Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[wufan]

This "boost" to herd immunity would come at a cost. A cost of lives. When a vaccine is only a semester away, it's reasonable to consider delaying areas from restarting - particularly hot spots.

It's not an easy decision BECAUSE of the great work in the vaccinology field. We have a choice to wait a few months. But at what economic cost. Discussing lives for economics is an impolite/uncomfortable conversation in public.

If we were still struggling with vaccine development, it would be open up and open wide, no question about it.

This entire "phased opening" approach has been bungled by states (particularly Republican-led states). But at this point it's a sunk cost. If we severely harm our economy there will global repercussions. Thankfully, one way or the other, we start to head back towards normal in December.

There would be no deaths.

[wufan]

I believe the Andover schools (middle school anyway) is allowing students/parents to decide on "in class" or "online". Those that select online will be able to do so. Those electing "in class" will be divided in half (by alphabet). 50% will be in class Monday and Thursday, the other half Tuesday and Friday with off days and Wednesday online.

Same in McPherson except half days everyday. Half open isn’t open.

[C0|dB|00ded]

There would be no deaths.

[ShockTalk]

Same in McPherson except half days everyday. Half open isn’t open.

All or nothing isn't necessary the best path. Sometimes, moderation with a dash of caution isn't a bad idea. Half open isn't fully open, but also isn't fully closed either.

[C0|dB|00ded]

December?

Yes, I think so. Frontline workers and the ultra-high risk will be receiving shots by then. The rest of us get them the first quarter of 2021.

Trump may try to pull a Putin and have something by November. I'm hoping there's plenty of oversight. If something is rushed and there's a bad reaction, there will be no accountability. It would seal his election fate and he would be chillin' at the golf club. Some things are more important than winning. Vaccine safety is one of them. But if we can safely release it prior to the election, that will make things interesting. The voting public has a very short memory.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-is-dangerous

Every randomized controlled trial to date that has looked at early outpatient treatment has involved low-risk patients, patients who are not generally treated. In these studies, so few untreated control patients have required hospitalization that significant differences were not found. There has been only one exception: In a study done in Spain with low-risk patients, a small number of high-risk nursing home patients were included. For those patients, the medications cut the risk of a bad outcome in half.

I reiterate: If doctors, including any of my Yale colleagues, tell you that scientific data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work in outpatients, they are revealing that they can’t tell the difference between low-risk patients who are not generally treated and high-risk patients who need to be treated as quickly as possible. Doctors who do not understand this difference should not be treating COVID-19 patients.

What about medication safety? On July 1, the FDA posted a “black-letter warning” cautioning against using hydroxychloroquine “outside of the hospital setting,” meaning in outpatients. But on its website just below this warning, the FDA stated that the warning was based on data from hospitalized patients. To generalize and compare severely ill patients with COVID-induced pneumonia and possibly heart problems to outpatients is entirely improper.

In fact, the FDA has no information about adverse events in early outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine. The only available systematic information about adverse events among outpatients is discussed in my article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where I show that hydroxychloroquine has been extremely safe in more than a million users.

It is a serious and unconscionable mistake that the FDA has used inpatient data to block emergency use petitions for outpatient use. Further, already back in March, the FDA approved the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients, for whom it is demonstrably less effective than for outpatients. If hydroxychloroquine satisfied the FDA criteria for emergency inpatient use in March, it should more than satisfy those criteria now for outpatient use, where the evidence is much stronger.

[Ta Town Shocker]

It was mentioned a few pages back but why are media outlets reporting on the positivity rate. What difference does it make how many people are positive from the # tested. Shouldn't the positivity rate be going up as more is known about the symptoms.
The Eagle has an article today stating the rate is over 10%. The next article down, from yesterday, states the rate dropped below 10%. Is this really the best they have to report on?

[wufan]

It was mentioned a few pages back but why are media outlets reporting on the positivity rate. What difference does it make how many people are positive from the # tested. Shouldn't the positivity rate be going up as more is known about the symptoms.
The Eagle has an article today stating the rate is over 10%. The next article down, from yesterday, states the rate dropped below 10%. Is this really the best they have to report on?

The positivity rate gives an indication if they are capturing all cases or if there are asymptomatics running around. There were also districts reporting 100% positive, which tells you something is wrong with the numbers. It’s one metric.

[shoxtop]

The positivity rate gives an indication if they are capturing all cases or if there are asymptomatics running around.

Can you explain further please? While I certainly agree that positivity rate of ONLY asymptomatic tests would be useful in that determination, it seems to me the symptomatic tests should outweigh any of that data at this time and the symptomatic tests have a natural bias to them. The problem with said bias is that it can fluctuate too much based on things like a normal flu outbreak (or decline) or a severe allergy season. Both of which can lead to the same symptoms and therefore lead to more or fewer tests which completely changes the baseline of what is a good or bad positivity rate.

[Ta Town Shocker]

The positivity rate gives an indication if they are capturing all cases or if there are asymptomatics running around. There were also districts reporting 100% positive, which tells you something is wrong with the numbers. It’s one metric.

Are you saying people without symptoms (potentially asymptomatic positive) are being tested? If so, is this at random or people who've possibly been in close contact with someone else who tested positive. Seems like there is a ton of potential variability.

[pinstripers]

I haven't actually had a Covid test, but most of the folks that know me say that I'm negative.

[WstateU]

I haven't actually had a Covid test, but most of the folks that know me say that I'm negative.

[SB Shock]

Can you explain further please? While I certainly agree that positivity rate of ONLY asymptomatic tests would be useful in that determination, it seems to me the symptomatic tests should outweigh any of that data at this time and the symptomatic tests have a natural bias to them. The problem with said bias is that it can fluctuate too much based on things like a normal flu outbreak (or decline) or a severe allergy season. Both of which can lead to the same symptoms and therefore lead to more or fewer tests which completely changes the baseline of what is a good or bad positivity rate.

The "positive rate" is a metric that provides an indication if your community is testing at sufficient quantity to get control of the situation. If you have a good test program you are testing not only the symptomatic but the non-symptomatic. The goal is to get to 1% or less. Which means you are testing large populations who are asymptomatic, people who have the symptoms but don't know of direct exposure. In fact in some states they will call you up randomly to come in to get tested. The states that actually doing well have installed drive in testing that is free - because they realize the more you test of the population, the better off you will be.

Presently Sedgwick county strategy is to only test those who have had known exposure and are symptomatic, or who are priority asymptomatic critical workers (first responders, healthcare, law enforcement, etc). They are not testing asymptomatic in the community if they don't fit the categories. This (bad) strategy is the reason why Sedgwick county rates are high (>10%). Unless you are identifying those are who asymptomatic or those who are victims of community spread (have symptoms but know of known contact), then you are going to struggle with getting control of the situation.

Sedgwick County had opened up their testing to anybody who wanted to get testing in June but quickly closed it down when they were overwhelmed. I don't know why they quit, is it because of incompetence? funding? politics? Malpractice?

[WuDrWu]

The "positive rate" is a metric that provides an indication if your community is testing at sufficient quantity to get control of the situation. If you have a good test program you are testing not only the symptomatic but the non-symptomatic. The goal is to get to 1% or less. Which means you are testing large populations who are asymptomatic, people who have the symptoms but don't know of direct exposure. In fact in some states they will call you up randomly to come in to get tested. The states that actually doing well have installed drive in testing that is free - because they realize the more you test of the population, the better off you will be.

Presently Sedgwick county strategy is to only test those who have had known exposure and are symptomatic, or who are priority asymptomatic critical workers (first responders, healthcare, law enforcement, etc). They are not testing asymptomatic in the community if they don't fit the categories. This (bad) strategy is the reason why Sedgwick county rates are high (>10%). Unless you are identifying those are who asymptomatic or those who are victims of community spread (have symptoms but know of known contact), then you are going to struggle with getting control of the situation.

Sedgwick County had opened up their testing to anybody who wanted to get testing in June but quickly closed it down when they were overwhelmed. I don't know why they quit, is it because of incompetence? funding? politics? Malpractice?

Thank you

[Ta Town Shocker]

Sounds like it's a useless stat in Sedgwick county yet it's the main one shown on the front page of their dashboard. What a joke.