 50% have high risk factors , we should continue with lockdown and only keep essential services open? Things like grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, Walmart etc?

 

If that is the case, one has to assume a good portion of those folks work in grocery stores, work picking up trash, work cleaning hospitals, provising personal care to the elderly..in other words people who are doing "essential" jobs now..make up 50% of those jobs as well.  We also know minorities  make up a higher portion of those jobs, so i would say that even higher than 50% rhigh risk factor make up those jobs now. We know minority is  truly a high risk factor due to more crowded living conditions and more multi generational housing.  

 

So, I will ask you how have those people getting those services/goods now? Is it okay for higher risks groups to continue to work and continue to place their families at risk while the rest of us stay home and get paid, order Grubhub, order Amazon everyday, go to Lowes cause I need to get my garden in, protest in groups of hundreds of thousands? Is it okay to continue to have migrant farm workers and hispanic workers at meat plants work as cases in those environments spike like crazy?  If so, please tell me why?

 

My answer is those with true , proven, high risk factors are guaranteed pay through we get a vaccine or  very extremly effective  therpy, and a guaranteed job upon return. If you have an elder in your home with comorbidity factors, they need to be self isolated as muchas possible and those families are giving the absolute top notch PPE that prevents transmission

No response or rebuttal @Hapless Bills Fan, promised me as much more than 24 hours ago. 

[Punching Bag]

I used to follow advice of expert and wore mask constantly but discovered that he could not differentiate between facts and opinions, connotation and denotations, rationality or mob mentality so figured he must be wrong on that so I stopped.

 

Still work at home per rules but agency is like expert - says one thing but then hammers you for not completely paperwork not due to end of August and incapable of being done remotely.  Sent multiple queries asking how to get it done with tools provided and no response because tools are inadequate but agency wants to claim it is doing everything they can to make it possible to work remotely.  Reviewer is same person who created the slides and if you do not agree take it up with head of agency.  The paperwork?  Just read some PowerPoint slides and acknowledge you have read them.  Not even a quiz to make your understand what you have read (and there were several pages which contradicted each other).  This could have been done many other ways but Head of Security stated do it this way or be denied access despite due date being end of August and likely will be working in office by then with issues due to inadequate remote "best of class" tools not being an issue but Head of Security is using cooked data and projections to replace facts.

 

[plenzmd1]

12 hours ago, The Dean said:

 

 

Lamb likely got infected at a June 14 reelection event, he said. Video from the event, in San Tan Valley, Arizona, shows Lamb greeting and interacting with supporters, according to the Casa Grande Dispatch.

Neither the sheriff nor the event's attendees wear masks in the video, it shows.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/us/gop-sheriff-arizona-covid-19-trnd/index.html

 

Complete freaking morons. What else is there to say?

just saying...

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR1EoJkVn0xxmfBb6RNhasEb2XXM6E2Lr-p7YOMrvMFl9iMBwKPQLl96lIo

 

I mean it is the New England Journal Of Medicine...

 

Quote

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

 

[muppy]

LOL  

[BillsFan4]

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

just saying...

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR1EoJkVn0xxmfBb6RNhasEb2XXM6E2Lr-p7YOMrvMFl9iMBwKPQLl96lIo

 

I mean it is the New England Journal Of Medicine...

 

 

 

From the New England journal of medicine on the article you posted:

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836

 

Quote

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)¹ as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions.^2,3 Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not.⁴

 

We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.^5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.⁸ We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by BillsFan4

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

From the New England journal of medicine on the article you posted:

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836

 

 

not sure your point...calls only for masks when you will be in sustained contact with someone and will be within 6 feet of them for that sustained period of time. To be clear, i have been wearing a mask since mid March. 

 

But the science of mask wearing is not cut and dried..for example wearing them outside seems to make zero sense. Wearing them in a store seems to make little sense based on this article, wearing them anywhere where you will not be in close contact for a sustained period of time seems to make little sense. 

 

Am i reading that wrong?

[BillsFan4]

Hey @Hapless Bills Fan did you see this?

 

https://connectingvets.radio.com/articles/fort-benning-confirms-142-covid-19-cases-in-2-battalions

 

“8 days after quarantine and testing negative, 142 Fort Benning soldiers test positive for COVID-19”

 

Quote

The U.S. Army tested a cohort 640 new recruits and instructors for COVID-19 upon arrival at Fort Benning, Ga. All but four tested negative. Eight days after training started, 142 of them retested positive. 

 

According to a release from U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 640 new recruits arrived at Fort Benning and were medically screened and tested by medical professionals. At the time, four tested positive. All 640 recruits entered a 14-day monitoring period, with the four COVID-positive recruits isolated and properly treated. 

 

After the 14-day monitoring period, training operations began with COVID-19 prevention measures in place including masks and social distancing. Despite these efforts, however, eight days after the end of the 14-day monitoring period, one recruit reported to the chain of command with COVID-19 symptoms. 

 

All 640 recruits -- which form 30th AG Battalion and 2nd Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment -- were retested for COVID-19. After all 640 tests were returned over a two-day period, that same cohort of recruits had a 22 percent COVID-positive rate with 142 positive tests. 

 

Did an asymptomatic carrier get past the screening (false negative test) maybe?

[BillsFan4]

44 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

not sure your point...calls only for masks when you will be in sustained contact with someone and will be within 6 feet of them for that sustained period of time. To be clear, i have been wearing a mask since mid March. 

 

But the science of mask wearing is not cut and dried..for example wearing them outside seems to make zero sense. Wearing them in a store seems to make little sense based on this article, wearing them anywhere where you will not be in close contact for a sustained period of time seems to make little sense. 

 

Am i reading that wrong?

 

The sheriff was in close contact with people. You posted that article replying to a sheriff who got covid-19 after having close interactions with people while not wearing a mask (and he was outdoors, at least from looking at the video). So I assumed that’s what you were posting that article for and posted the NEJM article that addressed that perspective article you posted. 

 

 

 

https://www.pinalcentral.com/breaking/sheriff-lamb-tests-positive-for-covid-19/article_72e94d2e-852a-57ae-ba90-0cbfafa29284.html

Quote

Video of the event posted June 14 on the Sheriff Lamb Facebook page shows Lamb hugging supporters and posing for photos with fans. No one at the event is wearing a mask, including the sheriff. It appears no social distancing was being followed, either.

 

 

The event where he believe he caught covid-19 appears to have been outdoors.

 

How long was he with each person? A few minutes? I doubt it was 15+ minutes (the amount of time I’ve seen referenced as “sustained close contact”). 

 

 

As far as wearing a mask in a store, i would have linked to other articles/studies if that was what we were discussing. 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by BillsFan4

[The Dean]

5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

just saying...

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR1EoJkVn0xxmfBb6RNhasEb2XXM6E2Lr-p7YOMrvMFl9iMBwKPQLl96lIo

 

I mean it is the New England Journal Of Medicine...

 

 

 

 

Did you look at the date on that article? Not only did you simply pick a small section to highlight, it's nearly a month old. The thinking on masks has evolved since that time, due to the SCIENCE involved.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

Hey @Hapless Bills Fan did you see this?

 

https://connectingvets.radio.com/articles/fort-benning-confirms-142-covid-19-cases-in-2-battalions

 

“8 days after quarantine and testing negative, 142 Fort Benning soldiers test positive for COVID-19”

 

Did an asymptomatic carrier get past the screening (false negative test) maybe?

 

That would be my guess - some doctors are saying 30% negatives compared to clinical symptoms.   If the swabbing technique isn't good, or the samples aren't properly stored between sampling and testing (without viral culture medium), or if the person has viral titer below the Ct threshold, or if the positive person has the virus hanging out somewhere else (in their GI tract, say), not going to detect. 

 

I don't think China insists on testing throat and stool samples for everyone in quarantine because they like the extra work.

 

Second guess would be that the masks weren't well adhered to during PT.  Benning is on the GA/AL border.  Highs in the mid-90s.  My guess is a lot of masks were being used as chin straps during intense physical activity when exhalations travel furthest.

 

I hope the army does a very good job contact tracing and interviewing because this represents a strong opportunity to learn a lot.

Edit: here's some more detail from the Army's website.  A second episode at Fort LostIntheWoods:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/06/01/two-army-training-sites-had-210-combined-covid-19-cases-after-recruits-left-controlled-monitoring-phases/
 

2 hours ago, Muppy said:

 

 

And errrr, maybe it should be. 

We seem to be playing catch-up to the "best practice" of countries that are beating this, just saying.
 

[plenzmd1]

7 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

The sheriff was in close contact with people. You posted that article replying to a sheriff who got covid-19 after having close interactions with people while not wearing a mask (and he was outdoors, at least from looking at the video). So I assumed that’s what you were posting that article for and posted the NEJM article that addressed that perspective article you posted. 

 

 

 

https://www.pinalcentral.com/breaking/sheriff-lamb-tests-positive-for-covid-19/article_72e94d2e-852a-57ae-ba90-0cbfafa29284.html

 

 

The event where he believe he caught covid-19 appears to have been outdoors.

 

How long was he with each person? A few minutes? I doubt it was 15+ minutes (the amount of time I’ve seen referenced as “sustained close contact”). 

 

 

As far as wearing a mask in a store, i would have linked to other articles/studies if that was what we were discussing. 

 

if that is the case, we should be seeing an explosion in cases based of the demonstrations.

[BillsFan4]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

if that is the case, we should be seeing an explosion in cases based of the demonstrations.

The ones where it looks like a good 80% are in masks? 

 

Edit - and yes, I worry we still could see covid spikes due to the protests. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by BillsFan4

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

 

Did you look at the date on that article? Not only did you simply pick a small section to highlight, it's nearly a month old. The thinking on masks has evolved since that time, due to the SCIENCE involved.

I agree science can evolve, but "science" can come to different conclusions.

[The Dean]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree science can evolve, but "science" can come to different conclusions.

 

 

Of course. So what do the bulk of very credible scientists believe and espouse currently? I'm talking about those who have the input from many of the other best scientists in the field? (Take Faucci, for example.)

 

I'm not sure looking for outliers (particularly from older data and articles) and using those as your model is an intelligent way to proceed. You can always find conflicting opinions. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by The Dean

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

15 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

No response or rebuttal @Hapless Bills Fan, promised me as much more than 24 hours ago. 

 

 

I think you must have mislaid the PM where you said:

"Hey Hap, I reposted as you requested in the Covid-19 discussion thread.  I realize that you have a life off the board, looking forward to your response when able"

 

I mean, Srsly? Calling me out on thread like I'm supposed to be your on-demand response puppet?  Please take two "get over yourself a bit" and don't call me in the morning.

 

I will respond, but I do have a life, and I don't want to half-ass things.

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:

The ones where it looks like a good 80% are in masks? 

and the ones where it looks like 30% are in masks...depends what picture , and who took it. 

 

I am all in on the protests and that wearing a mask, as I have stated been wearing one indoors since late March. But i also understand the opposing point of view. 

 

It is funny how NYC contact tracers are not allowed to ask if one has attended any demonstrations..