Coronavirus

[IMADreamer]

Jesus H [expletive] tap dancing Christ. Some local dumb [expletive] has the virus, knew he had the virus, and went to the fair across the river, and oh yeah came to our shop to work on our tractor. [expletive] me. Guess whose in quarantine for the next 14 days!

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Hope you don't get it, also hope you have other options available re: tractor maintenance.

That's absurd.

[mikechamp]

Jesus H [expletive] tap dancing Christ. Some local dumb [expletive] has the virus, knew he had the virus, and went to the fair across the river, and oh yeah came to our shop to work on our tractor. [expletive] me. Guess whose in quarantine for the next 14 days!

And also has a decent sanitizing bill coming soon...

That sucks, dude.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I haven't heard, but are there any states who are actually doing an effective job of contact tracing yet? Meaning they're able to target outbreaks and contain them?

I haven't heard either. I do know that Arkansas had ~600 active cases and dropping before 'reopening' with 200+ tracers. At the time, according to the DOH, they knew where like 80% of cases came from/originated.

Then, reopening, and all of a sudden they were calling in national guard members to bolster the tracing efforts and now they don't talk about it. We're at about 7K active cases now and while they say they're still tracing, I don't see how they can effectively do that.

All that to say, states were probably understaffed for what they're experiencing as it doesn't take all that much to overwhelm the abilities especially given the difficulty getting people to answer their phones, and there certainly aren't any success stories being shared in the media.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

https://www.rapidtests.org/

Along those lines, not sure when this site popped up, but I posted some time back about a This Week in Virology podcast where Dr. Mina an MD and Professor of epidemiology at Harvard was really pushing a less sensitive, cheaper, at home, immediate test. And, this site offers a way to share the information with politicians.

FDA approved an EUA for antigen (rapid) testing but didn't lower the sensitivity requirements. As such, it's still a laboratory test and still expensive and can't be done at home.

Currently, CLEA and/or the FDA have jurisdiction over the testing protocols at the federal level. There is question if states rights allow them to approve the tests. But, due to the lack of orders and the lack of approval, no companies are manufacturing the rapid, at home, cheap tests though it's likely that manufacturing could ramp up relatively quickly.

The NIH has a 'shark tank' type program set up to induce companies to get on this very topic, but who knows when/how that will work given the requirements.

I've yet to see a valid criticism of this argument despite news agencies continue to say there is an issue with 'accuracy' when in reality its a known difference in sensitivity.

[heyzeus]

Texas didn’t pay contact tracers. Instead it sought volunteers with a public health background to work as tracers 40 hours a week for free.

You will be shocked to learn this did not succeed.

[mikechamp]

I think this might go along with AWCB's sentiments in earlier posts:

Most of the coronavirus tests the U.S. does are worthless. But there's a solution that could actually work — and stop the spread.

To stop its raging coronavirus outbreak, which is currently spreading at a rate of about 60,000 new cases per day, the United States can do one of two things. Either it can lock everybody down completely — or it can test everybody constantly.

The lockdown approach works because if infected people can’t get close to noninfected people, the chain of transmission is broken, even if we don’t know who is actually infected. The testing approach works because it lets us identify infected people and isolate them from noninfected people without forcing everybody else to stay home.

The problem with lockdowns, however, is that after enduring a big national one this spring — and suffering the economic fallout with little to show for it — Americans have zero appetite for even targeted, localized sequels.

That leaves testing. The good news is that there might be a simple solution: new tests that prioritize speed over sensitivity.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-of-the- ... 15346.html

[GeddyWrox]

Yep. This is exactly what AWCB has been saying.

Good article. I just shared it on facebook.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I think this might go along with AWCB's sentiments in earlier posts:

Most of the coronavirus tests the U.S. does are worthless. But there's a solution that could actually work — and stop the spread.

To stop its raging coronavirus outbreak, which is currently spreading at a rate of about 60,000 new cases per day, the United States can do one of two things. Either it can lock everybody down completely — or it can test everybody constantly.

The lockdown approach works because if infected people can’t get close to noninfected people, the chain of transmission is broken, even if we don’t know who is actually infected. The testing approach works because it lets us identify infected people and isolate them from noninfected people without forcing everybody else to stay home.

The problem with lockdowns, however, is that after enduring a big national one this spring — and suffering the economic fallout with little to show for it — Americans have zero appetite for even targeted, localized sequels.

That leaves testing. The good news is that there might be a simple solution: new tests that prioritize speed over sensitivity.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-of-the- ... 15346.html

YES!! An article that fairly portrays the situation, addresses the difference between sensitivity/accuracy, and even calls out Michael Mina who has done a lot of educating of America, er, re-educating of America.

I posted a link above rapidtests.org which is obviously a site in favor of this. They have links to electronically send an email to your governor, congress, senators, and potus (lol). Not saying you should do so, obviously do what you think is right.

I did so and donated a few bucks. I also wrote my congressman myself because he holds town hall calls and I was going to push him on it in the next one and wanted him to know I wasn't just robo clicking away.

That said, the interesting thing on the rapid test website/letter is that they're claiming governors don't have to abide by the FDA guidelines for testing if they choose not to which is a very alarming thing to hear, by and large. But, for the love of all that is holy, I really want this testing available. Really, I want it for schools and the community in general. But, that's probably too big of an ask. So, when I talk to the governor, if I get a chance to, and definitely when I talk to Hill, my argument is going to be that: As a manager trying to safely get employees back into the office, I feel this is a 'public health' tool and not a 'diagnostic test'. If I can spend $100-$200 a week to let employees run the test at home, only come in if negative, go to get a PCR test if consecutive positives, and continue to meet CDC guidelines regardless, this is a tool I should be allowed to buy and shouldn't be prohibited by the FDA.

The response will be how would it be possible to track cases if people just test at home and self-quarantine if positive? Well, [expletive], that's a good point. At the same time, I guess the answer is, how are you tracking cases now if people simply aren't getting tested? And, more importantly, are trying to win an award for accurate medical data collection (if so, we ain't doing well) or stop an epidemic?

Another response would be, will this rapid test be used to alter how people act (ie, not distance appropriately)? And, that's a tougher question to answer and I think why regulatory agencies (FDA) are requiring the higher sensitivity. An answer of yes would either require a shift in the FDA policy (good luck). So, you'd essentially have to argue that it wouldn't change peoples behaviors because a positive result would drive people to get a PCR which is what they would have done anyway. And negative results would lead people to confidently go back into a world where, hell, everyone may have the virus so distancing and hygiene etc are all still required. I think making that argument, if states can not in fact just buy them willy nilly, is the fastest path forward and the one I will urge Hill to make.

I'm sure he'll listen.

Anyway, starting to ramble, here's a graph that sums up the entire rapid test argument.

[Arthur Dent]

Cheap lower sensitivity tests seem like such an incredible no brainer, that I can’t understand why we’re not doing it. Just pure regulatory incompetence?