Yep, huge amount being spent to counter the pandemic - and not always ideally - but very likely that not doing that would have had much greater costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyk
Printable View
Yep, huge amount being spent to counter the pandemic - and not always ideally - but very likely that not doing that would have had much greater costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyk
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Y’all are aware that the rapid antigen tests are showing positive typically several days after symptom onset, there supposedly is a timeframe (that can be for several days) of being infectious but not yet testing positive on an antigen test, and that for many(?) that take paxovid, they are experiencing a rebound? There’s also the scenario of a vaxed person being exposed, developing symptoms (which is their immune response), symptoms resolving, and never becoming infectious. The description of the paxovid rebound that I’ve read is that the patient will test negative after finishing their 5-day tx, will develop symptoms a few days later, and will get positive again with an antigen test, indicating that they are still infectious.
If you're in Washington you can order 10 antigen tests a month in addition to USPS https://sayyeshometest.org/
So in spite of everyone being double boosted and extensive testing requirements, The White House Correspondent's Dinner has turned out to be a super spreader event. Jonathan Carl is sick with COVID, the Secretary of State has it, along with dozens of people representing pretty much all the various news agencies.
Indoors in tight spaces around non family for more than a few minutes tonight. Thinking I'll be wearing a good mask for that event..
Going back to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
If it takes less to be contagious now, how valuable is a negative test result in terms of confirming (at least) a non-contagious status? @Mofro261, this is right in your wheelhouse, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
I read high value to confirm that one is no longer infectious.
Extended school closings bad actually?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/b...ning-loss.html
Also compounded by the fact that most legislators are rich and send their kids to private schools which mostly opened in fall 2020.
Quotes:
The Covid closures have reversed much of that progress, at least for now. Low-income students, as well as Black and Latino students, fell further behind over the past two years, relative to students who are high-income, white or Asian. “This will probably be the largest increase in educational inequity in a generation,” Thomas Kane, an author of the Harvard study, told me....
Together, these factors mean that school closures were what economists call a regressive policy, widening inequality by doing the most harm to groups that were already vulnerable...
Were many of these problems avoidable? The evidence suggests that they were. Extended school closures appear to have done much more harm than good, and many school administrators probably could have recognized as much by the fall of 2020.
In places where schools reopened that summer and fall, the spread of Covid was not noticeably worse than in places where schools remained closed. Schools also reopened in parts of Europe without seeming to spark outbreaks.
Update on reaction to double vax of Covid #4 and Shingrix #2 at same time
Shots were 1000 Tuesday
At about 2000 I started downhill, by 2200 I had all the major reactions.
Felt like shit all day yesterday but OK this AM.
Intensity of reaction was no worse than either Covid #3 or Shingrix #1 taken two mos apart.
Duration of reaction was shorter.
Covid is a "regressive policy" as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
Pandemics have consequences, and like the consequences of anything, the vulnerable are hurt worse. Some covid policies will turn out to have been good, some mistaken, some ridiculous (closing parks, telling people not to leave the county or drive more than 30 miles). In retrospect. Authorities made the best judgements they could based on limited knowledge of a novel virus. For every potential policy, enacted or not, you could find experts for and against.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Another good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Hopefully we have collectively learned something from the whole experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
IDK, I see a lot of questioning about recent decisions by authorities. Like the whole “prevention” part of the CDCs title. The continual ramping down in surveillance and funding, the continually fucked up and confusing messaging, the lack of supporting science in supposedly science-based policy, the infighting about the definition of “aerosol” that stagnated policy and public re-education, etc.
A negative Ag after a positive /symptomatic infection is a good correlate to no longer transmissible. A negative without a pos or symptoms gives you a result for that time point only, and can miss pre-symptomatic or asym. early Infections during day 0-3.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Was sneezing a bit yesterday, stuffy last night but nothing that felt like real sickness and more like allergies. Dammit tested pos at work this morning.
Bummer mofro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
Maybe the missus and I did have covid a couple weeks ago? No sore throat or classic symptoms (had a very wet cough, no headache, no chest tightness, but sneezing and gushing snot), at home test (iHealth COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test) was negative twice.
I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this. Am I the only one who hears "Shingrix" as if it was written by someone speaking Engrish?
+2 with goat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Good luck, Mofro ! skiJ
Seeing a LOT of upper respiratory past 5 weeks covid negative on rapid and PCR in Montana. Other bugs out there. If you're on the east coast, well, different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
With the general decision that "it's over," it isn't surprising to see all the "normal" bugs come back. While masking and distancing etc were only partly successful against covid, it devastated most other diseases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
3 positive tests so far from a weekend bbq. I stayed outside, and negative so far.
Because people were willing to mask and distance for other diseases, but not covid?Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Of course, doncha remember, "Its no worse than the flu".Quote:
Originally Posted by jfost
https://www.google.com/search?client...e+than+the+flu
warshingtun, thought you'd know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
You moved to D.C.? :fm:
Good luck Mofro!
No. Because the effort against Covid, while not enough to contain Covid, did contain all the other respiratory diseases. Quick analogy, firefighters dump a bunch of water on a fire. Most fires go out. The wind-driven one does not. Some conclude water (masking) doesn't work. The "prevent respiratory disease" strategies did work. We just need a little more to also beat Covid. (setting aside that people don't want to, and disease returns when we stop countermeasures)Quote:
Originally Posted by jfost