[charmerci]

Don't get me wrong - it's a  tough disease to get and is very contagious.
But the point of not spreading it around is - to not collapse our health system!

The sooner the lockdowns (too late America), the fewer the people that will get it. (as the epidemiologists say) For many people, the disease actually won't be that hard but some scientists are saying - they are the ones that may be spreading it around. If 10% of people need to be hospitalized for it at the same time - then there won't be a doctor to treat your heart attack, accident, cancer, etc - then more people will start dying that way!
Most people will recover and many people won't even be affected by it - but that's not the point. You could be a single person, not know you have it and spread it around your town. Multiple that by millions and therein lies the problem.

[DavidS]

An interesting one - my wife had an email from teacher friend teaching in China talking about how things are getting back to more normal about 10 weeks in.  One of the tools that is key to getting back to normal has been use of QR code system and app that measures and records your temperature on a regular basis and gives you a green (for go), yellow (for quarantine), red for get to the hospital.  If you have green you can move around, but restaurants, shops, malls, even employers all want to see your green code before you can come in.  App seems to sit on your phone with some other probably invasive data about you.

Sounds like this is also required for moving between quarantine zones which presumably there is still controls preventing access unless you are green.

Getting closer to the machines controlling us, seems like a scene from the Expanse, but sounds like it has restored a lot freedom for and confidence in people that they won't be getting accidentally sick.  As a society we are loving invasive apps like facebook and twitter, what's one more...

[Stu Pitt]

Hmmm.  It is interesting if people think that this will magically disappear by social distancing or stay at home.  Yes it is to help to slow the spread and prevent those who do not have it to get it.  The idea is to flatten the curve and spread the timing of those getting sick while decreasing risk to those who are most vulnerable to become severely ill.  If they do become ill, then there is increased time that this happens.  This will allow hospitals the time to acquire appropriate equipment and personnel and not overload them with severely sick people at the same time.   Patient care is significantly compromised, and the mortality rate is unnecessarily increased in overcrowded hospitals and emergency departments.  Overcrowding poses great risk to healthcare workers. 

Relaxing social distancing and stay at home mandates too early will result in exposing those who do not have the disease to the asymptomatic or mildly ill people thus resulting in another peak of the disease. The rate at which this is spreading speaks for itself if it is a good idea in the near future.  We are also very lucky that this has not mutated.

Earlier and widespread testing would have caught this much sooner.   Appropriate action and preparation could have happened.  It is hard to believe that more than half of this country has performed less than 500 tests in the entire state as of today.  How does one know that there aren’t “hotspots” in those states?

Stay well and be  safe.

How does one know that there aren’t more “hotspots” in other places? IMO the rate of hospitalization, mortality, etc. If everyone’s got it in an area and the symptoms are mild enough that they just thought it was a slight cold, then what’s the overall harm? Or another way - if 80% of the population in the Dallas suburbs have it and no one needs medical attention, why do we really need to test them?

It’s not really coming out the way I intend it though. My point is why do extensive testing in areas that don’t have much of an issue? How do we define “hotspot?” Is it solely based on the number of diagnoses or is it a combination of number and the impact it’s having?

Like practically everything else associated with this virus, there’s no good answer IMO. Test where it’s knowingly concentrated and causing issues. Then start testing where they think the next places might be. With limited resources, one needs to prioritize.

All IMO.

[kmmd]

How does one know that there aren’t more “hotspots” in other places? IMO the rate of hospitalization, mortality, etc. If everyone’s got it in an area and the symptoms are mild enough that they just thought it was a slight cold, then what’s the overall harm? Or another way - if 80% of the population in the Dallas suburbs have it and no one needs medical attention, why do we really need to test them?

It’s not really coming out the way I intend it though. My point is why do extensive testing in areas that don’t have much of an issue? How do we define “hotspot?” Is it solely based on the number of diagnoses or is it a combination of number and the impact it’s having?

Like practically everything else associated with this virus, there’s no good answer IMO. Test where it’s knowingly concentrated and causing issues. Then start testing where they think the next places might be. With limited resources, one needs to prioritize.

All IMO.

It’s very good that there aren’t high numbers of deaths or hospitalized patients in many states.  The problem is that the asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people are not staying put and can travel to other countries, counties and states.  Knowing that people are positive for COVID-19, and that there is a high number, then those can self quarantine and not spread it.  You can then contact trace those individuals.  What is happening in New Orleans after Mardi Gras is only now being realized.  Would things have changed if people were tested even if they had mild symptoms?  Dr. Fauci is now on CNN promoting more widespread testing on more people and isolate quickly.

You are correct that there is no good answer.  Hindsight is 20/20.  The problems with testing and it’s availability certainly did not help.

[Letitroll98]

For those still asking questions you need only play with this interactive graph stirman posted.  I'm a pretty smart guy and I've been following the pandemic closely, but I never really could visualize all the parameters until I spent an hour with this graph.  After becoming familiar with how it works it wasn't long before anyone can see the difference between 2,800 dead and 2.2 million dead in the US and the reasons why.  Anybody advocating anything less than 60 days isolation is a dangerous buffoon.

This is a very interesting article !! The  graphs can be adjusted by the reader to show different possible Outcomes—
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coronavirus-trump-reopen-america.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[kmmd]

Yes that is an excellent interactive tool.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

Here is the BS that the health care workers are facing by asshole  administrators who have no patient care at all-

 

Editor's note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's  Coronavirus Resource Center.

As upper management patrolled the halls at one hospital in California, telling staff they could be fired on the spot for wearing N95 masks brought from home, one nurse asked to see the policy. The administrator told her that, if she was going to wear one, she needed a note from her doctor.

"One of my biggest concerns is the nontransparent way management is addressing these issues," said the nurse, who did not want to give her name. "If we don't start treating healthcare workers as adults, providing us with honest information, adequate protection, and supplies, I am terrified that this current situation will quickly escalate, not just with viral spread, but with staffing shortages through contagion and/or the 'rats off a sinking ship' scenario."

As hospitals watch their supply of masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) dwindle, they have severely curtailed their use. But the constraints have become so restrictive that physicians and nurses on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic believe their health is being sacrificed to assuage staff and patient morale. Practitioners are reacting with fear and rage, and they are facing everything from ridicule to reprimand — or worse — for taking matters into their own hands.


Some are being told by their hospital administrators they cannot wear PPE in hallways or that they can't bring their own PPE to a facility. In some cases, practitioners are being threatened with disciplinary actions or even fired when they have continued to use gloves, masks, or other gear.

The hospitals point to a variety of reasons for their actions, from the idea that PPE needs to be conserved and used as minimally as possible to the notion that it scares patients.

Private Facebook groups, Twitter, and other social media outlets are bursting with stories from doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. Many are anxious and fearful. Some are losing faith in administrators who tell them that working without PPE is safe, even while providing no evidence to back up those assertions. Still others are just plain angry.

"I'm tired of hearing stories of docs and nurses getting reprimanded by the ‘suits' for wearing a freakin surg mask when they are on the unit because it ‘looks bad,'" tweeted Ali Haider, MD. "Do you know how many HCP are admitted in the US? Are you on the wards? I say F that. Protect yourselves. #COVID19."


I would band together with the doctors and nurses at this hospital and lawyer up. 

[SteveFord]

My wife's an interpreter for the local hospital system.
All of the interpreters now work from home.  Her workload is way down as people are afraid to go to the hospital.

I don't think I ever said what I do.
I work for Labor & Industry and I'm certainly rather busy these days.
We are on track to have 650,000 new unemployment claims in the last two weeks.
During the height of the Great Recession we had a high of 168,000 claims in a 4 week period.

I think I'll have enough work to keep me out of mischief until I retire.

Note: these figures are just for the state of PA

[mresseguie]

There is an article in The Atlantic entitled: "How The Pandemic Will End".
I presume that it is a reasonable example of what will (or may) happen in the coming weeks and months. It's very sobering. Can any of the doctors or scientists who read this comment on its accuracy?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-will-coronavirus-end/608719/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share

[Elizabeth]

A comment about testing. A article from a retired doctor whining about how she went around trying to be tested, she already KNEW she had it, but she wanted to be tested. so between her own doc, some clinic, whining to her Congressman ER visit, etc. WHY??? I cannot fathom WHY she thinks she needed a frick'in test? She admits she is certain she has it .So many idiots so little time.
This notion the some test is going to DO SOMETHING? what?
Tell me.
Just like some guy whining he went to the ER, spent three days living on a cot in a hospital corridor. All they gave him was some Tylenol.
What was the hospital need for? I hope he gets the bill for $70,000. and has to pay out of pocket.

[mresseguie]

 

How do you feel, Elizabeth? Are you concerned, worried, scared, terrified?

[Elizabeth]

Now a comment by some news about the original epicenter.. Seems patients who had it then recovered have it again, just not symptomatic. So they are carrying the virus and tests show they have it just no symptoms. So they can seem OK but be passing it on to others.
Like I wrote before everyone is gonna get this. Sooner or later..
The folks I wonder about are all those taking immune-suppresent drugs.. particularly for IBS and skin conditions. Are they willing to die from Corons and keep taking the drugs? What are their doctors telling them?
I remember some College student with a fever died since her school doc was oblivious to her taking an immuno-suppresant drug.
Folks with transplants never would be able to stop taking the drugs.
At least we know we all gotta die anyway, some sooner .. Some later.
I am already old as mummy dust, so what do I care. LOL

[I.Greyhound Fan]

Elizabeth, you are spot on about testing.  It is not going to change anything if you have or do not have the virus.  If you are negative on the test you could be positive the next day or the next week.   You can't get tested weekly. 

You are also correct about being able to get the virus again.  It was reported a few weeks ago that some people Japan got the virus a second time.  This does not bode well for us because is lessens the effect of herd immunity.

[charmerci]

Well, if you aren't tested, you aren't counted as having it, proving the numbers are much lower than the statistics show.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

Well, if you aren't tested, you aren't counted as having it, proving the numbers are much lower than the statistics show.

Very true, the numbers are a lot higher than being reported.  Just yesterday we had 2 patients that probably they had COVID.   Both were doing fine.

[kmmd]

Well, if you aren't tested, you aren't counted as having it, proving the numbers are much lower than the statistics show.

We all know that there is no treatment for this.  A positive test isn’t going to change supportive treatment. 

Bingo!

My point of testing those with minimal symptoms is for data gathering.  If one tests positive, then you can isolate that patient and contact trace.  Testing those contacts gives you more information as to the spread.  Hotspots can then accurately be identified and confined appropriately.  Not testing misses potential areas of concern and individuals will continue to perpetuate the spread.

Leaders may announce soon to label counties with high, medium or low positive testing.  Based on this information, one county with high numbers testing positive (hotspot) will be locked down while the adjacent county that is low won’t have much restriction.  Unfortunately the data is incomplete.  Not identifying other areas due to low numbers of tests is inaccurate and poses risk.  This will prolong the time to reach the plateau or result in multiple peaks.

(Edited to add the word ‘supportive’)

[Letitroll98]

Releasing restrictions by county seems a fools errand to me.  Nothing prevents infected from an adjacent county traveling to unrestricted bars, restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc. in the uninfected county.  It appears to be more politically motivated which we're forbidden from discussing here.  Where I live it's a short walk to the next county and a 5 minute drive to two others, we often cross country lines to shop and work.  The other counties are much more rural and have much lower rates of infection than the one I live in which contains a large American city.

[charmerci]

My point of testing those with minimal symptoms is for data gathering.  If one tests positive, then you can isolate that patient and contact trace.  Testing those contacts gives you more information as to the spread.  Hotspots can then accurately be identified and confined appropriately.  Not testing misses potential areas of concern and individuals will continue to perpetuate the spread.

Leaders may announce soon to label counties with high, medium or low positive testing.  Based on this information, one county with high numbers testing positive (hotspot) will be locked down while the adjacent county that is low won’t have much restriction.  Unfortunately the data is incomplete.  Not identifying other areas due to low numbers of tests is inaccurate and poses risk.  This will prolong the time to reach the plateau or result in multiple peaks.

This site is up. I'm not sure if it will get everyone signed up for it - but it would be an incredibly useful database to keep a track of where the virus is going.

www.covidnearyou.org

[kmmd]

Releasing restrictions by county seems a fools errand to me.  Nothing prevents infected from an adjacent county traveling to unrestricted bars, restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc. in the uninfected county... Where I live it's a short walk to the next county and a 5 minute drive to two others, we often cross country lines to shop and work.  The other counties are much more rural and have much lower rates of infection than the one I live in which contains a large American city.

Winner, winner chicken dinner. 

I’ll go farther and question the availability of testing and its delay in such a technologically advanced country.  See no evil so there is no evil to worry about.

[SteveFord]

My county is being put on lock down tonight, that 19 counties in PA so far.
The rules seem stupidly lax but not my call.
Not exactly chucking you in your home and welding the place shut.

Elizabeth,
Not to wish any misfortune to come your way but just bear in mind that I'll give those 20.7s a loving home.
No cats to claw them, just an old dog that snores more than I do (maybe).