Coronavirus COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) Thread - 2020 Breaking News

The Quarantine Zone
4078

It means that she doesn’t have an exposure that her husband doesn’t have.

There are risks they take together, like taking turns going grocery shopping. And there are risks only one of them took. He got tested after he attended some protests. She got tested after visiting her parents. They stayed away from each other until the test result came back.

Doesn’t it make sense to you that some activities are riskier than your regular stuff, and you might take extra precautions around the people you live with after engaging in one, but can relax a little at home with a negative test?

(Or talk to your doctor with a positive test.)

4079

Yes, that makes sense to me. But are they going to stop going to the grocery store or other risky activities? What does one test prove? Why get tested if you have no symptoms? I don’t get it.

4080

There are things I do now I wouldn’t do if I had a positive test. I wouldn’t do grocery pick up, but I do now. I also run into grocery stores 1-2 times a week to get something I can’t get through pick-up. If I were positive, I would isolate from my husband and son.

Unless you consider those activities immoral for anyone, test or no test, I feel like there’s potential value to a rest.

4081

Apparently, a least 50% of people experience no symptoms but are still contagious. If you want to protect your loved ones and you think you may have been exposed why woudnt you get tested?

4082

It would make sense to get tested if you had close contact with someone who was positive. Most people won’t be willing to quarantine for 14 days on the slight chance that they may have caught it. If testing was quick and easy, then more people would get tested if they thought there was a risk they may have gotten it. I’m not sure how many people would just swing by for the fun of it. I think most of the asymptomatic people getting tested would be because they felt they might have caught it or that they were going to see someone that they didn’t want to infect. But with the sad state of testing, none of that is really practical. It’s too hard to get the test and then the test results take too long to come back.

4083

…so in a perfectly working “system” testing is just part of the total package of things used to keep a communicable disease under control. You drive up and get a test, isolate for 24 hours and you get a text the next day that tells you you are either positive or negative. You continue (using standard social distancing protocols) and if you either get sick or feel you’ve risked exposure again you go for another test. If you test positive then you isolate and contact tracers start tracking down your contacts.

So in the early stages of a pandemic testing is helpful for keeping things under control. But in America:

That article was written in April. And…things haven’t gotten better IMHO. Tests can potentially take weeks to come back with results. That is completely and utterly bonkers and a complete failure of process.

If you are wearing masks and maintain social distancing then going to the supermarket isn’t an activity that would normally require testing every time you go out. But that really depends on where you live. And where you live people might be doing things completely differently to everywhere else. So context is everything. If people aren’t wearing masks and aren’t social distancing then your risk of exposure changes.

Well the obvious reason is that you can have the coronavirus but not exhibit any of the symptoms.

But one of the other reasons to get tested is as part of a surveillance plan, which helps identify any undetected community spread. Here are the New Zealand testing plans and a strategic overview:

Its a core pillar of our overall strategy. The US also has a surveillance testing strategy but from the looks of things its “very hands off”, leaving the bulk of the implementation, funding and operation of testing over to the state, local, territorial, academic, and commercial partners. This, IMHO, isn’t a good thing.

So why get tested? Honestly, it depends where you live.

And if you are living in a place in America that is opening up and people aren’t wearing masks and the local government doesn’t care and tests can take weeks to give you the results then I would still get tested if you exhibited symptoms or a risky exposure: but the utility of that testing wouldn’t be the greatest.

Its just a failure on so many levels. How do you balance looking after your own health and those that you love with going out and earning money and putting food on the table and paying rent? Why get tested when the utility of that test gets thrown out the window if you don’t get the results back for weeks?

You need drive-through testing that don’t take 2-3 hours to take, you need next-day results, America needs to invest billions on the testing-tracing infrastructure to make the whole thing worthwhile, and the Federal Government has to take the lead.

But that aint gonna happen. Not until January 2021 at the very least.

4084

18,977,637 total cases
711,220 dead
12,166,746 recovered

In the US:

4,973,568 total cases
161,601 dead
2,540,137 recovered

Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:

Tomorrow the world will have over 19,000,000 total cases.

Tomorrow the US will have over 5,000,000 total cases.

4085

You are certainly not the only one. The whole thing has me constantly shaking my head. To me it is a classic case of one of the most prevalent, but at the same time sneakiest, errors in judgment we humans make, which is to treat most everything like it’s linear when in reality most of it is not. By that I mean, in this case, the assumption that if testing was ever good, it must still be good now. Or if a little of it was good, a lot of it must be better. What seems clear is that there is a window where testing is most useful, as in the oft-cited examples of Korea and Vietnam and so on, but that window is small. Once you have wide community spread, the value of each positive test result is smaller and smaller and smaller the more of them you get. And at this point in the US, it now seems almost trivial.

I mean, if we really believe the virus is everywhere, so much so that anyone who doesn’t modify their behavior is highly likely to be exposed to it, then why do we need to keep confirming that to ourselves, over and over and over again?

4086

It allows the powers that be, to make proper arrangements.
Are quarantine measures working?
Does a specific area need stricter measures than another one?
Do we need to ramp up hospital capabilities? And can we draw from a neighboring community?
There’s all kinds of reasons to test. It’s not just to hear the bad news.

4087

I completely agree with this. From the community’s pov, it’s absolutely useful to know these things to determine public policy. If only gummints WOULD use this info to determine public policy and not just ignore it! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

But you lost me here:

I don’t think there are “all kinds of reasons,” although I guess, curiosity is a legitimate reason.

I’m in agreement with @Slash1972 and @SayTwo . From an individual pov, testing makes LESS sense than it does from a public policy pov. (I’m not saying it makes “NO sense.”) A positive test gives you useful information re exposing yourself to other people, whether you’re at work or at home. But to me, you should ACT AS IF you’re positive when deciding what precautions to take no matter what the test says. IOW, take ALL precautions, regardless. (Kind of like if you reellyreellyreelly don’t want to get pregnant, then use protection EVERY TIME, even if you think you can’t or can’t “this time.” Guess what? You CAN this time.)

My concern is that negative test results can lull people into a sense of false security and cause them to relax procedures. A negative test doesn’t tell you much, except that you don’t have it right this minute. It doesn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, tell you that you’re home free. You could be pre-symptomatic. This is one of those times when odds and risk levels taken at the individual level are not a good decision-making tool, as the consequences of a miscalculation could be deadly for you or someone else. They could be deadly for someone you’ve never even met… or for someone in your own household.

The best, safest strategy is for everyone to act as though they have it and as though everyone they come in contact with has it. Because they might- on both scores. That means wearing a mask and only being around people who wear masks. Distancing, hand-washing, etc. Within a household or a bubble this is definitely problematic and you will have to make tough decisions. Even Deborah Birx came out the other day and said if you live in a household with someone who is especially vulnerable, you should wear a mask around them at home (and they should, too, as the best protection happens when BOTH parties are masked).

This is serious shit. Playing the odds is not smart. Yes, there are people who cannot isolate, who have to work, who live with others-- obviously a total lockdown is not possible for them. But to the extent that it is possible, each person needs to do everything possible to reduce their chances of (and yeah, that is probability talk, so sue me for being two-faced) getting or spreading it as close to ZERO as they can.

But IMHO people aren’t scared enough. Just being lonely, wanting to go bowling, or attend a big wedding (no one should be having big weddings, FFS!), missing your night at the pub or bar, wanting to spend Labor Day weekend at the beach just because you’re tired of CV-19-- not good reasons to relax precautions. FUCK-- we’re all tired of this MF… and some are dead or mourning their dead, and that’s much worse and more permanent than just being bored.

4088

I would add, @ThelmaLou, that by this point, if any municipality is waiting for widespread results to tell them they need to ‘ramp up capacities’ or make whatever other arrangements would be prudent in anticipation of a public health disaster within their walls…well, I just would have no words for that. If they haven’t seen enough to have determined that the best strategy would be to assume it’s coming and just be grateful if it never does, then I wouldn’t have much confidence in their ability to turn on a dime and get things ready when the positive tests start coming in.

Not that I necessarily believe many places are taking that approach, don’t get me wrong. But again, if they’re not, then why spend so many resources on test after test after test? (Apart from all the other, very valid, reasons you mention.) Hospital admissions are always going to be there to let you know when the shit is hitting the fan.

What gets me the most is that you almost get the sense, reading news reports, that the tests themselves actually reduce the virus’s spread. Unless you can turn positive tests results into real and true quarantines, of the infected persons and all their contacts, the test results are really just a sort of scoreboard at this point. And, I’d say, one that is far more fraught with potential abuse than is the rate of hospitalization and deaths, which presumably are far more accurate to measure and are also the things of ultimate importance anyway.

But with sports being on hold, along with a lot else, maybe as a scoreboard they are meeting a certain need.

4089

I agree with you 100%!

When I read that governors or mayors are “considering” implementing stronger protocols, I just want to scream, “WTF?? What more do you need to stop considering and just get on with it??”

YESYESYES. I said something like this in my original rant post, namely, people seem to think that getting tested is some kind of protection. Let’s put lots and lots of money into testing and soon everybody will be fine.

4090

But that logic says people who are currently going to work instead of quitting their jobs are doing something irresponsible. I’m sitting on a couch right now with my son, watching cartoons. Both unmasked. If I actually HAD COVID, I’d be isolating in a back room. I am picking up groceries tomorrow. Zero contact, but if I actually had COVID, I’d send someone else and have them leave the groceries on the porch. Heck, just knowing someone I had contact with was positive would trigger additional precautions.

I agree we should all be taking prexautjons and not get cocky, but it’s not reasonable for everyone to act like they have COVID all the time.

4091

My bold.

With your categorical statements you are choosing to overlook the disclaimers and qualifiers I carefully and intentionally included in my comments, although I can’t for the life of me figure out why. But if you’re happy, I’m happy.

4092

I feel like, despite your disclaimers, you are still minimizing the really drastic changes that are called for if you are actually positive.

4093

I agree with @MandaJo (as usual).

I go to the grocery store every week. If I run out of something essential over the course of the week, I don’t hesitate to run to the store. Occasionally I’ll even go to Target and Lowes. I walk around my neighborhood every morning. I go riding around town on my scooter in the evenings. I always wear a mask, but simple cloth masks.

I would not do these things if I knew I was positive. If I knew I was a source of contagion, I wouldn’t go to the grocery store. I would consume the food in my COVID pantry, which I’ve set up just in case I get sick. I wouldn’t dip into Lowes to pick up knickknacks. And I wouldn’t go out with just a single cloth mask. I’d probably wear three facial coverings that would cover the entirety of my lower face and head. I’ve tried going out with this kind of get-up on a routine basis and I just can’t tolerate it. It’s too damn hot and humid to wear that much material on one’s face. But I would do it if I knew I was infected and I was just going to run to the store for something essential.

It would be impossible for me to live off of my COVID pantry month after month. And delivery is expensive. I can commit to doing these things when I know I’m sick and I know I’m shedding. But if I don’t know for sure, then no. I’m not going to live my life this way. I’m working full time, ffs. I will not be a productive worker if I can’t go outside without wrapping my face like a mummy. I am OK with being a partial mummy. I’m not OK with going full-on mummy for an indefinitely period of time.

4094

I also feel like if you are positive, it is a lot easier to ask for favors that would be unreasonable, otherwise. I have two neighbors that were coworkers years ago. We aren’t super close, but i am 100% confident that if any of us were sick, the other two households would do anything that needed to be done in the outside world. It wouldn’t even be a question.

4095

In many countries you would not even begin to have this choice, as you would go enjoy a nice stay in a government detention center. When people complain about the US response to this thing, compared to other places, I’m not sure they fully comprehend what they’re asking for.

4096

Thanks for that post. So in countries that aren’t completely fucking up like ours, the testing is part of an actual plan. The testing here in good ol’ USA is just one part of our massive failure. Makes sense.

4097

If I told people I was positive, people would not only be willing to help, but they would also stay away from me too. Like, sometimes I’m tempted to wear a sign reading “I’M COVID POSITIVE!!” when I go to the grocery so that people (especially maskless people) would keep their distance from me. Imagine if we had a public health system that was ballsy enough to send out alerts to people’s phones if they are in close proximity to someone who has tested positive for COVID in the last two weeks. People’s behavior would be totally different than it is now.