ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2969 of 2991
« First < 1969246928692919295929652966296729682969 29702971297229732979 > Last »
The Dumbass Lounge>***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]
petegz28 10:29 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
If only that were accurate.
People don't read for shit or otherwise ignore things.....
[Reply]
Donger 10:30 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
If only that were accurate.
If only what were accurate?
[Reply]
TLO 10:31 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
IFR of 1.07% is hardly something cheerlead.
Across all age groups? It might be.

But that's not a realistic number either based on the number of cases that go undiagnosed.
[Reply]
Marcellus 10:31 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
People don't read for shit or otherwise ignore things.....
Yup.
[Reply]
Donger 10:33 AM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Across all age groups? It might be.

But that's not a realistic number either based on the number of cases that go undiagnosed.
We don't have the math for how they reached that figure, no. But, CDC best estimate remains .65% overall, so like I said, it's not exactly a good figure for the agenda that they are pushing.
[Reply]
TLO 12:34 PM 09-16-2020
Some information on monoclonal antibodies was released today. It was disappointing to say the least.
[Reply]
Donger 01:35 PM 09-16-2020
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to “clarify” confusing and controversial changes made to its guidance about testing people who do not have symptoms of coronavirus, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said Wednesday.

“We are working on a clarification document related to the diagnostic and public health use of testing,” Redfield told a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“We have never recommended against asymptomatic testing. You’ll see in the clarification we are making it very clear asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission is important, and making it very clear if you have been exposed to somebody, you need to be tested and contact traced,” Redfield added.

Testing guidelines were changed on CDC’s site quietly, without public notice, on Aug. 24.

Here’s what the CDC website said previously: “Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested.”

The site was changed on Aug. 24 to say: “If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.”

Redfield said the agency would post new guidance updating those changes, which were broadly denounced by public health experts. “We are going to come out with that hopefully, I hope before the end of the week,” Redfield told the hearing.

He said testing is important not only for diagnosing cases, but for screening groups to find cases that are not obvious. “Screening can be very powerful,” he said. It can help schools reopen and help people get back to more normal lives, he added.

Now that more tests are available, Redfield said, the CDC will also encourage surveillance testing, which can help find cases that might otherwise go unnoticed until an outbreak has started.
[Reply]
O.city 01:40 PM 09-16-2020
https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advan...iaa116/5904972
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 01:44 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advan...iaa116/5904972
Extremely low N.

That being said, it's curious that there aren't a lot of studies relating to attack rate, such as this.
[Reply]
O.city 01:44 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Extremely low N.

That being said, it's curious that there aren't a lot of studies relating to attack rate, such as this.
For sure low N. But if it's truly novel, thats weird that the attack rate is even that low.
[Reply]
TLO 02:08 PM 09-16-2020
So who is the vaccine gonna be offered to first once it's released?
[Reply]
O.city 02:25 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
So who is the vaccine gonna be offered to first once it's released?
Front line workers, elderly and those in high risk situations. Nursing homes etc.

Oh and dentists. For sure dentists.
[Reply]
O.city 02:52 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Some information on monoclonal antibodies was released today. It was disappointing to say the least.
https://twitter.com/markslifka/statu...836454912?s=21
[Reply]
TLO 04:41 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
https://twitter.com/markslifka/statu...836454912?s=21
Oh I do like that
[Reply]
Pasta Giant Meatball 04:49 PM 09-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
IFR of 1.07% is hardly something cheerlead.
it is FAR lower than that. You realize that right?
[Reply]
Page 2969 of 2991
« First < 1969246928692919295929652966296729682969 29702971297229732979 > Last »
Up