COVID-19

[shrader]

31 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

To the first paragraph, you lost me a little. These are temps taken on different people. Maybe I'm being neurotic, but I'd expect to see 97.5, 96.5, 96.8, 98.1 etc.

Ahhh ok.  I thought you were saying they were testing the same person over and over and the numbers were fluctuating a bit.

[Wyldnwoody44]

I was told I had a 92 degree temp when I had to "check in" to work one day and it was like "oh, you're under 98.6, you're all clear" 

The accuracy of temporal/infrared Temps is very very user dependant and very inaccurate as well. If you have a fever, you'd be flush, sweaty, etc, but basic physical appearance and physical exams are apparently a thing of the past. 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I was told I had a 92 degree temp when I had to "check in" to work one day and it was like "oh, you're under 98.6, you're all clear" 

The accuracy of temporal/infrared Temps is very very user dependant and very inaccurate as well. If you have a fever, you'd be flush, sweaty, etc, but basic physical appearance and physical exams are apparently a thing of the past. 

Apparently those thermometers are also highly dependent on being a particular distance from a person's skin to get an accurate reading as well.  (And little to NO chance that the person using it wouldn't be fully versed in the nuances of using it, right? :lol: )

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Apparently those thermometers are also highly dependent on being a particular distance from a person's skin to get an accurate reading as well.  (And little to NO chance that the person using it wouldn't be fully versed in the nuances of using it, right? :lol: )

Sort of. They are dependent on being a certain distance (most of them have a range, albeit a narrow range). But it's not like if you're outside that range, you get an inaccurate reading. At least the ones I've used, you just get no reading. Not until you move the thermometer into that sweet spot. They're pretty idiot proof.

And thanks for the shot at the people who are doing this thankless job. Nothing like being way too close to dozens/hundreds of people on a daily basis during a pandemic.

Edited August 7, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Stoner]

7 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I was told I had a 92 degree temp when I had to "check in" to work one day and it was like "oh, you're under 98.6, you're all clear" 

The accuracy of temporal/infrared Temps is very very user dependant and very inaccurate as well. If you have a fever, you'd be flush, sweaty, etc, but basic physical appearance and physical exams are apparently a thing of the past. 

I've found they're not really user-dependent (as long as you can aim and hold the thermometer relatively still). The issues that crop up involve your target (hair in the way, person won't stand still) and the ambient atmosphere (hot rooms are said to be a problem).

I don't understand your point. They're accurate if used properly, but they're not accurate? Also, I'm pretty sure you're not seriously arguing for replacing mass temperature checks with on the spot exams or relying on subjective observations like sweating and skin color. I wouldn't rule out fever in an elderly person who wasn't sweating. Those folks are cagey.

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Sort of. They are dependent on being a certain distance (most of them have a range, albeit a narrow range). But it's not like if you're outside that range, you get an inaccurate reading. At least the ones I've used, you just get no reading. Not until you move the thermometer into that sweet spot. They're pretty idiot proof.

And thanks for the shot at the people who are doing this thankless job. Nothing like being way too close to dozens/hundreds of people on a daily basis during a pandemic.

SMH.

That wasn't a shot at the person doing the job, but rather a shot at the (lack of) training that too many of the people performing the task of taking the temperatures of people coming into their establishment are given.  Pretty sure you knew that as well.  But, whatevs.

[ubkev]

All employees and patrons here have to walk through a thermal scan at the entrances. Security monitors them. When you're over 100.0 you have to be scanned manually. The funny thing is, after a week or so, security is no longer allowed to tell us what our temperature is showing up as on the thermal. This is probably because I routinely walk in the building at 85.5 degrees and the things obviously don't work worth a damn. The illusion of safety.

Edited August 7, 2020 by ubkev

[Wyldnwoody44]

10 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I've found they're not really user-dependent (as long as you can aim and hold the thermometer relatively still). The issues that crop up involve your target (hair in the way, person won't stand still) and the ambient atmosphere (hot rooms are said to be a problem).

I don't understand your point. They're accurate if used properly, but they're not accurate? Also, I'm pretty sure you're not seriously arguing for replacing mass temperature checks with on the spot exams or relying on subjective observations like sweating and skin color. I wouldn't rule out fever in an elderly person who wasn't sweating. Those folks are cagey.

Not arguing for replacing by any means, I simply think it's just fluff. A lot of the steps were taking are nothing more than fluff. If they help people sleep better at night then wonderful. 

[Curt]

19 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Not arguing for replacing by any means, I simply think it's just fluff. A lot of the steps were taking are nothing more than fluff. If they help people sleep better at night then wonderful. 

What if, in the month of August, it stops 3 out of the 7 people who would have walked into your hospital with fevers from entering?  Does that make it worth the effort, or is that just fluff?

Im not arguing that these devices are fail safe, but at what point is something better than nothing?  I get the impression that you carry around this idea that if something isn’t near 100% effective, it’s just a wasteful annoyance.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Curt

[Wyldnwoody44]

16 minutes ago, Curt said:

What if, in the month of August, it stops 3 out of the 7 people who would have walked into your hospital with fevers from entering?  Does that make it worth the effort, or is that just fluff?

Im not arguing that these devices are fail safe, but at what point is something better than nothing?  I get the impression that you carry around this idea that if something isn’t near 100% effective, it’s just a wasteful annoyance.

What if that person was coming to the hospital for a psych consult and happened to have one of the other million bugs that still exist and can cause a fever.... That person ends up not getting the help they need and another life is lost due to Covid but not Covid. 

I have seen sooooo many cases of Covid killing people that never had the virus, the steps we have arbitrarily taken that don't make much sense have cause a significant fallout in other areas that are not being reported. 

Some steps I'm fine with, some make sense, others are nothing more than a feel good load of mularky. 

[Curt]

And what if that person had COVID and caused the infection of several other people?  There are certainly trade offs.  This line of thinking makes a lot more sense as a critique of the system than the complaint that someone at your workplace was using a thermometer that didn’t seem to be working right.

Anyway, were talking about the accuracy of these thermometers.  In my experience they seem to be pretty accurate at my workplace.  However, there usually is not more that 5 people entering consecutively, so I don’t know if that makes a difference.

[Stoner]

27 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

What if that person was coming to the hospital for a psych consult and happened to have one of the other million bugs that still exist and can cause a fever.... That person ends up not getting the help they need and another life is lost due to Covid but not Covid. 

I have seen sooooo many cases of Covid killing people that never had the virus, the steps we have arbitrarily taken that don't make much sense have cause a significant fallout in other areas that are not being reported. 

Some steps I'm fine with, some make sense, others are nothing more than a feel good load of mularky. 

Wouldn't the person coming in for the psych consult be offered a virtual visit?

How many people would have died from Covid if you could have had your way? How many of these non-Covid deaths you're referring to would have been avoided?

And here's your chance to report on the fallout you've seen.

 

[Stoner]

Big picture: It looks like the U.S. is going to get a do-over. Daily new cases have been dropping, using a seven day average, for about two weeks. And unlike the first drop-off, this one is looking to be very steep. Daily new deaths are just starting to taper off. We have a chance as a country to push this thing way down and this time keep it down with more, faster testing, contact tracing and, most of all, common sense.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Big picture: It looks like the U.S. is going to get a do-over. Daily new cases have been dropping, using a seven day average, for about two weeks. And unlike the first drop-off, this one is looking to be very steep. Daily new deaths are just starting to taper off. We have a chance as a country to push this thing way down and this time keep it down with more, faster testing, contact tracing and, most of all, common sense.

Wear a mask and social distance as much as possible. 

[WildCard]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Big picture: It looks like the U.S. is going to get a do-over. Daily new cases have been dropping, using a seven day average, for about two weeks. And unlike the first drop-off, this one is looking to be very steep. Daily new deaths are just starting to taper off. We have a chance as a country to push this thing way down and this time keep it down with more, faster testing, contact tracing and, most of all, common sense.

Link to the charts?

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, WildCard said:

Link to the charts?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[nfreeman]

Here's something I just learned and found interesting:  schools are going to be open in the UK this fall, with no online component, no masks, no social distancing -- essentially business as usual.  Meanwhile, it seems like the percentage of US schools that are going to be partially or entirely online this fall is pretty high.

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Here's something I just learned and found interesting:  schools are going to be open in the UK this fall, with no online component, no masks, no social distancing -- essentially business as usual.  Meanwhile, it seems like the percentage of US schools that are going to be partially or entirely online this fall is pretty high.

Cases/Deaths in UK are currently much lower than US.

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Cases/Deaths in UK are currently much lower than US.

Overall, the per capita death rate in the US is substantially lower than that of the UK.  As for current trends, the numbers are more unstable, but certainly there are plenty of US states with lower current cases and death rates than the UK.

[atoq]

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

You produce a 5 paragraph novella because you didn't see the word "about" in a sentence you bolded, but then say others don't read things carefully.  

You ask people to read 60+ articles and roll your eyes at 5 paragraphs. I did misquote, having originally intended to quote more and respond point by point, but instead responding more generally to the series of posts the followed. Oh well, nobody is perfect, I made careless mistakes in my post and you look for medical advice on a political sub-forum of a NFL message board. We're all doing our best.

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

And presumably upon reflection, as the comment was added much later, you seem to agree that the point of getting people access to papers so they can read for themselves is important.

3 minutes later. Nice try.

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

And that is all the original post on this subject was doing; proving people a source to access studies directly without having to rely on somebody else's interpretation of those studies.

I think we can all get behind more quality science being made available to the public. However, in this case there was curation and interpretation of those studies, as well as misleading design elements on the page itself. I think 100% agree that it's a good thing that people read more science papers, but its also fair to say that trained experts are much more equipped to review, interpret and make decisions on this type of work. Let's be honest, neither you nor are I nearly as informed as we like to claim we are in internet message board arguments.

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

Please show us anywhere where yours truly has touted not social distancing, ignoring proper hygiene, or not researching other potential treatments & vaccines.

Please show me anywhere where I accused you of touting not social distancing, ignoring proper hygiene. As I had discussed in the previous paragraph, there is an undeniable segment of the population whose perspective on HCQ is influenced by the idea that the severity of the virus has been exaggerated, lock downs were/are unnecessary (and politically motivated), and that known medicines that work are being suppressed. People with these views are more likely to not wear masks and ignore social distancing protocols. Those viewpoints are widely expressed where you found the link, just one step away from this message board. I intentionally tried not to reference you specifically in this group (and certainly not shrader) to give you the benefit of the doubt that although you frequent those site and often share their content, you don't buy into the conspiracy theories.

Let's look at a case study of a public figure, Herman Cain, who touted HCQ treatment from March-June, later attended a large public event in late June against recommended social distancing protocols while also not wearing a mask (even though he touted mask wearing on his site), to later catch and die from COVID. He obviously understood the importance of masks and social distancing yet irrationally disregarded all of that advice. Obviously we can't say for certain if he took those risks because he thought he could rely on HCQ, but HCQ was certainly in the equation given how outspoken Cain was on the topic.

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

Premature celebration of an unproven treatment IS a bad thing. 

So then you agree that high profile government officials promoting the use of an unproven treatment is irresponsible? Especially given that it led to people taking a non-FDA approved medicine shown to potentially have side-effects, as well as causing a rush for those drugs thus limiting availability for those who may need the medicines for other conditions?

On 8/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, Taro T said:

Also, not sure how you concluded that researchers worldwide studying whether HCQ based treatment regimens were viable was altering public policy appreciably causing the virus to spread.  Don't agree with that take, but not a big deal.

This isn't what I was saying, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The pandemic response is as much as a social experiment as one of policy. We need both common-sense public policy that researches potential treatment and vaccines while at the same time enacting communication strategies that promote social behaviors that will keep the virus from spreading. I think we need both carrot-and-stick aspects to policy, in which certain standards are established with regards to use of masks, social distancing, testing and contact-tracing (stick) but perhaps even more more importantly, that these policies are bound together by cohesive public messaging that encourages mutually respectful behaviors that help slow the virus from spreading (carrot). I think it would be difficult to argue that either of these has happened in a country with the highest COVID case count and number of deaths in the world. I refer to HCQ as a distraction because policy and cohesive communications efforts have obviously proven insufficient so far, yet there has been a tremendous public focus on HCQ due to certain individuals, which has only created unnecessary debate, division and confusion.

Is there a good reason for publicly promoting unproven HCQ as a solution while publicly downplaying proven solutions like extensive testing and contact tracing (and even masks up until the past weeks)? Is this dichotomy due to concern for public health outcomes, or because there hasn't been enough tests available but lots of HCQ available? Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the countries most badly affected by COVID (US, Brazil, Mexico, India, Venezuela) are all promoting unproven medications?

Shrader very well may be right that a certain segment of the population would ignore masks and social distancing recommendations anyway, for the reasons he listed. I see the HCQ conversation as just a small part of a larger discourse that attempts to minimize the severity of the virus, further emboldening those people to ignore public health advice.

I assume the scientists are continually doing their jobs looking for treatment and cures, the main failure I see has been with communication and community building strategies to foster the public cohesion needed to stop a pandemic. Undue and premature focus on HCQ has only worsened this. Is waiting for FDA approval considered a controversial stance in the US these days?

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by atoq

[That Aud Smell]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Daily new cases have been dropping, using a seven day average, for about two weeks. 

That is interesting.

[Wyldnwoody44]

5 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Wouldn't the person coming in for the psych consult be offered a virtual visit?

How many people would have died from Covid if you could have had your way? How many of these non-Covid deaths you're referring to would have been avoided?

And here's your chance to report on the fallout you've seen.

 

I'll try and explain my thoughts a little later, I'm trying to meet most halfway, compared to my stance in April. I'm out in Lake Placid right now and don't have much service.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Here's something I just learned and found interesting:  schools are going to be open in the UK this fall, with no online component, no masks, no social distancing -- essentially business as usual.  Meanwhile, it seems like the percentage of US schools that are going to be partially or entirely online this fall is pretty high.

Same here in NS, but we have had very few cases throughout this first wave.

I have very little doubt that the opening of schools and the preasure to open the boarder with the US will be disasters.  Our (Canada's) only real hope is if we keep our boarders closed to all non-essential international travel.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, atoq said:

You ask people to read 60+ articles and roll your eyes at 5 paragraphs. I did misquote, having originally intended to quote more and respond point by point, but instead responding more generally to the series of posts the followed. Oh well, nobody is perfect, I made careless mistakes in my post and you look for medical advice on a political sub-forum of a NFL message board. We're all doing our best.

I only look for medical advice on an NHL board.

[Curt]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Overall, the per capita death rate in the US is substantially lower than that of the UK.  As for current trends, the numbers are more unstable, but certainly there are plenty of US states with lower current cases and death rates than the UK.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?time=2020-07-12..&country=USA~GBR
 

Perhaps in cumulative total, but not recently.  UK had a very high peak early on but then  quickly and consistently trended down.  US has recently seen an increase in cases and deaths, driven by the large outbreaks in several southern states.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Curt