Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
@Bankwalker
You qualified your “fact” that risk is low to the majority by saying, “statistically speaking”. If the method for gathering and interpreting data is called into question—something both sides of the debate do—then how can you be sure? I argue the lockdowns could have had an effect on the statistics. If they work to slow the spread, that could call your “facts” about risk into question. Your numbers would be higher if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate.
On children, my intended point is loss of a loved one. The point is your perspective changes if you have to actually sacrifice something or perceive a risk to someone you hold dear. Not changing anything—just clarifying.
Yes, Ebola is a good comparison—unless one assumes her statistics are right where the other side’s is wrong. It is a good comparison if one feels a moral obligation to protect life. If all life is sacred, then morally we should treat/ should have treated this virus like all infectious diseases that kill. I think you made the point that if we had—this would be over. I agree. If we had implemented mitigation procedures and remained open, we would have had a better result than half way doing it, as you suggested.
I don’t know that we disagree on what should be done at this point. If you believe we should do our best to protect life, then we don’t disagree. If you believe we should all wear masks and social distance, then we don’t disagree in what really matters.
“This thread has never been about people not wearing a mask. Ever.”
If one takes a position her “facts” prove the risk is overstated, the death rate is inflated, and the mitigation efforts were unnecessary, then it fuels irrational, anti-mitigation rhetoric and actions. That makes it about people not wearing masks.
I have a simple, basic and non partisan question:
We have 5 essential employees tested every Friday. We have for the past 4 weeks. Had my 4th test an hour ago.
We get our results in 15 minutes. Why can't everyone find out in 15 minutes?
We aren't all as privileged as you @texdawg /s
It's a legit question. I believe the answer is two fold: 1. There's more than one type of test equipment being used with various costs. 2. There's not enough of the 15 minute variety deployed across the country.
Well....if it's privilege then it's old privilege or bald privilege.
I'm of the opinion that anyone not blessed with a flowing head of hair.....should receive certain privileges
Supply and demand.
You're also not doing a PCR test which takes longer but gives more accurate results.
@GrayDawg, I totally agree on the economic thinking. We are in trouble and things will get worse before they get better.
Had we made it law to wear masks and social distance in January, and seriously enforced it, my guess is we’d be in a better position today. We may not have needed to lock it down. Starting there, and then locking down as necessary seemed a more sensible approach to me. The economy would have been affected but maybe we print less money through more targeted aid to those economically displaced by mitigation efforts.
Of course, that would depend on all people complying with the mitigation efforts.
You are presumably getting an Abbott test which means that you can only process 4 people an hour. The molecular tests done at a drive-through etc get sent to Quest/LabCorp who have machines capable of testing 1,000+ per hour. Just a volume issue although the nasal swab is also more accurate assuming that the sampling is done correctly.
PCR gives more accurate results? Aren't you either positive or negative?
If PCR gives more accurate results then we may be wasting money.......the test works or it doesn't.
And if it's supply and demand.......there is very little to the tests. Long swabs and a couple other things.......
15 minute test seems like a no brainer.
It is a nasal swab......both nostrils.
And the 4 person limit doesn't add up.
The first week we did it we tested all 12 that are in the warehouse/office. All results were processed quickly. I believe within 15 minutes....may have been slightly longer.
We tested outside salespeople separately.
And we test 5 employees everyweek with immediate results. And that answer is a fact.
And I understand that part of the cost is having someone come to the office..... don't understand why the rest of the test has to be do much more expensive.
PCR tests are very sensitive (identify true positives) and very specific (identify true negatives). Your company is likely using an antigen point of care test which detects proteins on the surface of the virus. While these tests are very specific they tend to be less sensitive and produce more false negatives than PCR tests. The million dollar question is how many false negatives does it produce?
So the test only produces false negatives and not false positives?
It seems simple to me.....a test either works or it doesn't.......and it sounds to me that we may be wasting money.
Unfortunately...... I struggle with gray areas.....it's a weakness of mine.
Obviously these test shouldn't be on the market if what you suggest is true.
If your employer was not so cheap then you could take the more expensive and proven more accurate test. Matter of money.
My clinic will not touch the Abbott test, PCR only, we are going to start random testing pretty soon. Not saying the Abbott test are bad just not as accurate and cheaper.......old adage is you get what you pay for.....
In general we know that these tests aren't going to be as accurate as PCR tests, but they produce results much faster which make them useful in certain contexts IF they identify a high enough percentage of true positive cases. You want them to identify at least 95% of true positive cases to be considered effective. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding these rapid point of care tests because many of them have been shown to identify a much lower percentage of positive cases.
Edit: unfortunately there is a lot of gray area with this type of stuff.