IMAGINERIES wrote:
Being over 77 years old, I decided to to go for the test at a walk in place just around the corner, procedure in and out in seconds, 3 days later results negative great!!... Then a few days later I developed a bad sore throat and fever. So I called my Dr. who arrange for a nurse visit to do a couple of tests and, one was Covid19. The nurse asked me to blow my nose first and place the swab into my nose much higher and a little longer than in the walk in place. Today I feel better and no fever and should get the result later on today. But it made wonder if these walk in urgent care places are truly reliable.

well, first off, glad you got a negative result---- hope the second test confirms the first.

I had to laugh--- I was talking to a friend and his wife... they had both recently had tests (negative).

LOL - John was traumatized to the nines--- he said he was pretty sure they went deep enough to get brains cells---said he thought he may have lost part of his childhood memories---- His wife said he was being a big baby, and that her test was no where near that intrusive.

While they were both laughing about it, it does bring up a question about the tests... Their test were done in their family doctor's office--- only difference was two different nurses took the samples..

All this just adds another level of complexity to testing... what procedure was used, how well did the tech actually "sample" etc etc....

Paolo D Photography wrote:
they stick a thing in your bum bum?!?!

only if you ask them to....

rfordphotos wrote:
only if you ask them to....

they just took a urine sample when i got tested.
i gave them someone elses pee and passed.

Paolo D Photography wrote:

they just took a urine sample when i got tested.
i gave them someone elses pee and passed.

wrong test Paolo---- although I think we can rule out pregnancy for ya....(well, whoever's pee that was)

IMAGINERIES wrote:
Negative on the second test!!..[...]

Outstanding!!!!

rfordphotos wrote:
wrong test Paolo---- although I think we can rule out pregnancy for ya....(well, whoever's pee that was)

they said my IQ is 172

Paolo D Photography wrote:

they said my IQ is 172

From the urine test you provided?

IMAGINERIES wrote:

From the urine test you provided?

correct.

rfordphotos wrote:

Outstanding!!!!

Thank you!!.. A year ago I would never have thought of calling my Dr.!!

Paolo D Photography wrote:
they said my IQ is 172

put your glasses on Paolo--- you're missing the decimal point after the 7(.)
   

Outoffocus wrote:
[snip]
Masks don't work. If they worked we wouldn't be climbing toward a second peak. Social distancing doesn't work. It would if people practiced it, but they don't. So as a measure it doesn't work. Frankly, nothing tried so far works. At all.

A lot has been said here and the same can be applied to masks.

Masks have been shown to work but getting everyone to wear one is a different story.

I'm not well enough versed on Herd immunity to comment.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
A lot has been said here and the same can be applied to masks.

Masks have been shown to work but getting everyone to wear one is a different story.

I'm not well enough versed on Herd immunity to comment.

They work if the virus is spread by heavy drops from coughs and sneezes, but they don't work if it is being spread through fine aerosol particles that are simply breathed out the gaps around the edges of the masks.

Put it another way - if the barrier masks we all wear (me included) were fit for purpose then people who attend ITU units with severely ill Covid-19 patients would not bother with the higher grade N95 masks. The fact that they do and that you wouldn't be let within a mile of ITU wearing one of the barrier masks, ought to tell us that they don't work.

Best case is that they work to a very limited extent. And that is obviously not good enough to stop the spread. People might not wear them much over there but over here people wear them all the time, and almost without fail in places like supermarkets.

If I thought any of these measures worked I would be be keen to see them imposed even more strictly, but I just can't see it. In fact there are now estimates that the measures will cause more deaths than the virus, once all the ramifications are counted up.

If the masks worked we could all be told to wear them all the time, without fail, for three weeks, and after that time the virus would have gone for good.

Herd immunity, as I understand it, is the status quo that evolves once a virus has become endemic to a population. Like any cold or flu virus. They are with us all the time but they are far less lethal than when they first arrived. We don't lockdown over seasonal flu because of herd immunity. We don't even vaccinate everyone, just those over a certain age.  Its quite routine. When I hit that age I was automatically sent annual invitations to have the flu jab. Up to that age the health service doesn't bother with you. It's no doubt more complicated than that, but as far as I can tell we build up resistance over time to every new disease, even the ones that kill tens of  millions. The flu outbreak after WW1 killed more people than the war.

Outoffocus wrote:
[...]
Masks don't work. If they worked we wouldn't be climbing toward a second peak. Social distancing doesn't work. It would if people practiced it, but they don't. So as a measure it doesn't work. Frankly, nothing tried so far works. At all.

Well, it would seem the CDC has data that proves you wrong.

Arizona--- is a large "lab" to try the experiment in--- and lo and behold--- the mitigation efforts worked.
None of them by themselves work as well, but combined they can be quite effective...
--------------------------------------------------------

Infections fell 75 percent after mask mandates and bar closures in Arizona, study shows

By Antonia Farzan
Oct 8, 2020
----  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … WGQ3HQKW5A

Arizona is one of the few states that never made masks mandatory statewide. But allowing cities to impose their own restrictions — while also shutting down businesses like bars and gyms — contributed to a 75 percent drop in coronavirus cases in less than one month,according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The state suffered one of the world’s worst coronavirus outbreaks over the summer, with infections peaking after stay-at-home orders were lifted. In mid-June, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) lifted an executive order that had banned communities from imposing mask mandates. Most cities immediately began requiring face coverings in public, and the CDC report estimates that those local ordinances affected roughly 85 percent of the state’s population.

The number of new cases being reported each day stabilized about two weeks later, around the same time that Ducey closed bars, gyms, water parks and movie theaters. With that two-pronged approach in place, the 7-day average of new cases fell 75 percent from July 13 to Aug. 7, the researchers found.

The analysis, published Wednesday in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that officials also urged residents to stay home and wear masks even when not strictly required. Until a vaccine is available, “a combination of voluntary and enforceable measures is more effective than any single measure,” it concluded.

------------------------------------------------------
Masks and closures in Arizona led to a 75% decrease in coronavirus cases

By Yasemin Saplakoglu - Staff Writer 7 days ago
----  https://www.livescience.com/arizona-cor … cases.html

Another study shows that masks and other mitigation efforts not only work, but work well.

Mask mandates, closures of certain businesses and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies implemented over the summer led to a 75% drop in new coronavirus cases in Arizona, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In stark contrast, when the state's stay-at-home order was lifted at the start of June, but such measures weren't yet put in place, the number of new COVID-19 cases increased 151% within two weeks, according to the report. As mounting evidence has shown, "widespread implementation and enforcement of sustained community mitigation measures, including mask wearing," can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, the authors wrote in the report.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------

Outoffocus wrote:
[...]
Herd immunity, as I understand it, is the status quo that evolves once a virus has become endemic to a population. Like any cold or flu virus. They are with us all the time but they are far less lethal than when they first arrived. We don't lockdown over seasonal flu because of herd immunity. We don't even vaccinate everyone, just those over a certain age.  Its quite routine. When I hit that age I was automatically sent annual invitations to have the flu jab. Up to that age the health service doesn't bother with you. It's no doubt more complicated than that, but as far as I can tell we build up resistance over time to every new disease, even the ones that kill tens of  millions. The flu outbreak after WW1 killed more people than the war.

Lets just say you have a flawed understanding.

What makes you think the virus will become less lethal if it becomes endemic? What makes you think the disease it causes will change?

The flu isnt less lethal because it is common---- it is a less lethal virus to start with. Yes, we do develop some natural protection (short term)--- but why do you suppose the govt offers the vaccines EVERY year? because without them, we would have to rely on "herd immunity" and THAT would result in much more death.... and because the antibodies we naturally develop fade with time and offer no protection...

No one got "used to" smallpox. Or polio, or measles... and if the corona virus doesnt radically mutate--- no one is going to "get used to it" either.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
a working rapid test would be a game changer.  assuming it worked and was highly reliable. we could have some semblance of  being able to at least see some loved ones and have something resemble family gatherings. assuming it was reliable.

I took the rapid test.  It gave me the results in 15 minutes.
I tested positive.  It was accurate.
I am now in quarantine.

Medicare pays for the Rapid test.

Focuspuller wrote:
SETTLED SCENCE.

There is no such thing.

ethasleftthebuilding wrote:

There is no such thing.

Earth is flat. TRUE OR FALSE

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
a working rapid test would be a game changer.  assuming it worked and was highly reliable. we could have some semblance of  being able to at least see some loved ones and have something resemble family gatherings. assuming it was reliable.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I took the rapid test.  It gave me the results in 15 minutes.
I tested positive.  It was accurate.
I am now in quarantine.

Medicare pays for the Rapid test.

Jerry- hope you are feeling better every day.

I think Tony was referring to the fact that so far, of the tests available to us, the rapid test has the highest number of false negatives. Depending on who you ask, from 5-50% errors---- The tests are designed for quick screenings, not final diagnosis, and they work very well for their designed purpose... folks that are symptomatic generally get a PCR test to verify the results.

They're working feverishly to develop a rapid test that has the same margin of error as the much slower- but generally more accurate--- PCR test.

Its early on-- I am confident they will come up with a test just like Jerry took that matches the accuracy of the PCR test--- it is just going to take a bit of time.

Focuspuller wrote:

Earth is flat. TRUE OR FALSE

Ok, a little off topic.

"The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. 
I very interesting read.  However, another reason getting the virus under control is best for everyone on the planet.

rxz wrote:

Ok, a little off topic.

"The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. 
I very interesting read.  However, another reason getting the virus under control is best for everyone on the planet.

Very good book by a columnist I follow.