Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More-Than-Most

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/19/healt...cks/index.html


we have been using them as well.. many other newer articles even suggest it... there is a problem though

Earlier this month, British researchers published a study showing that temperature checks will fail to detect a coronavirus infection nearly half the time.
At least one country has found airport temperature checks so unhelpful that it decided not to do them during the novel coronavirus outbreak. Israel used them in previous years for Ebola, SARS and H1N1, but found that they didn't work.
"It is ineffective and inefficient," said Dr. Itamar Grotto, associate director general of Israel's Ministry of Health.
Fact-checking Tom Cotton's claims about the coronavirus
Fact-checking Tom Cotton's claims about the coronavirus
Grotto said the problem is that a normal temperature gives "false assurance." Passengers with normal temperatures could still be in the incubation period, which means they're infected, but have yet to develop a fever.
In addition, a small number of patients with the novel coronavirus don't have fever, according to published studies.



id prefer we get rid of this stupid test and just tell people to stay away from each other and wear masks :shrug:

if you dont think false assurance are going to be a major issue esp in massive areas like DW then you believe in people way to much.

---

It's not meant to be an assurance, it's meant to be a mass screening method.

I'm not sure if I'm reading it correct, it says it will fail to detect half the time. Does that mean it DOES detect half infected travelers? If so, that's easily worth it. I was thinking it would get like 20%, even at 20% I think it's worth it, let alone 50%.

That sounds high tho, I could be misreading it..

Either way, part of us knowing what the best formula to move forward with is seeing things in practice. Doesnt it make sense to first take basic measures and precautions when doing this? Give it a few weeks and evaluate the numbers? See what's effective, what's not, move forward accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

It's not meant to be an assurance, it's meant to be a mass screening method.

I'm not sure if I'm reading it correct, it says it will fail to detect half the time. Does that mean it DOES detect half infected travelers? If so, that's easily worth it. I was thinking it would get like 20%, even at 20% I think it's worth it, let alone 50%.

That sounds high tho, I could be misreading it..

Either way, part of us knowing what the best formula to move forward with is seeing things in practice. Doesnt it make sense to first take basic measures and precautions when doing this? Give it a few weeks and evaluate the numbers? See what's effective, what's not, move forward accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

i can get behind this... do mass temp screenings and give it a month to see if it hurts or works. I just am very doubtful anything will work until we get a vaccine or an insta test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

It's not meant to be an assurance, it's meant to be a mass screening method.

I'm not sure if I'm reading it correct, it says it will fail to detect half the time. Does that mean it DOES detect half infected travelers? If so, that's easily worth it. I was thinking it would get like 20%, even at 20% I think it's worth it, let alone 50%.

That sounds high tho, I could be misreading it..

Either way, part of us knowing what the best formula to move forward with is seeing things in practice. Doesnt it make sense to first take basic measures and precautions when doing this? Give it a few weeks and evaluate the numbers? See what's effective, what's not, move forward accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

No you have to think about the offset behavioral changes. If people all maintain the same behaviors sure catching any would be great... but the feeling of safety that gives people WILL change their behavior.

Plus you are ignoring... more importantly, the exponential rate it appears this thing spreads. Catch 50%... hell catch 70% it's not gonna slow it down much. If you read the know your risks article I posted you'd have a sense. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...amJcbxekBe-tGE It's like saying Do you want a 1000 angry bees in your house or 500... maybe there's a difference. But you're gonna hurt regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

No you have to think about the offset behavioral changes. If people all maintain the same behaviors sure catching any would be great... but the feeling of safety that gives people WILL change their behavior.

Plus you are ignoring... more importantly, the exponential rate it appears this thing spreads. Catch 50%... hell catch 70% it's not gonna slow it down much. If you read the know your risks article I posted you'd have a sense. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...amJcbxekBe-tGE It's like saying Do you want a 1000 angry bees in your house or 500... maybe there's a difference. But you're gonna hurt regardless.

---

If we are doing something that is catching a given percentage of infected travelers, shouldnt that have some sort of effect on the growth curve?

More specifically, the doubling time? Heres a link to the latimes corona tracker for California

https://www.latimes.com/projects/cal...king-outbreak/

Look at the graph that says cumulative cases by county. Its plotted to illustrate doubling time. At the beginning of this outbreak California had about 3-4 day doubling time across the board. But let's pretend that since the beginning we have been screening all incoming travelers, which is a certain percent of travelers, and certain smaller percent of population. Wouldnt that initial double time be a little longer across the board, maybe 5-6 days, maybe more?

Wouldnt that be a pretty significant effect on slowing an outbreak? I dunno, that's kinda what I would think...

Really I feel like the airport screening should have been started as soon as cases popped up. At the very least all outbound travelers from Washington, California, and New York. Thinking about NYC being in the middle of an active outbreak, yet people are flying outta LaGuardia and JFK to every little city, nook, and cranny in America, I dont get the logic behind it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

As Flips is saying, the reason it won't be effective isn't necessarily the effectiveness of temperature screens (though he's also saying they are not nearly as effective as believed), it's that people will change their behavior if they don't measure a temperature.

Instead of keeping their distance and wearing masks, they'll be like "I'm gonna go have a beer at the airport bar and talk to people with no mask, because after all that temperature check said I don't have corona!"

If you're thinking "that's stupid". I agree. Welcome to human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

As Flips is saying, the reason it won't be effective isn't necessarily the effectiveness of temperature screens (though he's also saying they are not nearly as effective as believed), it's that people will change their behavior if they don't measure a temperature.

Instead of keeping their distance and wearing masks, they'll be like "I'm gonna go have a beer at the airport bar and talk to people with no mask, because after all that temperature check said I don't have corona!"

If you're thinking "that's stupid". I agree. Welcome to human nature.

---

Sp essentially we shouldnt have any form of screening?

If they made drive up tests available, and they were missing a sizable chunk of infections, we should just abandoned the idea of using it?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

It's not meant to be an assurance, it's meant to be a mass screening method.

I'm not sure if I'm reading it correct, it says it will fail to detect half the time. Does that mean it DOES detect half infected travelers? If so, that's easily worth it. I was thinking it would get like 20%, even at 20% I think it's worth it, let alone 50%.

That sounds high tho, I could be misreading it..

Either way, part of us knowing what the best formula to move forward with is seeing things in practice. Doesnt it make sense to first take basic measures and precautions when doing this? Give it a few weeks and evaluate the numbers? See what's effective, what's not, move forward accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Screenings are one thing. They fail far more than tests do, but they will pick up those who are symptomatic. They miss asymptomatic carriers of the virus.
Unless and until we have at least 10% of the population tested with less than 5% of those tested being positive, it is not safe to re-open the country completely. We can have certain industries open, but to have the mass attendances of concerts or large sporting events is likely not smart.
When we have a usable, effective vaccine, that will also help. I, as a professional, am leaning toward the Oxford vaccine. It appears, in preliminary trials, to be effective and safe. Bill Gates and his foundation (which Drs Birx and Fauci are associated with, by the way) are attempting to produce a vaccine. This effort has been less successful than the Oxford vaccine.
The Oxford vaccine could be in general production this fall, meaning that the 2nd wave of this virus could be thwarted. Once we get enough immunity in the population, the virus will die out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flips333

No you have to think about the offset behavioral changes. If people all maintain the same behaviors sure catching any would be great... but the feeling of safety that gives people WILL change their behavior.

Plus you are ignoring... more importantly, the exponential rate it appears this thing spreads. Catch 50%... hell catch 70% it's not gonna slow it down much. If you read the know your risks article I posted you'd have a sense. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...amJcbxekBe-tGE It's like saying Do you want a 1000 angry bees in your house or 500... maybe there's a difference. But you're gonna hurt regardless.

---

Nicely written. Thank you for bringing it down to a level the laypeople can understand.

The virus is a dream come true for far left Congress members and governors. They use it to make Trump look bad (some of which he brought on himself), recently unemployed workers have to take handouts from the government, and stay at home orders is a way for the liberal politicians to control people. The far left (including the governor of my home state of Illinois) is hoping the virus never dies and that there will never be a vaccine. Also, the Democrats are more worried about funding abortion than helping people who just lost their jobs. Even if you support abortion, you have to agree that is really warped priorities. That's why the Republicans aren't voting for the latest relief bill.

If/when there is a vaccine, Nancy Pelosi and her brood will demand that illegal aliens are given the first doses. I'm not joking -- you watch what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy

The virus is a dream come true for far left Congress members and governors. They use it to make Trump look bad (some of which he brought on himself), recently unemployed workers have to take handouts from the government, and stay at home orders is a way for the liberal politicians to control people. The far left (including the governor of my home state of Illinois) is hoping the virus never dies and that there will never be a vaccine. Also, the Democrats are more worried about funding abortion than helping people who just lost their jobs. Even if you support abortion, you have to agree that is really warped priorities. That's why the Republicans aren't voting for the latest relief bill.

If/when there is a vaccine, Nancy Pelosi and her brood will demand that illegal aliens are given the first doses. I'm not joking -- you watch what happens.

---

You’re crazy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy

The virus is a dream come true for far left Congress members and governors. They use it to make Trump look bad (some of which he brought on himself), recently unemployed workers have to take handouts from the government, and stay at home orders is a way for the liberal politicians to control people. The far left (including the governor of my home state of Illinois) is hoping the virus never dies and that there will never be a vaccine. Also, the Democrats are more worried about funding abortion than helping people who just lost their jobs. Even if you support abortion, you have to agree that is really warped priorities. That's why the Republicans aren't voting for the latest relief bill.

If/when there is a vaccine, Nancy Pelosi and her brood will demand that illegal aliens are given the first doses. I'm not joking -- you watch what happens.

---

Holy 4chan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy

The virus is a dream come true for far left Congress members and governors. They use it to make Trump look bad (some of which he brought on himself), recently unemployed workers have to take handouts from the government, and stay at home orders is a way for the liberal politicians to control people. The far left (including the governor of my home state of Illinois) is hoping the virus never dies and that there will never be a vaccine. Also, the Democrats are more worried about funding abortion than helping people who just lost their jobs. Even if you support abortion, you have to agree that is really warped priorities. That's why the Republicans aren't voting for the latest relief bill.

If/when there is a vaccine, Nancy Pelosi and her brood will demand that illegal aliens are given the first doses. I'm not joking -- you watch what happens.

---

What a complete joke of a post.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemoc...93258605/?vh=e

What do all of these people have in common?

I think there's going to be so much "new normal", that we will talk about "the good old days" a lot to our children and grand children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike_noodles

I think there's going to be so much "new normal", that we will talk about "the good old days" a lot to our children and grand children.

---

I think the new normal will end with vaccine or antiviral or fully spread virus. Less than 2 years.

After that we can go back to being dirty mofos. lol, but maybe small things will stick, maybe we will be a little cleaner in general, more conscious of our personal hygiene, more conscious of what we eat, etc

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk