Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie said:
I don’t understand why testing is the answer at all.

I do understand it’s value in long term data gathering and study into these things. But not in the ‘here and now’.

What happens when you’re tested? You wait 4 days for the results and they come back clear. Brilliant. All that tells you is that you did not have the virus 4 DAYS AGO! You might have it now, you might get it tomorrow, etc.

And if it comes back positive, what do you do then, how do you put people in lockdown when they’re already in lockdown !?
Click to expand...

You don't get tested if you aren't showing symptoms.

If you are showing symptoms you stay inside, regardless of having had a test or not.

Positive test results allow experts to identify hotspots and allocate resources accordingly.

If it comes back positive you stay inside. If you are part of the at risk population you get medical attention. If you are sick and haven't had a test, you stay inside.
 
Onder said:
.What really matters is the economy. A nation of paupers isnt going to save many lives.
Click to expand...

Neither is a nation of sick and dying people.

You think your boss is showing up for work? CEO of the corporation you work for? Owner? You think any of them would get on public transportation and show up to work right now?
 
NPeteN said:
You don't get tested if you aren't showing symptoms.

If you are showing symptoms you stay inside, regardless of having had a test or not.

Positive test results allow experts to identify hotspots and allocate resources accordingly.

If it comes back positive you stay inside. If you are part of the at risk population you get medical attention. If you are sick and haven't had a test, you stay inside.
Click to expand...

I’ve no arguments there, hence my use of the phrase ‘stay balanced’.

My point is that society needs a lot of infrastructure and complex supply chains in order to survive. Getting food on shelves and medical supplies into the hands of those that need them require complex supply chains in order to deliver. It’s not just about farmers, shop keepers and key healthcare workers.

We can survive for a short while on this kind of lock down, but I strongly believe that we can’t survive it long.

In the U.K. you can’t get your car fixed or MOT’d, can’t buy or fix clothing, electronic goods, etc, etc.

Societies need infrastructure and supply chains to function.

If society breaks down the virus will be the least of our worries.

... We gotta stay balanced ...
 
Fast Eddie said:
I’ve no arguments there, hence my use of the phrase ‘stay balanced’.

My point is that society needs a lot of infrastructure and complex supply chains in order to survive. Getting food on shelves and medical supplies into the hands of those that need them require complex supply chains in order to deliver. It’s not just about farmers, shop keepers and key healthcare workers.

We can survive for a short while on this kind of lock down, but I strongly believe that we can’t survive it long.

In the U.K. you can’t get your car fixed or MOT’d, can’t buy or fix clothing, electronic goods, etc, etc.

Societies need infrastructure and supply chains to function.

If society breaks down the virus will be the least of our worries.

... We gotta stay balanced ...
Click to expand...

I was answering your questions about testing.

I agree and while I can't speak for the UK, here our supply chains are fine, all essential businesses are open and as long as people behave responsibly and listen to local government we should be ok.
 
Sorry, yes, testing...


“If you are showing symptoms you stay inside, regardless of having had a test or not”:
Exactly, therefore testing does not change anything here.

“Positive test results allow experts to identify hotspots and allocate resources accordingly”:
Agreed in the EARLY stages of an epidemic. Once it has spread broadly, the ability to learn anything from results, and to react, is severely diminished.

“If it comes back positive you stay inside”:
Here we a told to self isolate automatically when displaying symptoms, so you’d be inside anyway, irrelevant of testing.
And of course the vast majority of the population is already inside when on lockdown.
Therefore the only people who this would effect is those who are carrying without symptoms, who get tested randomly, and who are ‘key workers’ so not already on lockdown. I think this would be a very small number.

“If you are part of the at risk population you get medical attention”:
Maybe that’s the case over there, but here we are being told to only seek medical attention if symptoms are bad. Those with mild symptoms simply self isolate.
Plus, those in the “at risk” category are already inside ‘self shielding’.
This is therefore irrelevant of testing.

“If you are sick and haven't had a test, you stay inside”:
If you haven’t had a test, this irrelevant of testing.

Therefore, whilst testing does still bring various benefits (mainly in terms of bettering our understanding of how these things spread and how we may act better in future).
I am NOT some kind of anti testing nut job, I am arguing that it is not actually going to help significantly with the management of the virus at this stage.
 
One way testing helps here is ,once they get positive test ,officials then trace your recent history and let any folks you were around that they been exposed and that they must self isolate for 14 days ,plus if they show symptoms then they are given a number to call to get in line for treatment ...
 
Fast Eddie said:
Sorry, yes, testing...


“If you are showing symptoms you stay inside, regardless of having had a test or not”:
Exactly, therefore testing does not change anything here.

“Positive test results allow experts to identify hotspots and allocate resources accordingly”:
Agreed in the EARLY stages of an epidemic. Once it has spread broadly, the ability to learn anything from results, and to react, is severely diminished.

“If it comes back positive you stay inside”:
Here we a told to self isolate automatically when displaying symptoms, so you’d be inside anyway, irrelevant of testing.
And of course the vast majority of the population is already inside when on lockdown.
Therefore the only people who this would effect is those who are carrying without symptoms, who get tested randomly, and who are ‘key workers’ so not already on lockdown. I think this would be a very small number.

“If you are part of the at risk population you get medical attention”:
Maybe that’s the case over there, but here we are being told to only seek medical attention if symptoms are bad. Those with mild symptoms simply self isolate.
Plus, those in the “at risk” category are already inside ‘self shielding’.
This is therefore irrelevant of testing.

“If you are sick and haven't had a test, you stay inside”:
If you haven’t had a test, this irrelevant of testing.

Therefore, whilst testing does still bring various benefits (mainly in terms of bettering our understanding of how these things spread and how we may act better in future).
I am NOT some kind of anti testing nut job, I am arguing that it is not actually going to help significantly with the management of the virus at this stage.
Click to expand...

You're correct and it isn't expected to. If everything goes according to plan you wont notice anything at all.... stay inside!
 
Someone locally were called out while grocery shopping , apparently they had just landed in from a Florida vacation and were stocking up at grocery store , guess an angry crowd chased them out empty handed ... supposed to go straight home and stay there for 14 days ... anyone locally ,sporting a tan right now is suspect !
 
Since I’m essentially a shut-in, I decided to buy a stationary exercise bike today. No dice. Sold out. Taking orders with a month long wait. Found what I wanted at Dick’s. Their stores are closed, but offer curbside delivery. I placed an order. Waiting for confirmation.

If you have anything you want I suggest you get it NOW! Whole damn system is collapsing!
 
Fast Eddie said:
I don’t understand why testing is the answer at all.

I do understand it’s value in long term data gathering and study into these things. But not in the ‘here and now’.

What happens when you’re tested? You wait 4 days for the results and they come back clear. Brilliant. All that tells you is that you did not have the virus 4 DAYS AGO! You might have it now, you might get it tomorrow, etc.

And if it comes back positive, what do you do then, how do you put people in lockdown when they’re already in lockdown !?
Click to expand...

The value of blanket testing is that it can identify hotspots before they get too widespread and appropriate measures can then be taken, focussing them where needed and thus conserving the limited response capabilities.
Most countries are not doing widespread testing as they do not have resources for it. Our guidance in Canada is to test only if you are showing symptoms and are of higher risk due to age, travel history or other health problems. A positive test means you are required to self isolate until recovered while being monitored at home. Only if you deteriorate are you taken to hospital. Our first lady is positive, having a mild set of symptoms and is isolated at home. Prime Minister trudeau and their kids are in self isolation for 14 days in the same home. They end that tomorrow, no signs they have it.
So upshot is, ideally test large samples across communities to monitor. If not feasible, next best thing is to have everyone distancing themselves and performing excellent hygiene measures. Admittedly a blunt instrument but it is possible to have big impacts on outcomes this way. Those that ignore face the fates of Iran, Italy, Spain, New York and now Florida.
 
Fast Eddie said:
I am staying inside, apart from going shopping for supplies. Had to go quite a long way to find some milk today... fortunately I was on my Triumph ;)
Click to expand...

I gotta say. Sunday afternoons have never been this good. The roads are EMPTY.
 
Coronavirus creates some very strange effects. Since John Howard casualised the Australian workforce, the main people who can afford holidays on cruise ships are probably those who have had successful businesses and those who have inherited from deceased relatives.
 
Last edited:
The Lt. Governor of Texas said us old folks should risk our lives to help jumpstart the economy. If I'm gonna laugh in the face of death, I gotta be having some fun and work ain't it!
 
Man, that Fast Eddie milk run sure got me thinking...the Norton is awaiting parts, the Trident has no engine, the Interceptor needs its petrol tank leaving the Rickman. Voltmeter says 10 volts. Charger says its charged. Dead cell no doubt. Installed the Trident battery and all I need is some
petrol. Damn, 25 minute drive to premium petrol station!
Well Ill tell the cops I had to drive the car to get petrol so I could drive the bike to get milk. Im sure they'll understand. Unfortunately Im a ten minute walk to the corner shop and they have had a good stock of everything.
 
Last edited:
Acotrel .... sometimes your over the top generalizing amazes me ... my wife and I are both long retired , me in ‘05, my wife in ‘09 ... neither of us owned a business or were particularly highly compensated professionals , Jo was special ed. Teacher , I was employed with 2 different Towns as a public works super .... we can afford to go south, take a cruise any and every year , if we choose ... last year Jo(wife) spent 4 wks in Costa Rica, came home changed her clothes and left on musical tour (with her band ) of Cuba for a week .... I stayed at home and got bikes ready and kept the cat company .... this year no travel, as writing was on the wall early .., a friend and his wife just got home Sat. from a 6 wk stay in the Caymans he and his wife are now in 14 day isolation , they are not “rich folks” either .... sometimes you just over the top with some statements ...rant over !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Island is prepared to deal with coronavirus
Replies
8
Views
1,549
storm42
storm42
Back
Top