ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2863 of 3903
« First < 1863236327632813285328592860286128622863 286428652866286728732913296333633863 > 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]
O.city 08:50 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I think that chart does a bad job of saying anything meaningful. It should be three lines for ILI specifically plotted against the suspected/confirmed C-19 cases.
Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though
[Reply]
petegz28 08:52 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I think that chart does a bad job of saying anything meaningful. It should be three lines for ILI specifically plotted against the suspected/confirmed C-19 cases.
I do tend to agree there. It would be nice to see how many people are going to the ER for CLI but end up with ILI?

Or I guess we just don't have the flu anymore and it's now all Covid?
[Reply]
petegz28 08:56 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though
what I take from it is that for 2 weeks during Covid you had 1% more ER visits than you did for the flu in 2018 at their respective peaks in the chart.

And with the exception of weeks 25-30 the CLI visits drastically resduced and came down to similar ILI numbers.

As we start moving into the weeks where ILI tends to rise it will be interesting to see what happens with CLI. And as DT was saying, it would be nice to see how many people are going to the ER with CLI but really it isn't.

In other words we need 2020 data for both ILI and CLI.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 08:56 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though
I think the point is to suggest C-19 being present before spring 2020. Shitter water tests done in multiple areas across the globe means it is a possibility but of questionable probability.
[Reply]
dlphg9 08:59 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Better?

I said beard. Not strands of hair congregating on my triple chin.
[Reply]
O.city 09:18 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I think the point is to suggest C-19 being present before spring 2020. Shitter water tests done in multiple areas across the globe means it is a possibility but of questionable probability.
Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I don't really use it like that, but ILI is a good measure of what people are going to ER with as ILI is gonna basically be the same as CLI.

I have my opinion of when it "was" here but I don't know that it's necessarily substantiated so who the hell knows. I'll stick with the "january ish" timeline.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 09:29 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I don't really use it like that, but ILI is a good measure of what people are going to ER with as ILI is gonna basically be the same as CLI.

I have my opinion of when it "was" here but I don't know that it's necessarily substantiated so who the hell knows. I'll stick with the "january ish" timeline.
Were accurate counts of non-C19 illnesses even kept this year?
[Reply]
O.city 09:32 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Were accurate counts of non-C19 illnesses even kept this year?
Who knows. I’d like to think so but it seems like everything else is back burner at this point
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 09:40 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Who knows. I’d like to think so but it seems like everything else is back burner at this point
How many pure ILI cases were rolled into presumed C-19 cases? Makes sense to treat anyone with ILI symptoms as C-19 if tests for the latter aren't available or individual results are inconclusive when it comes to treatment. But that doesn't seem.. helpful when it comes to tracking the overall prevalence of C-19.
[Reply]
kgrund 09:50 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though
Early on when people were complaining about testing, Dr. Birx noted that they had enough data to reasonably track outbreaks. She specifically cited the ILI as being a good lead indicator of a potential problem in an area.
[Reply]
O.city 09:57 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
How many pure ILI cases were rolled into presumed C-19 cases? Makes sense to treat anyone with ILI symptoms as C-19 if tests for the latter aren't available or individual results are inconclusive when it comes to treatment. But that doesn't seem.. helpful when it comes to tracking the overall prevalence of C-19.
It’s a good surveillance type of way to look I guess.

My problem with treating it all as Covid is that it really shouldn’t change protocol. You should theoretically be using universal protocols for anyone woth a potential infectious disease.

We were taught to essentially view every patient as having HIV or hep b just to get that thought process going
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 10:10 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
It’s a good surveillance type of way to look I guess.

My problem with treating it all as Covid is that it really shouldn’t change protocol. You should theoretically be using universal protocols for anyone woth a potential infectious disease.

We were taught to essentially view every patient as having HIV or hep b just to get that thought process going
And the CDC only has ILI data on people who seek treatment, right?
[Reply]
O.city 10:10 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
And the CDC only has ILI data on people who seek treatment, right?
I have no idea
[Reply]
Marcellus 10:13 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
I guess it's elsewhere that's taking that long, here in our area, it's 36 hours or less.
That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.
[Reply]
petegz28 10:20 AM 08-17-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.
Our health system tries to do as many labs in-house as we possibly can which typically has a 24-48 hr turnaround.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
[Reply]
Page 2863 of 3903
« First < 1863236327632813285328592860286128622863 286428652866286728732913296333633863 > Last »
Up