BaltACDFrozen foods get a little soggy!
quoting the FDA......One reasonable and easy-to-implement precaution for groceries that don't need refrigeration...
I guess I've always been a bit obsessive in that regard.
When I shop, I always bag frozen foods and packaged refrigerated items together at check out. Usually the frozen items in the center of the bag, with things like cheeses, bacon, etc all around the 4 sides.
Produce in another, and then non-perishables grouped by purpose in other bags.
So, frozen items are unpacked and put immediately in the freezer for at least a day as well.
This all works because it is my policy to always eat before grocery shopping, so the day's delay is never any problem.
Convicted One Convicted One Euclid said: " Then you carry in several bags of groceries, all of which can have virus. " To which I replied: " I strive to leave everything just purchsed alone in storage at least 24 hours after getting home". I find it reassuring to see the FDA jumping on my bandwagon: "One reasonable and easy-to-implement precaution for groceries that don't need refrigeration is simply to let them sit for a day or more before unpacking them," he said. "This will vastly reduce the level of any contamination that is present." From CNN
Convicted One Euclid said: " Then you carry in several bags of groceries, all of which can have virus. " To which I replied: " I strive to leave everything just purchsed alone in storage at least 24 hours after getting home".
Euclid said: " Then you carry in several bags of groceries, all of which can have virus. "
To which I replied: " I strive to leave everything just purchsed alone in storage at least 24 hours after getting home".
I find it reassuring to see the FDA jumping on my bandwagon:
From CNN
I think that is fine. I do about the same thing to some extent. But the overall problem seems insurmountable by any practical method. What do you do about the virus that might be on your clothes, shoes, bare skin, and hair? It seems that before entering the house, one would need an outdoor shower with a way to change out of clothing, shower, and put on clean clothing. The used clothing would need to be immediately lanundered and stored away. This "shopping clothing" would be standardized like a uniform for simplicity.
Meanwhile, all the groceries would have to be stored in their bags for some time interval, which experts find impossible to agree on. I would say at least one week would be playing it fairly safe.
Then the entire vehical would need to be sanitized. I would use something like one of those Chinese power atomizer/blower units dispensing some type of disinfectant.
There is also the possibility that virus lands on your face or hair while shopping in the store. So even though one adheres to the admonition to not touch their face, the virus may land on their face and enter their mouth, eyes, or nose before they get back to the decontamination shower.
EuclidIt seems that before entering the house, one would need an outdoor shower with a way to change out of clothing, shower, and put on clean clothing.
My neighbors already signed a petition against that.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Euclid ...the overall problem seems insurmountable by any practical method. What do you do about the virus that might be on your clothes, shoes, bare skin, and hair? It seems that before entering the house, one would need an outdoor shower with a way to change out of clothing, shower, and put on clean clothing.
Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 isn't quite like radioactive material, where even very small particles can be 'sure' to produce radiological or chemical poisoning if they enter the body, and so have to be removed as close to 100% as possible 100% of the time.
Remember that the virus is only 'superinfective' on human cells that express ACE2 enzyme complex -- not all cells do -- and that the 'normal' human defenses against 'colds' -- mucus in the nose and sinuses, for eample -- will still be protective. Remember also that the virus is easy to 'deactivate' both in the sense of making it less 'infective', and in destroying the genomic structure to the point the complex chemical 'trick' that is complete viral replication doesn't work.
The business about the 'groceries' seemed to me to be assuming the 'virus' concern was on the outside of paper sacks -- the time being about that attributed to viral 'endurance' on cardboard or paper surfaces.
Yes, the actual groceries inside the sack may have longer persistence, especially if in handling they have acquired either 'fomite contamination' or skin oils (in which the envelope of the virus can keep its infectious protein configuration longer) -- and they should be individually washed or wiped with sanitizer to remove the virus particles or denature the genome inside.
Washing involves both the use of a proper surfactant or soap AND both adequate rinse volume and good drainage away from sink surfaces to work, unless some sanitizing agent capable of prompt genomic denaturation is also present. I would not assume that 'germicidal' soaps necessarily can accomplish this, so 'use lots of water and be sure the runoff goes down the drain'...
Sanitizing with wipes does have a certain amount of film emulsification and removal added to the 'biocidal' or 'virucidal' action. That, to me, implies somewhat more absorbency than a small 'moist towelette' style wipe possesses. Of course, if you wipe something down on 'all sides' and put it into a reasonably pre-cleaned refrigerator, you've taken reasonable precautions -- and you'll take more when you wash your hands before taking that package out of the fridge and prepare to open it.
The used clothing would need to be immediately lanundered and stored away.
'Sanitizing' would likely be sufficient; this could be done with a spray or vapor, or with something applying an appropriate 'virucidal' material to the surface of the clothing. As Erik and others have noted, UV light (even the UV component in open sunlight) 'kills' the virus relatively fast and relatively well. I haven't seen discussions of how effectively 'bounced' sunlight sanitizes virally-contaminated surfaces ... but 'laying your shopping clothes out in the sun' on both sides should work even on cloudy days (the effective wavelengths of UV go right through most cloud cover, don't ask me how I confirmed this).
This "shopping clothing" would be standardized like a uniform for simplicity.
It would be tempting to suggest that some of the Level 5 biohazard suiting techniques (I think also of those Intel 'bunny suits') might be adapted for shopping -- think of the fun of shoppers 'socially distanced' in Mylar oversuits with full face-shield coverage with blowdown seals and 'correct' MERV filtering -- but care would have to be taken not to make the things look like moon suits, or poison-gas PPE. Sends the wrong message about recovery...
Better, I think, just to treat the groceries as 'contaminated until trustably cleaned' -- and let the outsides get 'reasonably decontaminated' for transport inside as recommended. You'd have to take the various groceries (with their various propensities to retain virus particles) out of the bags anyway, and it's common sense to presume (as you have) that the things tending to reduce contamination on the bags might not equally tend to reduce contamination on the contents...
Then the entire vehicle would need to be sanitized. I would use something like one of those Chinese power atomizer/blower units dispensing some type of disinfectant.
I suspect that what gets the most 'consumer traction' would be something like a cross between a flea bomb and one of those periodically-spraying bathroom sanitizers. You'd keep this in your car, and before leaving it press the 'button' to have it nebulize a 'cycle' worth of vapor (that you or anything you care about won't have to breathe) together with that fresh scent of clean of your choice, in enough quantity that statistical sanitization of 'virus present' is reasonably assured. Does not require USB charging or other power, and to me would have less problem of 'failsafe' that a powered device does. Probably wise to have some sort of countdown gauge like the film counter on a camera advising how long until you need a new one...
Oh yeah... and do what we do. Carry wipes, and get your door handles before you pull them, and your steering-wheel contact areas, and various controls, and occasionally the pedals and seat surfaces. We presume that surfaces 'contacted by exhaled breath' can be contaminated and periodically wipe them down. Keep shoe covers in the car, take them off when you get out and put them back on as you enter. It remains to be seen how much of this ought to remain 'new normal' over time, but as long as large percentages of people remain effectively 'unexposed' (to the point they acquire proven effective immunity to infection, something certainly not yet done to my satisfaction) at least some of them remain significant.
(As an aside: going back to the original topic of this thread -- some analogue to this might be used for rail equipment. The professional railroaders are already starting to laugh. But perhaps something might finally start to be done at corporate level toward ensuring sanitary cabs and railings ... and disciplining the culprits while protecting those with better sense of responsibility... while providing the materials and potions 'free' to assure safety.)
It helps more than a bit that SARS-CoV-2 supposedly gets deactivated fairly quickly when not 'contained' in something like a breath droplet, so you don't have the terrible communicability that some kinds of influenza do. I am beginning to think that adequate 'droplet control' really will solve most of the casual-virus-deposition issue, and that only slight amounts will 'plate out' -- of course, if you're 'unlucky' even small amounts "might" cause infection, so some people might not be wrong to be more 'paranoid' about slight contact.
I think the lion's share of 'reducing need for social distancing' involves correct masking against spread -- this being a combination of filtration, moisture absorption, and exhalation-blowdown control. A simple absorbent mask across nose and mouth -- particularly mouth -- combined with one of those over-bandannas that cover the neck is one example: the considerable mass flow and force of talking, sneezing, or coughs cannot blow out around the top edges but preferentially blows down 'under cover' and is vented inside the envelope of the clothing ... where any virus can be sanitized away from contact with public surfaces.
Then keep fomites down when possible on public surfaces, and observe careful wash or sanitization discipline after contacting public surfaces, both with 'handwashing' and with good periodic hand sanitization.
Unless you actually contact surfaces on which droplets have settled with your face, or hair, or heaven forbid mucous membranes, I think the actual risk is relatively minimum for this virus. So I'd do little more than a quick 'outside sanitizing' of exposed skin and hair before going into a 'clean environment' ... which is a whole 'nother discussion involving practical negative pressure, potential filtration considerations, viral capture in airflow, and other things.
A light overcast may be the best source of UV for deactivating the virus, with the clouds contributing to more uniform exposure of UV. A few minutes of walking around in normal daylight on a warm day should kill off the vast majority of the virus.
From what I understand, there isn't a clear consensus on how short the wavelength of UV is needed for deactivating the virus - note that normal daylight is very effective. There's some thought that a "black light" UV source would work - which would be fantastic news if true, allowing for "black lights" to do indoors what sunlight does outdoors. One downside is that "black lights" are NOT black for people with cataract surgery - know that from personal experience.
I would expect that a normal wash cycle would effective using either a dryer or outdoor clothes line in bright daylight.
EuclidBut the overall problem seems insurmountable by any practical method. What do you do about the virus that might be on your clothes, shoes, bare skin, and hair? It seems that before entering the house, one would need an outdoor shower with a way to change out of clothing, shower, and put on clean clothing. The used clothing would need to be immediately lanundered and stored away. This "shopping clothing" would be standardized like a uniform for simplicity.
Well, you are quite right, of course. And that is exactly why I am glad that I don't have to go to work. That I only have to venture out for "survival" type errands, and that when I am forced to do so, I don't have to share the same shopping aisle with someone who spent the previous 8 hours in a crowded bowling alley, bar, restaurant or theater.
These critics of the shelter in place policies act like it is only their welfare on the line if they were allowed to go back to the old ways, but that really is not true. They become "the straw that stirs the drink" regardless if they recognize that or not.
The store I buy my groceries in has had signs up on their entrances for several weeks reminding people to maintain safe distances, and keep their shopping party as small as possible to minimize risks.(seems like I do just fine shopping alone, why shouldn't everyone?)
But on my way into the store the other day, out comes this woman with three young children in tow, one of them just coughing away from the bottom of her lungs. They were all wearing masks, but still it seemed very inconsiderate to even bring someone in that condition into the store in the first place.
I've also noticed that "safe distancing" lasts only about as long as it takes someone to realize that the product they want happens to be between my cart and the wall, and they just barge in. I've seriously thought about belting a few of them.
This last cluster of comments are hilarious to read. You guys should get together , observing SD of course, and do a skit.
MiningmanThis last cluster of comments are hilarious to read.
I actually thought about you when that kid came walking out of the store "whooping" on everything around her. You had made comments earlier about cruiselines and mass transit not being able to go back to the old ways,..lest everyone would go into a fit the first time someone coughed.....and I definitely saw your point.
I would imagine OH&S reps are going to have their hands full with complaints and demands. Laws will have to be amended. Trial lawyers will have a field day beyond even their wildest dreams.
You're at the theatre and someone sneezes, or coughs ( very common)...bingo! , that person is a leper. Someone will sue the theatre, you and the cast of the movie!
Same anywhere else. What a mess!
Plenty of ' snowflakes ' out there and opportunists.
OvermodWashing involves both the use of a proper surfactant or soap AND both adequate rinse volume and good drainage away from sink surfaces to work, unless some sanitizing agent capable of prompt genomic denaturation is also present. I would not assume that 'germicidal' soaps necessarily can accomplish this, so 'use lots of water and be sure the runoff goes down the drain'... S
That is fine for items in cans or plastic bottles but what about products that come in cardboard boxes like cereal or salt?
Perhaps I have a twinge of Aspergers in me, but as I shop I have specific areas in the shopping cart were I always place certain regular purchases.....with the intent being that as I check out, the items I customarily bag together are always conveniently grouped on the bagging platform.
That way it's automatic when I unload at home...which bag gets routed to it's intended destination. I was surprised when I discovered that not all people are that way.
Around here (WC Indiana) train traffic seems down quite a bit on the old Wabash line through Lafayette and maybe down a little on the Monon. Auto production here has been stopped for several weeks, and I believe other plants served by NS are shut down also. Grain is still moving into processors by rail and truck, but the local ethanol plant has been shut down for several weeks. I am not sure what Cargill is doing with the corn they normal convey over to the ethanol plant.
There seems to have been a lot of "politicization" done by those who disagree with the restrictions that have been put in place, to the point where it seems if you wear a mask and try to maintain a decent amount of personal space that makes you a liberal socialist "sheeple". I have a wife with another condition that makes her very nervous about getting sick and two parents who are in their 90's so I wear a mask and I want people to give me space. (Diatribe deleted.)
On the other hand, it seems that some flexibility with the restrictions night be in order. Indianapolis had many cases and many deaths, while here in our county of 188K people there have been 2 deaths so far and a very slow change in number of infected, and out here in the rural areas it hasn't made much difference at all-farming still has to be done.
PR
RKFarmsOn the other hand, it seems that some flexibility with the restrictions night be in order. Indianapolis had many cases and many deaths, while here in our county of 188K people there have been 2 deaths so far and a very slow change in number of infected, and out here in the rural areas it hasn't made much difference at all-farming still has to be done. PR
Farming for the most part is a socially distancing occupation - man, tractor, field. Or man, machinery, animals. Unless you have a Amish barn or house raising.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Electroliner 1935... but what about products that come in cardboard boxes like cereal or salt?
You don't wash them, you wipe them with sanitizer. Some of this depends on whether the box uses coated stock or overprinting or is more porous -- the virus can be less infectious on some surfaces and the envelope can get adhered to where contact won't transfer it as easily. You can use better or stronger denaturants on boxes that contain 'stay-fresh' bags around the actual contents, like cereal.
Fresh produce can be washed with a mild soap or 'veggie wash' -- again, the micelles and lots of rinse water do the work. Note that you can always be wiping down 'impermeable' packaging too; it's just that washing is cheaper and a bit more positive. Remember that 'antimicrobial' products may or may not be active against viruses - know your chemical actions! I suspect it will not be long before we are peddled the equivalent of those dispose-all cleaning 'pearls' that you drop in each grocery bag to 'fumigate' it on the ride home or during its little FDA tabletop quarantine. Some will work, some will work on the wrong stuff, some will be snake oil. As with most else in life, you'll have to learn enough to spot the mistakes and lies...
tree68The big question is how long are we going to hide? How long can we afford to hide?
One big point is that we HAVE to start going back. And within weeks, not months.
But another thing is that the kinetics of outbreaks are little changed by the infection and recovery numbers, even if there are huge numbers of 'silent' or asymptomatic cases 'yet to be discovered'. Until we have direct therapy for all the B-cell compromised people they may all be at leveraged-out risk for ARDS... and 2% is an awful lot of boomers ... and, unlike the flu, this is something that lawyers can target.
A very big part of the response HAS to be enhanced 'generally accepted' reduction of infection -- the really big thing that will likely produce this is proper 'breath masking'. Much of which is actually hampered by poor mask design or ignorance of how and where infected people shed virus. While some masks do provide a certain protection against airborne droplets, they don't get small particles at all -- very fortunately coronavirus itself, in a size range around .11 micron, can't spread like influenza, but even so, much exhaled wet breath or coughing goes through or around most of the ad hoc stuff you see people parading around in.
Then we have to work out the practical distancing from the path of breath that should be observed: no talking at people, no looking straight at people as you shoulder past to get the bargains, no yelling into your phone in the store. I have my doubts that much of this can be 'enforced' on the worst culprits I see, but it may be there are ways to influence behavior 'enough' ... well, to keep the outbreaks preferentially in the 'culprit' social communities, until they too 'get the message'.
I can't think of too many areas of work that can't be breath-controlled 'enough' to make conscientious wipe down sanitation an effective 'other half' at least for that asymptomatic initial phase; incentivized workplace testing of things like temperature and, when available, nonintrusive testing or voluntary serological monitoring will add to the required sense of trust -- there may even be ways to provide positive pressure to sheeting-sealed cubicles for reasonable HVAC protection in those 'open' environments ... especially for those more at 'actual' risk in a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Those are essentially just tools in restarting the necessary framework to sustain subsequent restart of a balanced economy, though. And we'd better start learning a lot quicker and a lot better about how to do that fairly than we did about this pandemic...
Not so fast. Going back to work will require companies and government to determine who will bear the legal liability of employees catching coronavirus in the workplace. This is related to the government requirement for employers to provide a safe workplace. Companies do not want to be responsible for this risk, and work is underway in government to review and address this risk and come up with a solution. In the video, President Trump says that they have not looked into this yet, but will start by asking for a legal opinion right now.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/can-companies-be-liable-for-coronavirus-when-employees-return-to-work
From the link:
She warned that the threat of the exposure-related lawsuits may deter some businesses from reopening "even after it is determined that they could safely operate by following the guidance of appropriate health authorities."
In the event that an employee contracts the virus through exposure at work, global law firm Seyfarth-Shaw says employees are entitled to receive "temporary total disability benefits in lieu of wages, reasonable and necessary medical treatment and an award for any resulting permanent disability."
Railroad-related: WSJ article in the last day or two about meat production dropping 10 - 20% as a result of the closures of some industrial-scale processing plants due to COVID-19 infections of several hundred of the employees - and especially the effects on grocery stores who can't get enough meat to meet their needs. Someplace else I saw that this is backing up to the 'growers" who have noplace to sell their animals - hog farmers are getting hit the worst with drastic price decreases and no markets. All that said: What effect on feed grain movements on the rails? Is there even much of that anymore? Chicken feed to the East Coast I suppose, but isn't Midwestern corn consumed by nearby hogs and cattle who are then slaughtered at nearby plants? Is there even any rail participation in that supply chain?
Off-trains topic, but worthy of discussion by some of the more analytical members: Remarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening. I'm not sharp enough to do the math, but the qualitiative equation is, A. "How many net lives are being saved by the shutdown that would be lost if the country were reopened?" vs. B. "How much economic damage ['delta' in GDP?] is being lost by the shutdown?" Once those are quantified then just divide B by A and there's a possible implied value of a human life.
(*And only the Texas Lieutenant Governor in public life, who a week or two ago said something to the effect of "Older people should be willing to take the risk of dying if we reopen to get the economy going again".)
But wait, not so fast. A subsidiary question is, to be brutally direct: Is the value of an 80-year old's life saved the same as saving a 30-year old's life? That is usually the subject of medical ethics on such topics, about which I know next to nothing. However, I did hear an interesting discussion on the radio while heading to the grocery store last weekend, which addressed "How do doctors ration scarce treatments?". Examples were penicillin, polio vaccine, AIDS therapies, etc. A method apparently now in use (and by committees - no one person wants to be responsible for the decision) to allocate/ prioritize such things - today it's ventilators - is the "Quality-Adjusted Life Year" - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year "In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises on the use of health technologies within the National Health Service, has since at least 2013 used "£ per QALY" to evaluate their utility." (emphasis added) That "L" is British pounds, analogous to our dollars - essentially dollars per year. You can find out more with a Google search. Sobering stuff for those who are vulnerable - think hard about putting your affairs in order.
And if you can do so 'safely' (risk-adjusted, of course, however you can figure that out), going to visit that railroading 'hot spot' or landmark that's on your personal 'bucket list'.
- PDN.
ISTR quite a bit of the 'ethics' discussion in bits and pieces in posts here. And quite a bit more of the 'operational' concerns ... particularly those reminiscent of the Summertime Blues line turned on its head about old folks voting ... in outside discussions.
It's not difficult to start working on Herman Kahn math with its 'megadeaths' and lives becoming statistics ... as easy and facile now as it was then, and just as nifti tacitly shifting 'blame' for the megadeaths away from the ops planners in the 'defense' industry. Perhaps we are, now, in a culture where the young are more willing to throw the old under the bus if it means better life (or economic survival or whatever) for their perceived cohort. Perhaps we are in a culture that values the chance to stick a big proportion of the elderly on increasingly expensive intrusive treatments that handily result in over 80% of them dying happily distant from any risk of malpractice suits that would make the Malbone St. wreck settlement terms look like chicken feed. Perhaps we can gin up a much better and effective 'war of all against all' in the USA that once again blinds the marks from recognizing the '1-percenter' efforts to make effective slaves of 'the new 70%' in effective poverty conditions.
Of course, it might be that common decency protects the old and infirm outside considerations of expediency, too. That highly shapes what a fair society will and won't do when it HAS to start relaxing measures that are, even in the relatively short term, patently unsustainable 'as they are' if we are to see 'American society' recover as we recognized it.
We already have an example of the kind of recovery a 'let the pandemic happen' would produce, at the end of WWI. The difference was that the megadeaths were perceived as 'unpreventable' -- and those who survived grieved their dead, and eventually got back to 'business'. We could easily do that with the elderly 4% ... especially if most everyone 'else' either has their bad, bad cold or just doesn't show up in a definable part of the death statistics. The problem this time is that we have ways to palliate the dying, and don't have the 'act of God' excuse to justify all the dying any more.
So, as I keep saying by tossing the word salads, the response we take has to balance inherent reasonable protection against ARDS risk with letting the 'rest' of the people back to normal and sustainable life.
EuclidNot so fast. Going back to work will require companies and government to determine who will bear the legal liability of employees catching coronavirus in the workplace.
Who bore the responsibility when someone brought the flu to work? We had a couple of schools here that closed for several days this past winter because of the number of students and teachers out sick - with the flu.
Many businesses felt the pain as well.
Nobody pointed fingers, because, well, it was "just the flu."
It's funny that every time someone comes up with a potential treatment or information that lessens the impact of COVID-19, there seems to be a reason why it's not useful.
Found a medicine that may be useful in treating some patients? OMG, it might cause heart problems! A significant number of people may already have the antibodies? People who have had the virus may get it again!
It's almost like someone needs to keep us scared...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Paul_D_North_Jr Off-trains topic, but worthy of discussion by some of the more analytical members: Remarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening. I'm not sharp enough to do the math, but the qualitiative equation is, A. "How many net lives are being saved by the shutdown that would be lost if the country were reopened?" vs. B. "How much economic damage ['delta' in GDP?] is being lost by the shutdown?" Once those are quantified then just divide B by A and there's a possible implied value of a human life.
While not having directly discussed the "money vs human life trade", I have brought up the tradeoff of the lives saved from dying of COVID caused by the shutdown versus the lives lost from other causes resulting from the shutdown (e.g. people dying from cancer due to ban on elective surgeries). There is a correlation between unemployment rates and deaths from suicide and overdoses.
The disheartening aspect of the COVID response is the large fraction of deaths occurring in nursing homes and other assisted living facilities. Keep in mind that many such facilities are making an effort to protect their residents, but several states (e.g. CA, NJ and NY) have requiring such facilities to accept COVID patients discharged from hospitals before said patients have been shown to be virus free. We knew from Italy and Kirkland in Washington that this was going to be a problem.
Getting back to rail traffic - my guess is that traffic is going to be depressed for a while and passenger traffic will be depressed to an even greater extent.
Paul_D_North_JrRemarkably, no one here* (that I remember, which could be wrong) has expressly commented on the 'value-of-a-human life' tradeoff that's implicitly occurring in the debate over shutdown vs. reopening.
How quickly we forget
Convicted OneConvicted One wrote the following post 10 days ago: For years I have quite honestly been in disbelief with the way western culture has come to exaggerate the value of human life. Just think of the standard narrative for a typical wrongful death lawsuit for an example of what I am saying. The recriminations of the plaintiff and the cost inflicted by their "wanton disregard" etc etc etc. But now, we are seeing a quantum shift where the worshipers of the high church of Capitalism are now trying to convince us that their priorities merit a "plan B" where certain segments of society be regarded as "expendable" towards some greater common good? Really?
OvermodWe already have an example of the kind of recovery a 'let the pandemic happen' would produce, at the end of WWI. The difference was that the megadeaths were perceived as 'unpreventable' -- and those who survived grieved their dead, and eventually got back to 'business'.
In the 1918-20 pandemic, they shut down schools, theaters, etc., and then opened them up again, causing up to 4 waves of infections. Cities that reopened too soon not only saw more deaths, but poorer economic recovery. One of the differences in that pandemic was that the 20 to 40 year olds were a hard hit group.
One difference between the 1918 pandemic and the current pandemic is that fewer people are taking public transit and much more are driving to work leaving fewer mass interactions to spread virus. A lot more is known about how to deal with viral pandemics than back then. Finally the worst effects of the current pandemic are on the oldest and not the young adults in the 1918 pandemic - more focus should have been placed on protecting the elderly.
Most of the talk about re-opening the country is along the lines of of a gradual process with emphasis on minimizing viral transmission (e.g. face masks). My guess is that we may see a slight uptick in case loads, but not likely to return to 3 day doubling times.
With respect to public transit: I wonder if anyone involved with public transit will be taking a good look at ventilation and climate control in their cars. Two things come to mind, first is keeping temperatures at 70F an second is to arrange airflow from ceiling to floor.
I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
EuclidI keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
In my state - they are being referred by their personal doctors after the individuals have reported symptoms consistent with those that have been identified as being a indication of Covid-19
EuclidHow are they selected for testing?
I suspect they are targeting vulnerable groups first. As they do, the picture will be rapidly changing. If and when they reach to point of near universal testing, I suspect that we'll end up with a "it was bad for those for whom it was bad, but for everyone else, meh."
If the results of 100% testing in a couple of specific cases are any indication, they'll find that ~50% of those now testing positive are asymptomatic. This finding on the USS Roosevelt has confounded researchers, as it is twice the normal number.
Increased antibody testing may well show that ~15% of the population (or more) already possesses the antibody for the virus. This finding tends to confirm the rapid spread of the virus, but also means that the bulk of those people were either asymptomatic, or did not suffer debilitating illness. Many people have related that they experienced the lesser of the symptoms - cough, etc. - some even before the virus was officially recognized here. In fact, that there was no testing done for that specific virus in the early days kind of reinforces that.
BaltACD Euclid I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing? In my state - they are being referred by their personal doctors after the individuals have reported symptoms consistent with those that have been identified as being a indication of Covid-19
Euclid I keep hearing about more and more people being tested because of rapidly increasing testing capability. Many thousands of people are being tested every day. Where do they find these people who are being tested? How are they selected for testing?
Is there really hundreds of thousands of people who have reported sypmtoms to their doctors and are waiting to get tested in order to find out if they have virus? When they say a testing entity is testing 80,000 people per day, it would seem like they must just be vacuuming them up off the street.
It just seems like something is missing in this story.
EuclidIt just seems like something is missing in this story.
The California antibody tests were random within their area of interest.
If they are turning out thousands per day, it might make sense that they would blanket an area, even if it were to show that a given area is comparatively past being a major concern.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.