ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3043 of 3903
« First < 2043254329432993303330393040304130423043 30443045304630473053309331433543 > 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]
TLO 04:52 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
CDC just changed their close contact definition which means alot more people will need to quarantine moving forward.

Originally Posted by :
Some background: The agency changed the definition after a report from Vermont of a corrections officer who became infected after several brief interactions with coronavirus-positive inmates – none of them lasting 15 minutes, but adding up over time.

“As we get more data and understand the science of Covid, we are going to incorporate that in our recommendations,” Redfield said at a news conference held at CDC headquarters in Atlanta. “Originally, contact that was considered to be high risk for potential exposure to Covid was someone within six feet for more than 15 minutes."

The new data is being incorporated into recommendations, he said.
Hold up.

We're making recommendations based upon one case?
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 04:54 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Hold up.

We're making recommendations based upon one case?
The guy wore the mask, and goggles and some sort of additional full body covering and still got it.
[Reply]
htismaqe 04:55 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
The guy wore the mask, and goggles and some sort of additional full body covering and still got it.
So none of those things work now?

I wish they'd make up their mind.
[Reply]
philfree 04:55 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Why did you get a second test, if I may ask?

The test is probably just picking up fragments of remaining virus left in your nasopharynx. Are they wanting you to continue quarantining until you have a negative result?
Why? Because I want to be sure and I can afford to. I took the test yesterday. The guy did really dig deep with his swab. Thought he was giving me a partial lobotomy!
[Reply]
TLO 04:56 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
The guy wore the mask, and goggles and some sort of additional full body covering and still got it.
Wouldn't this lead to the distinct possibility that

A. That stuff didn't protect him - (I have no idea what kind of PPE he was wearing)
B. He got the virus somewhere else?
[Reply]
htismaqe 04:57 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Wouldn't this lead to the distinct possibility that

A. That stuff didn't protect him - (I have no idea what kind of PPE he was wearing)
B. He got the virus somewhere else?
Exactly what I was thinking.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 05:00 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Wouldn't this lead to the distinct possibility that

A. That stuff didn't protect him - (I have no idea what kind of PPE he was wearing)
B. He got the virus somewhere else?
Only if you have an agenda.
[Reply]
TLO 05:02 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by philfree:
Why? Because I want to be sure and I can afford to. I took the test yesterday. The guy did really dig deep with his swab. Thought he was giving me a partial lobotomy!
Wanted to be sure you actually had the virus?

I'd say if you had a previous positive test and corresponding symptoms, that would have been sufficient information.

Getting the second test accomplishes nothing, except possibly extending your isolation time.
[Reply]
philfree 05:15 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Wanted to be sure you actually had the virus?

I'd say if you had a previous positive test and corresponding symptoms, that would have been sufficient information.

Getting the second test accomplishes nothing, except possibly extending your isolation time.
I wan to be sure it's safe for me to hug my wife. Sleep in the same bed, hold hands and stuff.
[Reply]
Pasta Little Brioni 05:25 PM 10-21-2020
Parson says hospitals are doing fine
[Reply]
petegz28 05:46 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Parson says hospitals are doing fine
Yeah we all had a very cynical laugh Monday discussing the AP's "top notch reporting" about the local hospitals in KC and how they conveniently left out huge chunks of info that fortunately was reported by local news outlets.
[Reply]
petegz28 05:48 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Wouldn't this lead to the distinct possibility that

A. That stuff didn't protect him - (I have no idea what kind of PPE he was wearing)
B. He got the virus somewhere else?
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Exactly what I was thinking.
It's this kind of shit that reinforces a lot of beliefs about Covid one way or the other.
[Reply]
petegz28 05:52 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by philfree:
Why? Because I want to be sure and I can afford to. I took the test yesterday. The guy did really dig deep with his swab. Thought he was giving me a partial lobotomy!
Yeah, those are the tests that are cycled way too high.

This is happening all over the country as well.

Originally Posted by :
US COVID-19 positivity rate high due to 'too sensitive' tests

Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too sensitive', experts say.

Today the PCR test, which provides a yes or no answer if a patient is infected, doesn't say how much of the virus a patient has in their body.

PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of the virus that don't pose a risk.

Doctors say fewer cycle thresholds, meaning the number of cycles needed to detect the virus, hone in on those with greater amounts of the virus who do pose risks, according to the New York Times.

[Reply]
O.city 06:35 PM 10-21-2020
Philfree, we were told you could have people or yourself go back to work if you were 3 days symptom free and 10 days post first symptom no matter if you keep testing positive or not
[Reply]
TLO 06:44 PM 10-21-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Philfree, we were told you could have people or yourself go back to work if you were 3 days symptom free and 10 days post first symptom no matter if you keep testing positive or not
Correct
[Reply]
Page 3043 of 3903
« First < 2043254329432993303330393040304130423043 30443045304630473053309331433543 > Last »
Up