ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2722 of 3903
« First < 1722222226222672271227182719272027212722 272327242725272627322772282232223722 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
Chief Roundup 11:19 AM 07-27-2020
We had a confirmed positive Covid-19 last week on Wednesday. The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated. All those not infected are back to work today. The incubation period can be up to 14 days therefore the reason people are suppose to isolate for that same time frame.
There are several of us that are very bothered by this and have reported it up the chain to see what the resolution is because this goes against the policies and procedures set forth by the University.
[Reply]
Marcellus 11:35 AM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
We had a confirmed positive Covid-19 last week on Wednesday. The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated. All those not infected are back to work today. The incubation period can be up to 14 days therefore the reason people are suppose to isolate for that same time frame.
There are several of us that are very bothered by this and have reported it up the chain to see what the resolution is because this goes against the policies and procedures set forth by the University.
What part of this is the issue?
[Reply]
jd1020 11:38 AM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
What part of this is the issue?
I would imagine it could be the whole part about being back at work 5 days later after coming into contact with someone confirmed to have covid.
[Reply]
Marcellus 11:59 AM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by jd1020:
I would imagine it could be the whole part about being back at work 5 days later after coming into contact with someone confirmed to have covid.

That is what he is claiming.

Originally Posted by :
The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated.
I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.
[Reply]
jd1020 12:01 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.
Really? 15 minutes and no less? I havent heard that claim.
[Reply]
Marcellus 12:07 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by jd1020:
Really? 15 minutes and no less? I havent heard that claim.
Per CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...t-tracing.html

Originally Posted by :
Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.
We had a situation where a person was exposed well within 6ft 2 separate times for 6-8 minutes each time to someone who ended up symptomatic and tested positive. Health department said they were not considered a close contact. No need for quarantine. :-)
[Reply]
doomy3 12:17 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
That is what he is claiming.



I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.
This. That’s what most businesses are using since that’s what CDC considers close contact. It seems pretty arbitrary to me though.
[Reply]
jd1020 12:20 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Per CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...t-tracing.html



We had a situation where a person was exposed well within 6ft 2 separate times for 6-8 minutes each time to someone who ended up symptomatic and tested positive. Health department said they were not considered a close contact. No need for quarantine. :-)
Would be kind of interested to hear how they came up with this 15 minute definition. Sounds like some made up shit that will aid in the continued failure to contain the virus in the US.

The only difference I see is that your chances of contracting the virus grow the longer you are in contact with someone, doesn't really mean you cant contract the virus if you just had a brief encounter with them.
[Reply]
Donger 12:23 PM 07-27-2020
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...endations.html

***Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of time that constitutes a prolonged exposure. Recommendations vary on the length of time of exposure, but 15 minutes of close exposure can be used as an operational definition. Brief interactions are less likely to result in transmission; however, symptoms and the type of interaction (e.g., did the infected person cough directly into the face of the exposed individual) remain important.
[Reply]
petegz28 12:38 PM 07-27-2020
So where are we with Sweden today, are they good or bad? Asking for a friend
[Reply]
O.city 12:45 PM 07-27-2020
If cases start spiking and leading to deaths in these other countries that had it under control, sadly, I think Sweden will start looking better and better off
[Reply]
displacedinMN 12:56 PM 07-27-2020
Vikings' head trainer tests positive for coronavirus
[Reply]
BWillie 12:58 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....20.20157149v1

So this is basically saying people with no time around kids and their sniffly coronavirus colds have a higher incidence of severe infections.

Interesting
That is bad news for me. I try to stay away from children as much as possible.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 01:05 PM 07-27-2020
Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed
John P.A. Ioannidis (1), Sally Cripps (2), Martin A. Tanner (3)

ABSTRACT
Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent
with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates,
lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available
interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few
dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and
bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures.


The four garden variety coronaviruses may be causing such
outbreaks every year.
20,21 One of them, OC43 seems to have been introduced in humans as
recently as 1890, probably causing a “bad influenza year” with over a million deaths.
22 Based on
what we know now, SARS-CoV-2 may be closer to OC43 than SARS-CoV-1. This does not
mean it is not serious: its initial human introduction can be highly lethal, unless we protect those
at risk.



https://forecasters.org/wp-content/u...25062020-1.pdf
[Reply]
petegz28 01:09 PM 07-27-2020
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed
John P.A. Ioannidis (1), Sally Cripps (2), Martin A. Tanner (3)

ABSTRACT
Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent
with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates,
lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available
interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few
dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and
bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures.


The four garden variety coronaviruses may be causing such
outbreaks every year.
20,21 One of them, OC43 seems to have been introduced in humans as
recently as 1890, probably causing a “bad influenza year” with over a million deaths.
22 Based on
what we know now, SARS-CoV-2 may be closer to OC43 than SARS-CoV-1. This does not
mean it is not serious: its initial human introduction can be highly lethal, unless we protect those
at risk.



https://forecasters.org/wp-content/u...25062020-1.pdf
That's not very reassuring.
[Reply]
Page 2722 of 3903
« First < 1722222226222672271227182719272027212722 272327242725272627322772282232223722 > Last »
Up