Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#83,651
#83,651
MurphyVol said:
I didn't realize asymptomatic spread was such a high risk
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t define it has a huge risk. But it happens. Again you can’t lock it down. You would just be delaying the inevitable. Now a more interesting question would be could you time a lock down for time period x in conjunction with mass vaccine distribution. And to be clear I am against all lock downs. But you can’t just close up shop for three weeks and think all will be well. It will roar back in a few weeks/months.
 
#83,655
#83,655
MurphyVol said:
Kiddie doc, got a question for you. I'd like to know your thoughts on the below. Keep in mind, I know it's not feasible in a place like America but let's pretend for a minute.

A good friend of mine is a doc, and he's a super nerd. He's the type that reads case studies for entertainment.
He said one thing that could work is a true, hard lockdown for a short period of time. Say, hospitals, police, EMTs and pretty much nobody else comes to work. Grocery stores stay open but only offer curbside service, etc.

He claims that without hosts to transfer to the virus would likely starve and die in about 3 weeks. He claims the government could pay everyone a stipend for this 3 week period and we'd have saved trillions of dollars to this point instead of the multi-month death by a thousand cuts to our society/economy.

Again, I know the scenario is a fantasy but just pretend for a moment it's possible. What are your thoughts on if this would truly work?
Click to expand...
I think that is an absurd idea. There are far, far too many people carrying the virus to eliminate it by "locking down" for any finite period of time. It will continue to spread amongst family members, in the "essential" workplaces/hospitals, and between those who will not submit to strict isolation. Three weeks might not even clear the virus from a single larger family.

Even in countries where there were limited cases before they enacted overbearing lockdowns, where they were able to stop transmission early, there continues to be a rebound effect and the virus does what viruses do. I'll emphasize that these areas had only a TINY fraction of the cases currently in U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, hog88 and NorthDallas40
#83,656
#83,656
volfanhill said:
I wouldn’t define it has a huge risk. But it happens. Again you can’t lock it down. You would just be delaying the inevitable. Now a more interesting question would be could you time a lock down for time period x in conjunction with mass vaccine distribution. And to be clear I am against all lock downs. But you can’t just close up shop for three weeks and think all will be well. It will roar back in a few weeks/months.
Click to expand...
Isn't the evidence so far pointing to little or no risk of asymptomatic spread?
 
#83,657
#83,657
kiddiedoc said:
I think that is an absurd idea. There are far, far too many people carrying the virus to eliminate it by "locking down" for any finite period of time. It will continue to spread amongst family members, in the "essential" workplaces/hospitals, and between those who will not submit to strict isolation. Three weeks might not even clear the virus from a single larger family.

Even in countries where there were limited cases before they enacted overbearing lockdowns, where they were able to stop transmission early, there continues to be a rebound effect and the virus does what viruses do. I'll emphasize that these areas had only a TINY fraction of the cases currently in U.S.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the response. I assume, aside from a vaccine, you feel there's simply no solution but to run it's course?
 
#83,661
#83,661
MurphyVol said:
I appreciate the response. I assume, aside from a vaccine, you feel there's simply no solution but to run it's course?
Click to expand...
Same I've said since early summer: protect the at-risk, avoid unnecessary secondary effects of lockdowns, vaccinate the elderly when available, continue to work on therapeutics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and NurseGoodVol
#83,663
#83,663
kiddiedoc said:
Also, I believe our earlier response may end up costing lives and valuable hospital resources by "pushing the curve" into the winter months of respiratory season.
Click to expand...
My Dad is in his 70s, diabetic and has always caught bronchitis at the drop of a hat, like clockwork every single year.

What are your thoughts on my being around him with both of us masked?

Sorry, last question. Thanks for the info
 
#83,664
#83,664
MurphyVol said:
My Dad is in his 70s, diabetic and has always caught bronchitis at the drop of a hat, like clockwork every single year.

What are your thoughts on my being around him with both of us masked?

Sorry, last question. Thanks for the info
Click to expand...
I would say if you have any symptoms or any likely recent exposure, you should stay away from him entirely.

Cloth masks do very little aside from giving people a false sense of security. Now, if you both wear N95/respirator masks (without the goofy exhaust port) and are very strict with your hygiene and spacing, it's probably fine to visit, but basically nobody is 100% compliant.

If you have no symptoms and do not suspect any recent exposure, I'd say your risk to him is minimal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, LouderVol, Sea Ray and 1 other person
#83,666
#83,666
kiddiedoc said:
I would say if you have any symptoms or any likely recent exposure, you should stay away from him entirely.

Cloth masks do very little aside from giving people a false sense of security. Now, if you both wear N95/respirator masks (without the goofy exhaust port) and are very strict with your hygiene and spacing, it's probably fine to visit, but basically nobody is 100% compliant.

If you have no symptoms and do not suspect any recent exposure, I'd say your risk to him is minimal.
Click to expand...
Much appreciated
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#83,669
#83,669
Vol Main said:
Dr. Hodkinson's claim that there is no evidence for wearing masks is not true. Below, an excerpt from the New England Journal of Medicine states evidence for wearing them.

This article in the New England Journal of Medicine argues that universal mask wearing reduces not just the number but also the severity of infections among persons exposed to the virus, by reducing the viral load of exposure. In July, the rate of infections showing symptoms was estimated by the CDC to be 60% among persons infected. In places where masks were required, the rate of infections which produced symptoms was less than 20% of the infected persons.

"The typical rate of asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 40% by the CDC in mid-July, but asymptomatic infection rates are reported to be higher than 80% in settings with universal facial masking..."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913
Click to expand...
I really liked the source that used hamsters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#83,670
#83,670
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#83,673
#83,673
NurseGoodVol said:
thanks, been wearing one for a year, I get your position even though you are fundamentally wrong on so many points. Mask up, stay 6 feet away from others, you might want to get gloves because Lord knows how many pick up live herpes off surfaces in public, sanitize your groceries, wash your hands after you touch anything, don't answer the door, don't Ever take your mask off( you never know when that crafty corona might turn on the afterburner and hit you right in the suck), don't use public bathrooms, order offline and above all else..... don't procreate.

I'm responsible to be a pt advocate not a patient owner. They are responsible for their health just as I'm responsible for mine. I don't own the responsibility for your health, you do. Have at it and stop escaping your own responsibility by placing it on others. ( see above tips for being a hermit, it'll suit you)
Click to expand...

Nag, nag, nag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top