[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Happy Thanksgiving! - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 7:04am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Nov 26, 2020 - 6:58am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Nov 26, 2020 - 6:35am
 
Next life I'm going to be a backup singer - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 6:15am
 
COVID-19 - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 6:04am
 
♥ ♥ ♥ Vote For Pie ♥ ♥ ♥ - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:53am
 
Jam! - rhahl - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:50am
 
2020 Elections - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:49am
 
Trump - miamizsun - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:47am
 
The Obituary Page - Ohmsen - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Counting with Pictures - kopak - Nov 26, 2020 - 5:19am
 
Democratic Party - kcar - Nov 26, 2020 - 3:41am
 
A motivational quote - Jiggz - Nov 26, 2020 - 3:12am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 25, 2020 - 11:40pm
 
Outstanding Covers - R_P - Nov 25, 2020 - 6:32pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 25, 2020 - 5:55pm
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 3:30pm
 
Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Massacree - haresfur - Nov 25, 2020 - 3:30pm
 
want to donate but only use the native internet currency ... - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 2:35pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Manbird - Nov 25, 2020 - 2:33pm
 
The Best Commercials - Manbird - Nov 25, 2020 - 2:07pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 1:42pm
 
Blues Rock - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 1:28pm
 
New Study Finds 'Most Narcissistic Generation' on Campuse... - haresfur - Nov 25, 2020 - 1:28pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Isabeau - Nov 25, 2020 - 1:01pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 12:52pm
 
Sticky, Groovy 70s Tunes - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 11:09am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - rhahl - Nov 25, 2020 - 10:44am
 
Live Music - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 9:20am
 
Dear Retail Fashion Industry - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 8:55am
 
2001; A SPACE ODYSSEY - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 10:26pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Manbird - Nov 24, 2020 - 3:11pm
 
Canada - westslope - Nov 24, 2020 - 2:52pm
 
Donating with Bitcoin - why not? - BillG - Nov 24, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
New Music - chris13 - Nov 24, 2020 - 1:56pm
 
Need A Thread Killed? - oldviolin - Nov 24, 2020 - 9:17am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - perruca - Nov 24, 2020 - 6:14am
 
Zappa - miamizsun - Nov 24, 2020 - 5:46am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:58am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:53am
 
In My Room - buddy - Nov 23, 2020 - 5:57pm
 
Oops! - Red_Dragon - Nov 23, 2020 - 3:58pm
 
Republican Party - R_P - Nov 23, 2020 - 2:27pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - miamizsun - Nov 23, 2020 - 2:15pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Nov 23, 2020 - 1:44pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - haresfur - Nov 23, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
Name My Disease! - buddy - Nov 23, 2020 - 12:58pm
 
songs that ROCK! - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 23, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 23, 2020 - 11:49am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 23, 2020 - 9:36am
 
No Points for Trying - miamizsun - Nov 23, 2020 - 6:56am
 
Amazing animals! - Coaxial - Nov 23, 2020 - 6:08am
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - Nov 22, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Nov 22, 2020 - 2:40pm
 
Always great listening... - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 22, 2020 - 2:10pm
 
What makes you smile? - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 12:53pm
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 12:14pm
 
russian mystery - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 11:12am
 
Health Care - Steely_D - Nov 22, 2020 - 10:24am
 
You might be getting old if...... - Antigone - Nov 22, 2020 - 9:31am
 
Back to the 70's - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 8:51am
 
Capital Punishment - R_P - Nov 21, 2020 - 4:11pm
 
THE SMITHS (THE BAND GOOD) - MORRISSEY (BAD) Discuss - sirdroseph - Nov 21, 2020 - 12:29pm
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Nov 21, 2020 - 12:22pm
 
Republican Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy - buddy - Nov 21, 2020 - 11:23am
 
Electronic Pest Control Devices - Do They Work? - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2020 - 10:01am
 
Great guitar faces - Red_Dragon - Nov 21, 2020 - 9:30am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2020 - 9:08am
 
Dissociative Identity Disorder? - Ohmsen - Nov 21, 2020 - 4:52am
 
Amazing music to include - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2020 - 5:48pm
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2020 - 5:45pm
 
donation other than online? - BillG - Nov 20, 2020 - 12:50pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Guns - westslope - Nov 20, 2020 - 9:47am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » COVID-19 Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 26, 2020 - 6:04am

 rgio wrote:
@miami posted something about CT a few days ago in this thread.

The issue at 40 isn't that they are "false" positives...they just aren't "dangerous" anymore....aren't shedding virus.  
 

cycle threshold score/number is very important

(hopefully they'll do a short version of this vid but i'd say watch it anyway)

mina explains where the bureaucracy falls short

Ohmsen

Ohmsen Avatar

Location: Valhalla
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 2:28pm



 rgio wrote:


 Ohmsen wrote:
The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
       
      @miami posted something about CT a few days ago in this thread.

      The issue at 40 isn't that they are "false" positives...they just aren't "dangerous" anymore....aren't shedding virus.  

       

      Ooops, I'm afraid you might be amiss in your thinking. The higher the cycling of rna samples being run in a test, the higher any positive outcome. Meaning: Some say, 25 would be a reasonable and more realistic way of recycling the rna strands. Remember, the more re-cycling of rna, the higher the rate of false positive outcomes. 
      rgio

      rgio Avatar

      Location: West Jersey
      Gender: Male


      Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 2:20pm



       Ohmsen wrote:
      The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
           
          @miami posted something about CT a few days ago in this thread.

          The issue at 40 isn't that they are "false" positives...they just aren't "dangerous" anymore....aren't shedding virus.  

          Ohmsen

          Ohmsen Avatar

          Location: Valhalla
          Gender: Male


          Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 2:08pm



           Lazy8 wrote:
          Ohmsen wrote:
          Still I dare to question the value of the meta-analysis you named as studies above in comparison to a "real" study, published in Nature, on Nov. 20.
          Let me recap the abstract:
          Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
          The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

          A further, more daring conclusion from this study could be, to only test symptomatic cases anymore. A conclusion which I have rarely heard being re-iterated by international politicians, or health-experts, much less the MSM.
          The German health secretary did say this some weeks ago, perhaps more due to logistical shortcomings and strains on the existing testing-infrastructure (labs in this case), but federal politics haven't followed the idea based on science, as sticking to the usual suspects among "experts". You can guess wHO, I'm sure. Might some lobby be involved there? - Nah... nothing to see here, keep walking.

          What was the false positive rate on their test? Testing almost 10 million people will give you a few no matter how good the technology. Are these their asymptomatic patients?


          From the study:
          Details regarding technical methods for sequencing and virus culture were provided in Supplementary note 1. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay method was used for the nucleic acid testing. We simultaneously amplified and tested the two target genes: open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) and nucleocapsid protein (N) (Supplementary Note 1). A cycle threshold value (Ct-value) less than 37 was defined as a positive result, and no Ct-value or a Ct-value of 40 or more was defined as a negative result. For Ct-values ranging from 37 to 40, the sample was retested. If the retest result remained less than 40 and the amplification curve had obvious peak, the sample was classified as positive; otherwise, it was reported as being negative. These diagnostic criteria were based on China’s official recommendations16. ~ (Source - from the same study). 

          The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
              As for a personal anecdote, certainly not to be taken as any "evidence": 
              I know people testing positive (through PCR-testing method) who were asymptomatic and never got sick, in the timely range of 3 seasons, by now. 
              Lazy8

              Lazy8 Avatar

              Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 1:43pm

              Ohmsen wrote:
              Lazy8 wrote:
              This article is from June. We've learned a thing or two since then. This article (with links to studies cited) is from late September. For those too lazy to follow the link: best estimates are that symptomatic patients are about twice as likely to spread the disease in any individual case. Asymptomatic patients may be less cautious around others and additional risky behavior can overwhelm the lower probability of infection by having more opportunities for infection.

              Keep in mind that truly asymptomatic patients are quite rare. The really dangerous vectors are presymptomatic patients—people who don't feel sick...yet.
               
              Still I dare to question the value of the meta-analysis you named as studies above in comparison to a "real" study, published in Nature, on Nov. 20.
              Let me recap the abstract:
              Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
              The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

              A further, more daring conclusion from this study could be, to only test symptomatic cases anymore. A conclusion which I have rarely heard being re-iterated by international politicians, or health-experts, much less the MSM.
              The German health secretary did say this some weeks ago, perhaps more due to logistical shortcomings and strains on the existing testing-infrastructure (labs in this case), but federal politics haven't followed the idea based on science, as sticking to the usual suspects among "experts". You can guess wHO, I'm sure. Might some lobby be involved there? - Nah... nothing to see here, keep walking.

              What was the false positive rate on their test? Testing almost 10 million people will give you a few no matter how good the technology. Are these their asymptomatic patients?
              haresfur

              haresfur Avatar

              Location: The Golden Triangle
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 1:30pm



               westslope wrote:


               rgio wrote:


               ......
               
              So instead, Philly folks will cross the bridge to NJ for their last-minute booze.  Works for me...

              .......

               

              Good point.  As neighbouring state bars will stay open, ultimately this move has the potential to increase the number of C-19 cases in Philadelphia.  
               
              Oh, there's plenty of covid in PA to go around

              R_P

              R_P Avatar



              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 1:01pm

              US coronavirus hospitalisations at record levels, as states sound the alarm and holidays loom
              westslope

              westslope Avatar

              Location: BC sage brush steppe


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 12:28pm



               rgio wrote:


               ......
               
              So instead, Philly folks will cross the bridge to NJ for their last-minute booze.  Works for me...

              .......

               

              Good point.  As neighbouring state bars will stay open, ultimately this move has the potential to increase the number of C-19 cases in Philadelphia.  
              Ohmsen

              Ohmsen Avatar

              Location: Valhalla
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 12:13pm



               rgio wrote:


               westslope wrote:
              When I first read the subtitle I thought that Pennsylvania had banned all alcohol sales..... and was preparing myself for civil war.   Not quite.  Interesting all the same.

              Pennsylvania bans booze sales on one of the busiest nights of the year.
              The night before Thanksgiving is usually a busy one in Pennsylvania’s drinking spots, but they will have to stop serving at 5 p.m. this year, the state has ordered.Credit...Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times
               
              So instead, Philly folks will cross the bridge to NJ for their last-minute booze.  Works for me...

              In this area, tonight is normally mayhem at bars and restaurants.  Starting at around noon, folks begin to hang out with their high school and college friends.  Anyone between the ages of 21 and 30 is absolutely out drinking.  There are also plenty of older folks, but this is Philly's Fat Tuesday. 

              It'll be interesting to see how many outdoor gatherings in the area make the news.  The weather is very nice for this time of year...over 60 right now.

               

              Spirogyra ~ Turn Again Lane
               (Album: Burn The Bridges,  The Demo Tapes 1970-1971)

              rgio

              rgio Avatar

              Location: West Jersey
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 12:06pm



               westslope wrote:
              When I first read the subtitle I thought that Pennsylvania had banned all alcohol sales..... and was preparing myself for civil war.   Not quite.  Interesting all the same.

              Pennsylvania bans booze sales on one of the busiest nights of the year.
              The night before Thanksgiving is usually a busy one in Pennsylvania’s drinking spots, but they will have to stop serving at 5 p.m. this year, the state has ordered.Credit...Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times
               
              So instead, Philly folks will cross the bridge to NJ for their last-minute booze.  Works for me...

              In this area, tonight is normally mayhem at bars and restaurants.  Starting at around noon, folks begin to hang out with their high school and college friends.  Anyone between the ages of 21 and 30 is absolutely out drinking.  There are also plenty of older folks, but this is Philly's Fat Tuesday. 

              It'll be interesting to see how many outdoor gatherings in the area make the news.  The weather is very nice for this time of year...over 60 right now.

              R_P

              R_P Avatar



              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 12:01pm

              It’s the Fauci Awards!
              What if public health officials got awards instead of death threats?

              Ohmsen

              Ohmsen Avatar

              Location: Valhalla
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 10:56am

              They're locking them up today
              They're throwing away the key
              I wonder who it'll be tomorrow
              You or me

              westslope

              westslope Avatar

              Location: BC sage brush steppe


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 9:37am

              When I first read the subtitle I thought that Pennsylvania had banned all alcohol sales..... and was preparing myself for civil war.   Not quite.  Interesting all the same.

              Pennsylvania bans booze sales on one of the busiest nights of the year.


              The night before Thanksgiving is usually a busy one in Pennsylvania’s drinking spots, but they will have to stop serving at 5 p.m. this year, the state has ordered.Credit...Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times
              Ohmsen

              Ohmsen Avatar

              Location: Valhalla
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 9:34am



               Lazy8 wrote:
              This article is from June. We've learned a thing or two since then. This article (with links to studies cited) is from late September. For those too lazy to follow the link: best estimates are that symptomatic patients are about twice as likely to spread the disease in any individual case. Asymptomatic patients may be less cautious around others and additional risky behavior can overwhelm the lower probability of infection by having more opportunities for infection.

              Keep in mind that truly asymptomatic patients are quite rare. The really dangerous vectors are presymptomatic patients—people who don't feel sick...yet.
               
              Still I dare to question the value of the meta-analysis you named as studies above in comparison to a "real" study, published in Nature, on Nov. 20.
              Let me recap the abstract:
              Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
              The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

              A further, more daring conclusion from this study could be, to only test symptomatic cases anymore. A conclusion which I have rarely heard being re-iterated by international politicians, or health-experts, much less the MSM.
              The German health secretary did say this some weeks ago, perhaps more due to logistical shortcomings and strains on the existing testing-infrastructure (labs in this case), but federal politics haven't followed the idea based on science, as sticking to the usual suspects among "experts". You can guess wHO, I'm sure. Might some lobby be involved there? - Nah... nothing to see here, keep walking.
              Ohmsen

              Ohmsen Avatar

              Location: Valhalla
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 8:48am



               Lazy8 wrote:

              So the WHO is suddenly credible when it suits your narrative?

              This article is from June. We've learned a thing or two since then. This article (with links to studies cited) is from late September. For those too lazy to follow the link: best estimates are that symptomatic patients are about twice as likely to spread the disease in any individual case. Asymptomatic patients may be less cautious around others and additional risky behavior can overwhelm the lower probability of infection by having more opportunities for infection.

              Keep in mind that truly asymptomatic patients are quite rare. The really dangerous vectors are presymptomatic patients—people who don't feel sick...yet.
               
              I don't intend to spread any form of a"narrative". Instead, I like to question the MSM narratives on multiple fronts, sometimes but certainly not always. 
              What I like is to question some things by occasional posts of mine, and then I mostly appreciate it when people answer in form of discussing things via a thesis-antithesis approach.

              That's great, so thanks for your input above. 


              Lazy8

              Lazy8 Avatar

              Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 7:20am

              Ohmsen wrote:

              ——————————
              WHO: Coronavirus patients who don’t show symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus

              Coronavirus patients who don’t have any symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the virus could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections.

              So the WHO is suddenly credible when it suits your narrative?

              This article is from June. We've learned a thing or two since then. This article (with links to studies cited) is from late September. For those too lazy to follow the link: best estimates are that symptomatic patients are about twice as likely to spread the disease in any individual case. Asymptomatic patients may be less cautious around others and additional risky behavior can overwhelm the lower probability of infection by having more opportunities for infection.

              Keep in mind that truly asymptomatic patients are quite rare. The really dangerous vectors are presymptomatic patients—people who don't feel sick...yet.
              miamizsun

              miamizsun Avatar

              Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 5:47am

              another bit of wisdom from prasad


              miamizsun

              miamizsun Avatar

              Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 5:28am

               Lazy8 wrote:
              What, you don't have a Medscape login yet? It's free. Do it.

              COVID Thanksgiving Analogies: Drunk Driving or Safe Sex?

              If you got called by a friend or family member for advice about how to stay safe while driving drunk, what would you say to them? Would you talk about wearing a seatbelt? Or might you tell them to throw their keys in the nearest river?

              As the holidays loom and the coronavirus pandemic surges, more and more health professionals are being asked a version of this question: How can I stay safe while still celebrating a large family
              Thanksgiving?

              How should we respond to that? There's a good argument, as pointed out by Vinay Prasad, that demanding abstinence hasn't worked for other health conditions, so why should we expect it to work now?

              No one has ever really asked me for tips about driving drunk, but let's run with the analogy for a bit.

              People do drive drunk. People will drive drunk. Should we be giving advice on how to do it safely? You know: "Hey don't do it; but if you do, be careful."

              I picked this example because we are in a tricky situation when it comesto public health messaging about COVID and Thanksgiving and the other impending holidays. The data are pretty clear.
              We have case rates spiking all over the country, record hospitalizations, and a daily death toll that is already above the second wave in the summer and does not seem to be abating.
               
              so ridicule and shaming is useless or harmful? i agree one hundred percent

              sounds like something monica gandhi would say 

              (from prasad's article)

              The truth of public health is that it is a service industry; it is not meant to imprison, but to empower. The reality is that minimizing risk is also often the prudent strategy. It can lead to the greatest success. An abstinence-only message might mean people defy you, spend more time indoors (to avoid being judged), and end up spreading the virus far more than if you gave them safer options. In an effort to aim for perfect, we end up doing a worse job than had we lowered our ambition from the outset. Just as with sex education, abstinence-only approaches may even backfire. Ideas and strategies to lower the risk is a better path forward.

              Finally, I feel obliged to end this column with an observation about the dangers of social media. The news stories about American's Thanksgiving plans was instant clickbait for doctors; they could not help themselves from tweeting messages admonishing folks to not meet in person. These tweets earned massive likes and retweets. No tweet advising the nuanced idea I describe went viral.

              Americans have admitted that they will meet for Thanksgiving. Scolding and shaming them for wanting this is unlikely to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, though it may earn you likes and retweets. Starting with compassion, and thinking of ways they can meet, but as safely as possible, is the task of real public health. Now is the time to save public health from social media.



              Ohmsen

              Ohmsen Avatar

              Location: Valhalla
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 25, 2020 - 4:03am

              ——————————
              WHO: Coronavirus patients who don’t show symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus

              Coronavirus patients who don’t have any symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the virus could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections.
              Lazy8

              Lazy8 Avatar

              Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
              Gender: Male


              Posted: Nov 24, 2020 - 11:16pm

              What, you don't have a Medscape login yet? It's free. Do it.

              COVID Thanksgiving Analogies: Drunk Driving or Safe Sex?

              If you got called by a friend or family member for advice about how to stay safe while driving drunk, what would you say to them? Would you talk about wearing a seatbelt? Or might you tell them to throw their keys in the nearest river?

              As the holidays loom and the coronavirus pandemic surges, more and more health professionals are being asked a version of this question: How can I stay safe while still celebrating a large family
              Thanksgiving?

              How should we respond to that? There's a good argument, as pointed out by Vinay Prasad, that demanding abstinence hasn't worked for other health conditions, so why should we expect it to work now?

              No one has ever really asked me for tips about driving drunk, but let's run with the analogy for a bit.

              People do drive drunk. People will drive drunk. Should we be giving advice on how to do it safely? You know: "Hey don't do it; but if you do, be careful."

              I picked this example because we are in a tricky situation when it comesto public health messaging about COVID and Thanksgiving and the other impending holidays. The data are pretty clear.
              We have case rates spiking all over the country, record hospitalizations, and a daily death toll that is already above the second wave in the summer and does not seem to be abating.

              Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175  Next