Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I guess my question was really this: unless you are preemptively putting people in the ICU when they get COVID-19 versus say influenza, why does it matter if you get tested for it or not*? If you think you have it, can't you self-quarantine?  That is - what did the nurse in that story want to have that she didn't have, that she could have only received with a positive COVID-19 result?

Or is this a manufactured situation where if you will potentially get employment-punished by doing such unless you get the "doctor's note" that you have a positive COVID-19 diagnosis?

*EDIT: excepting perhaps the statistics-gathering and letting other people know aspect.

People are dicks and they'll keep working with the symptoms, because it may not be Covid-19. You have to test. Here, we had a doctor who came back from the USA, had runny nose etc, and then still saw 70 patients. Turns out he had it, but didn't think it was bad enough to stop seeing patients. Now they have to contact all patients of this guy and those patients will have to contact everyone they've been in contact with. So we'll probably have an outbreak here in two weeks, because that guy didn't think being in the USA and getting sick was a reason to self-quarantine or get tested, and he just happened to be a medical professional who sick people trusted and came to.

The thing is, those lockdowns and testing are needed, because you also have unwitting carriers who think "surely it can't happen to me? It's just 'the sniffles' "

[Frumple]

Though, again, if you're talking the US testing might be literally impossible to access even if you have every symptom, may put you back hundreds to thousands of dollars even if you can access it, and self-quarantine may be a fiscal catch-22, with you risking your job and every knock on effect of that resulting. So on and so forth. It's not so much people being dicks as our medical infrastructure and economic and governmental systems basically aggressively disincentivizing doing what's healthy personally or otherwise.

Like. It can't be overstated at this point. The U.S. is massively fucking up response to covid-19.

[Frumple]

They've already been trying, check earlier in the thread

[Reelya]

Also, McTraveller, you're way too optimistic:

If you think you have it, can't you self-quarantine?

So, we're going to rely on people's self-diagnosis for a novel virus nobody has ever had before? Kinda sounds unlikely.

Also, it's winter and a lot of cold and flu are also going around. The economic costs of everyone who has the slight sniffles leaving work for 3 weeks would cripple everything, including the ability to treat people for the new virus. It's winter: a lot of people are sniffly. A lot of them need to be able to work if the system isn't going to collapse. They need to test.

[McTraveller]

Yeah I think what Reelya said was the opposite of what I meant - I think there are people who should be tested who are not.  But I don't understand the ire of wanting a test but not getting one.  Is it really looking for justification to stay home for X weeks?  That's what I don't understand.  Put another way - if you feel sick and get tested and don't test positive, are you going to go to work then? Or stay home until you feel better?

If you are positive, are you going to panic even though statistically you will be fine, especially if you have no co-morbidity factors?

[ChairmanPoo]

it's winter and a lot of cold and flu are also going around.

This is what I was commenting before: we probably shouldn´t work with a cold or a flu either.  We do this here  too (even though we DO get paid sick leave, thus there is no real financial reason in most cases) but I think it´s a perverse work ethos, a form of presenteeism, which messes your workflow and probably other people´s. I´m guilty of having done it myself in the past too.

I think this epidemic is an opportunity to try to get rid of this concept.

[Reelya]

McTraveller, i'm really baffled as to why you don't understand.

Say this nurse lives with family members, including say an elderly relative. She can't "self quarantine" then, and needs to know whether this is a cold or the coronavirus, right now. Unless you assume everyone lives in a one-person cubicle.

Also, if everyone who could *possibly* have it self-quarantines then things start to collapse. It's not a realistic approach. Does a self-quarantined person still go to the grocery store? If they only have a cold they should probably go to the grocery store themselves, even if staying home, whereas someone with the coronavirus shouldn't do that, and shouldn't be in a house with other potentially uninfected people. The infected person needs to go into quarantine and care, and the non-infected individuals who live with them should self-quarantine until they're sure they don't have symptoms. Otherwise, the only way to stop it is that if everyone who has the slight sniffles self-quarantines and everyone who lives with them self-quarantines just in case. This isn't viable. We can't order lockdowns of every house where one or more people have a runny nose in winter. Testing is far cheaper than that.

The idea of just self quarantining if you are sick isn't realistic, it fails to take into account basic facts of who lives with whom.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's also no guarantee you'll be fine. Every age group other than 0-10 has had deaths and hospitalization, and at a far higher rate than the flu. It's just that you're hideously likely to die if you're elderly.

[ChairmanPoo]

McTraveller, i'm really baffled as to why you don't understand.

Say this nurse lives with family members, including say an elderly relative. She can't "self quarantine" then, and needs to know whether this is a cold or the coronavirus, right now. Unless you assume everyone lives in a one-person cubicle.

Also, if everyone who could *possibly* have it self-quarantines then things start to collapse. It's not a realistic approach. Does a self-quarantined person still go to the grocery store? If they only have a cold they should probably go to the grocery store themselves, even if staying home, whereas someone with the coronavirus shouldn't do that, and shouldn't be in a house with other potentially uninfected people. The infected person needs to go into quarantine and care, and the non-infected individuals who live with them should self-quarantine until they're sure they don't have symptoms. Otherwise, the only way to stop it is that if everyone who has the slight sniffles self-quarantines and everyone who lives with them self-quarantines just in case. This isn't viable.

The idea of just self quarantining if you are sick isn't realistic, it fails to take into account basic facts of who lives with whom.

For reference: It´s being done in Europe.


Also for reference: A friend of mine fell with the swine flu epidemic of 2009 and she was quarantined even though she lived with her parents. She had to stay in her room except for going to the toilet (with a mask and gloves, no further details given) and they cleaned it afterwards with bleach.

There's also no guarantee you'll be fine. Every age group other than 0-10 has had deaths and hospitalization, and at a far higher rate than the flu. It's just that you're hideously likely to die if you're elderly.

You´re all a bunch of kittens.

[Frumple]

Man, it turns out your country aggressively fucking up pandemic response to something several times deadlier than the flu makes you meow a bit, who knew

[McTraveller]

What would this nurse do differently if she knew "right now"?  That's what I'm not understanding, especially in the US system where getting a positive result is probably just going to be the hospital telling you to stay home and not go out.  They don't care who you live with.  This is what I meant by the "it's a cultural problem" statement...

I mean what do you do differently if you think you have a cold versus influenza?  I know my household doesn't do anything differently.  It's only if we start to have dramatically deteriorating symptoms do we seek additional treatment (and we do have "good" insurance).

(Preview check:  seems like others have kind of said similar things).

[ChairmanPoo]

Man, it turns out your country aggressively fucking up pandemic response to something several times deadlier than the flu makes you meow a bit, who knew

Nobody actually knows how deadly this shit is (this is not just me btw, this is the WHO position after you appretiate the nuances). But it doesn´t seem as bad as you´re making it out to be. You´ll be fine.

I mean what do you do differently if you think you have a cold versus influenza? 

You´re supposed to quarantine influenza too 

[Frumple]

Man, it turns out your country aggressively fucking up pandemic response to something several times deadlier than the flu makes you meow a bit, who knew

Nobody actually knows how deadly this shit is (this is not just me btw, this is the WHO position after you appretiate the nuances). But it doesn´t seem as bad as you´re making it out to be. You´ll be fine.

I mean, I probably will be fine. I'm in my thirties with mild asthma at most. Lot of folks around me are in their 60-70s or older with pre-existing respiratory conditions. Scusey if me being probably okay isn't actually comforting

[MetalSlimeHunt]

ChairmanPoo is right, I'm going to take advantage of the fools and book one of those 5-star resorts that are super cheap right now.

What a bunch of sheep, am I right?

[Reelya]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trump-interrupts-coronavirus-briefing-to-ask-fox-reporter-about-his-tv-ratings

President Trump interrupted a Friday press conference on the 2019 novel coronavirus to ask a Fox News reporter whether his town hall show on Fox on Thursday night had good ratings. In a rambling briefing that bordered on bizarre, Trump also said coronavirus testing kits were almost as “perfect” as his infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president and he didn’t want infected cruise ship passengers to come ashore in California because it would increase the U.S. tally of COVID-19 cases. “I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship,” he said.

During the tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters, Trump was asked by a reporter what measures he was considering to help offset the widespread economic and social impacts of the crisis. The president responded by saying the seasonal flu was worse with 36,000 deaths in the U.S. last year, compared to 240 confirmed cases of COVID-19. “When I first heard this I was shocked,” he said. “As of the time I left the plane with you we had 240 cases, that’s at least what was on a very fine network known as Fox News, don’t you love it? That’s what I happened to be watching and, how was the show last night? Did it get good ratings by the way?” he asked as he turned to a Fox reporter. “I don’t know,” the reporter responded. “Oh really, I heard it broke all ratings records, but maybe that’s wrong,” he continued. “But what happened if you look at the number, by the time we left, it was 240 cases and 11 deaths. That’s what it has been. Now, you look throughout the world and other countries—South Korea, Italy and particularly China, have many.”

This was a weird press conference by the sounds of things. Is it just me or is Trump gradually unraveling here. I don't recall if he was quite this disjointed back in 2016.

However, as for the economic impact of everyone staying home if they have the flu - just look at the economic impact of people holing up because of this new virus, and that's basically the same thing that would happen to the economy if people en-masse stayed home if they have minor ailments.