What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (11 Viewers)

Doug B said:
Relative lack of public transportation has to be a factor, too. So far as I'm aware, big Texas cities (metro areas for sure) are totally car-based.
We all own cars, even the "dense" areas really aren't, warmer (although it just recently got warm).

We really have no trouble social distancing.. .we spend most our lives that way.

 
I wasn’t trying to reply the site was illegitimate. But making non peer-reviewed research readily available to the general public is problematic at best. I’m not even sure it’s a good idea to promote it within the scientific community, tbh.
The problem is that even peer reviewed studies get overturned at a much higher rate than what people think. People should show both more support for our research community and more skepticism at the same time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

With Covid-19 I support publishing the studies quickly before peer reviewing, because the only way they will be confirmed is by people trying to repeat the studies. For example there are a couple promising Remdesivir studies out now, we are in a situation where we cannot trust those studies, however they do show enough promise that hopefully other trials will quickly be carried out. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that even peer reviewed studies get overturned at a much higher rate than what people think. People should show both more support for our research community and more skepticism at the same time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

With Covid-19 I support publishing the studies quickly before peer reviewing, because the only way they will be confirmed is by people trying to repeat the studies. For example there are a couple promising Remdesivir studies out now, we are in a situation where we cannot trust those studies, however they do show enough promise that hopefully other trials will quickly be carried out. 
Of course. No process is perfect - the “study” which entrenched the anti-vax movement was peer-reviewed. But something is certainly better than nothing, and pre-printing just encourages garbage research to disseminate into the lay press.

ETA The research community for any given infection is generally small enough that there is an idea about therapeutics that are being tried before studies are published.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course. No process is perfect - the “study” which entrenched the anti-vax movement was peer-reviewed. But something is certainly better than nothing, and pre-printing just encourages garbage research to disseminate into the lay press.
In my opinion that is a problem with our media and not a problem with the research process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good lord that Santa Clara study is REEEEAAAALLLLLY popular on Facespace today... and EVERYBODY is an expert and thinks the people blowing it up are Fake News   :lol:   
Lol. You can't convince me my kids DIDN'T have it in February, just like I can't convince you they DID.

Face space aside, and no one on mine is even mentioning it,  I think this deserves way more investigation. No way one of my twins had "just a virus " that turned into some "unknown pneumonia" end of january/early february.  Cant say it was. Cant say it wasnt. And pretty condescending to suggest otherwise with the given "non peer reviewed, unsubstantiated" report right?

Point is, cant just laugh it off.

 
an infectious disease doc saying we're in, like, the 2nd inning of a 9 inning game.  
I was watching a documentary about the 1918 flu pandemic. Those poor people had no idea what they were fighting against. The electron microscope hadn't been invented yet. They couldn't see their enemy.

Things are so much different now. We know what our enemy is and we know how to defeat it. This isn't going to be as bad as people are saying. (I hope!)

 
It's more complicated than you think. The most commonly employed swabs are supposed to be held in the back of the nasopharynx for ~10 seconds - not only is that uncomfortable, it causes people to sneeze, which is aerosol-generating. So people collecting the swabs should technically be using full PPE, including N95 masks...and we all know there are issues with finding enough of those.

Self testing is the way to go. Ideally we'd test both acute and resolved infection through a two-step process, but I'm not sure the general public can do all that on their own.
Rutgers got approval on a saliva based test that is apparently very easy to self-test with. Not sure what the capacity for production and analysis is though.

 
We all own cars, even the "dense" areas really aren't, warmer (although it just recently got warm).

We really have no trouble social distancing.. .we spend most our lives that way.
This is why I laughed off most of the cell phone tracing people were doing to suggest the south and west were doing things wrong. Just with everyone having to drive an extra mile to hit up a Publix instead of their bodega in a city vastly skews the data.

Just entering and exiting stores, I used to be a guy who held the door for anyone, letting them pass right by me, but now, I'm like, "nah, you got it... I'll wait" if there's a chance of an encounter.

-------

For the record, the GF took a test this morning. No serious fever temps right now with the highest she reported to me being 99.6. Test results could  be back tomorrow, but definitely back by Friday. I've already started my lockdown protocol as far as getting out to the grocery or convenience store, but I've seen her the past two nights since her fever started considering I was with her the morning she woke up with a fever. No doubt I have it if she does. My liver could definitely use a break, but delivery is available :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was going to ask if, assuming antibodies start being produced in detectable quantities fairly quickly after being infected, could  the antibody test could be used as a quick check to see if someone was positive for C19.

But per the below, sounds like it wouldn't be a very helpful technique:

...

Unlike polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests—also referred to as molecular or nucleic acid–based tests—antibody tests aren’t intended to identify active SARS-CoV-2 infections. Instead of detecting viral genetic material in throat or nasal swabs, antibody tests reveal markers of immune response—the IgM and IgG antibodies that for most people show up in blood more than a week after they start to feel sick, when symptoms may already be waning.

...

The Promise and Peril of Antibody Testing for COVID-19

Jennifer Abbasi
JAMA. Published online April 17, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6170

The Promise and Peril of Antibody Testing for COVID-19

Jennifer Abbasi

JAMA. Published online April 17, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6170

related articles icon Related

Articles

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) raged around the globe in late March, hundreds of San Miguel County, Colorado, residents turned out for a blood test. Standing 6 feet apart outside a Telluride school gym, they waited for the blood draw that would tell them whether they had mounted an immune response to the disease-causing virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)—a sign that they’d been infected.

Jens Meyer/AP Images

In the first such community-wide campaign in the US, the San Miguel County Department of Health offered the voluntary screening to most of the area’s 8000 residents over 2 weeks. Just 8 of the 986 individuals tested on March 26 and 27 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Another 23 were borderline, suggesting that they’d recently been exposed to the virus and were just starting to make antibodies against it. But those were early days. The screenings, paid for by test manufacturer United Biomedical Inc and the county, eventually would be repeated to see how much things had changed.

Unlike polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests—also referred to as molecular or nucleic acid–based tests—antibody tests aren’t intended to identify active SARS-CoV-2 infections. Instead of detecting viral genetic material in throat or nasal swabs, antibody tests reveal markers of immune response—the IgM and IgG antibodies that for most people show up in blood more than a week after they start to feel sick, when symptoms may already be waning.

Serologic antibody tests not only can confirm suspected cases after the fact, they can also reveal who was infected and didn’t know it. Up to a quarter of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection may unwittingly spread the virus because they have mild or no symptoms.

Implications for the health care workforce could be substantial, microbiologist Florian Krammer, PhD, of Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview. “If we find serologically that you are immune, it’s very unlikely that you can get reinfected, which means you can’t pass the virus on to your colleagues or to other patients. And I think it also gives a peace of mind if you have to work with COVID-19 patients to know that you’re probably immune to the infection,” he explained.

Antibody tests are ramping up quickly, with a growing list of commercial kits and test protocols from academic researchers including Krammer’s team and a Dutch team coming online in recent days and weeks. Scientists said the tests will be critical in the weeks and months ahead, when they may be used for disease surveillance, therapeutics, return-to-work screenings, and more. But the tests must be deployed appropriately, they added, and with an acknowledgment of unanswered questions.

Turning Antibodies Into Therapies

In their first therapeutic application, serology tests are being used to screen donor blood for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Plasma containing the antibodies from recovered patients is then transfused to gravely ill patients in an experimental treatment known as convalescent plasma. Early results from a small number of Chinese patients, published in JAMA in late March, were promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is coordinating a national effort to develop blood-based, antibody-rich COVID-19 therapies. They include convalescent plasma and the hyperimmune globulin derived from it, which ideally will provide passive immunity to people who have been exposed to the virus.

In an interview, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, MD, PhD, who chairs the Mount Sinai Health System pathology department in New York City, said physicians there have begun to transfuse convalescent plasma to critically ill patients as part of an FDA expanded access program. Krammer’s research team developed the test that’s being used to screen donor blood.

They recently described their new assay in a preprint article (which has not been peer-reviewed). The test detected antibodies in plasma from blood drawn as early as 3 days after patients first developed symptoms. Crucially, it did not react with human coronaviruses already circulating in the population, demonstrating that it’s specific to SARS-CoV-2. “What we've found with our test is that basically everybody’s naive,” Krammer said. “There’s no preexisting immunity. And that makes it very easy to distinguish between people who have been infected and who haven’t been infected.”

Antibody testing could also help to address a potential unintended consequence of receiving convalescent plasma or hyperimmune globulin. It’s possible that some COVID-19 survivors who undergo these treatments won’t develop their own immunity, putting them at risk for reinfection, Lee Wetzler, MD, a professor of medicine and microbiology at the Boston University School of Medicine, said in an interview. Serologic testing could be used to check their antibody status after they’ve recovered; those with low or no immunity would be prime candidates for a vaccine when one becomes available.

Mount Sinai and United Biomedical’s tests are both enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), a common laboratory platform that can measure antibody titers. Being able to quantify antibodies will be important for identifying convalescent plasma donors with abundant titers and studying how the immune system responds to the virus. “The titers that we measure in ELISA seem to correlate with neutralizing antibodies,” Krammer said. “So basically the idea is the higher these titers, the better you are protected.”

Krammer has shared his test’s reagents and tool kits with about 150 different US clinical labs. These types of quantitative tests will help scientists to understand if there’s a certain antibody type or threshold a person needs to be protected, according to Wetzler, who is also an infectious disease physician at the Boston Medical Center.

However, a substantial number of the new commercial COVID-19 antibody tests aren’t ELISA-based. They’re lateral flow assays, which provide a simple positive or negative result, with no quantitative information. These kits are cheap and easy to use and, depending on how they’re employed, may be helpful for disease surveillance, Elitza Theel, PhD, director of the Mayo Clinic Infectious Diseases Serology Laboratory in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview.

Palo Alto–based Nirmidas Biotech is one of many companies offering a rapid, point-of-care lateral flow assay. According to Meijie Tang, PhD, the firm’s CEO and president, a state Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) laboratory and other partners are evaluating the test’s performance. “We plan to collaborate with hospitals, clinics, health care and medical institutions to validate the test and make [it] widely available,” she said in an email.

Diazyme Laboratories in Poway, California, has developed chemiluminescence immunoassays, which are closer in concept to ELISAs than lateral flow assays. The tests generate a light signal proportional to SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies. In an email, cofounder and Managing Director Chong Yuan, PhD, said the company would ship about 2 million tests to clinical labs over the over the next month.

The Right Test at the Right Time

On April 1, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to a rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM lateral flow assay from Cellex Inc in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Mount Sinai’s test received EUA 2 weeks later.

The agency by early April had also allowed more than 70 companies to sell COVID-19 antibody tests without this authorization, albeit with some stipulations. Among other requirements, manufacturers operating without EUA must state that they’ve clinically validated their tests using specimens from patients with PCR-confirmed infections. The test reports must note that the FDA has not reviewed the assays and that they should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection or to inform patients of infection status.

Yet, according to Theel, several companies are marketing lateral flow assays as rapid point-of-care tests to identify active COVID-19, something the FDA announced it will take action against. “We do not really know how well these assays work at this point,” Theel said in a follow-up email.

Although commercial manufacturers claim their tests have high sensitivity and specificity, they haven’t published their data yet. This lack of transparency is worrisome, Theel said: “The question is, when following symptom onset were these samples collected to show that sensitivity and specificity?”

Her laboratory has found that most people with SARS-CoV-2 don’t start producing antibodies—or seroconvert—until at least 11 to 12 days after symptom onset. “So, if we were using these rapid lateral flow assays at the point of care to test recently symptomatic patients,…they are more likely than not going to be negative,” she said.

Greater FDA oversight for antibody tests could be coming, according to news reports. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) is working with partners and its own global laboratory network to evaluate available assays for diagnostic and research purposes, a spokesperson said in an email. One partner in the effort is the Foundation for Innovating Diagnostics (FIND), a Geneva, Switzerland–headquartered nonprofit that’s evaluating both PCR and serology tests. As of mid-April, the group had selected 27 antibody tests, mostly from China, for its first round of evaluation. The tests’ performance results will be posted on the FIND website as they become available.

According to news reports, newly available rapid, point-of-care PCR tests, like a recently announced 5-minute assay from Abbott Laboratories, won’t substantially increase diagnostic testing capacity in the short-term. Faced with a PCR test shortfall amid incredible demand, health systems may consider subbing in serology tests. But experts strongly underscored that antibody testing generally should not be used to diagnose active cases.

Krammer said that resorting to antibody testing to diagnose active infections is a “complete misuse.” Not only are antibody tests likely to report false-negatives early on, they’ll also miss infections among people who are immunocompromised and don’t produce antibodies.

“Molecular testing is still going to be the go-to preferred method for diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients,” Theel said. In her view, the only appropriate use of antibody testing for active infection may be for people who have had symptoms for over a week but are PCR negative. But the precise timing of that still hasn’t been defined.

“I think that it is very important that we understand the limitations of serologic testing, recognizing that it takes time to mount a detectable immune response, and to use them for the right reasons,” Theel said. “A false-negative serologic result in an acutely symptomatic patient with replicating and shedding virus has serious public health consequences.”

Back to Work

San Miguel County’s public health department has said it will use its test results to detect and contain COVID-19 in the community and provide a clearer picture of the disease’s prevalence there. Other areas may soon follow suit: United Biomedical cofounder and Telluride resident Mei Mei Hu said in an email that screenings in additional communities are being planned.

Government officials and health systems need accurate infection counts to understand COVID-19’s spread, conduct contact tracing, craft public health recommendations, and prepare for health care surges. When the dust has settled, epidemiologists will use widespread serosurveillance data to more accurately estimate just how many people who contracted the virus became seriously ill or died.

To that end, a National Institutes of Health–funded antibody survey is enrolling 10 000 volunteers from around the country and, according to news reports, nationally representative, CDC-funded serosurveys are slated to begin later this year. Meanwhile, the WHO is providing countries with an early protocol and technical support for seroepidemiological studies and is launching a multicountry antibody testing study called SOLIDARITY II.

Crucially, many believe that antibody testing can also be used to return people with immunity to the workforce or keep them there, starting with health care professionals and emergency first responders. Krammer suggested that staffing nursing homes with immune workers could bring down their high case-fatality rates, for example.

“erosurveillance is going to play a major role in…a framework for getting back to normal,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a White House Coronavirus Task Force advisor, said in an April 8 JAMA livestream. Two prominent COVID-19 roadmaps—one from former FDA Director Scott Gottlieb, MD, and the other from the University of Pennsylvania’s Ezekiel Emanuel, MD—include widespread antibody testing as a critical step toward reopening society.

“I think it makes total sense that if immunity is increasing and we have, let’s say, 50% of people immune against this, then we have a much less chance that the virus will spread,” said Melanie Ott, MD, PhD, a senior investigator at the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Francisco. “At a certain point, we will be able to minimize that risk with potentially minimal additional measures that have to be taken.”

Along those lines, media outlets have reported that researchers in Germany and Italy will conduct and study large-scale antibody testing, with Germany planning to issue “immunity certificates” to transition its citizens out of lockdown. Public Health England, which provides evidence-based support to the National Health Service, recently discussed plans for nationwide antibody screening that would begin once a rapid, at-home finger-##### test under consideration was assessed for accuracy. At press time, the White House hadn’t announced similar plans.

Allowing people to reenter society based on their antibody status assumes that past infection guards against reinfection, something that researchers said was likely but not yet well defined. “How broad and how long and how effective this immune response is is still not clear,” Ott said.

Scientists around the world will be working to understand what sort of protection infection bestows, both in the laboratory and by following up recovered patients to see if reinfections occur. So far, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear to mutate quickly. This, coupled with experience with other viral infections, suggests that people with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be protected at least for some time, Wetzler said.

There’s another potential snag, however. Individuals can be PCR positive even after antibodies develop. “The question is, is that live virus that we’re detecting? Is it replicating? And is it transmissible? And I think that’s still an unknown at this point,” Theel said. Coupling a positive antibody test with a negative PCR result could reduce the chance that people who are still contagious reenter society.

Ultimately, a positive antibody test could be a sort of get-out-of-isolation card. “In the long run, I think it would be nice to provide this for the whole population because everybody who is immune could basically go back to normal life because they can’t infect anybody else,” Krammer said.

For now, he cautioned that novel coronavirus infections are probably not yet widespread among the general population in the US, which is just in the “beginning of a large epidemic.” But as more people become infected and immune, they could help jumpstart the economy by going back to work. They could also provide practical support for those who are vulnerable to serious infection, potentially until a vaccine arrives.

In early April, Cordon-Cardo said Mount Sinai would likely expand its assay’s use beyond experimental therapeutics to testing health care workers. And at the Mayo Clinic, clinical antibody testing began in mid-April. If these applications are followed by a rollout of widespread antibody testing for the general public, they could lead to a gradual reopening of society to a world changed by COVID-19.
 
The only point I agreed with regarding lock downs was to keep the medical system from being overloaded. Sure, I consider myself a risk at the moment and will SIP, but as far as opening back up, as long as our systems do not get overwhelmed, I just don't see how anyone can argue we shouldn't work towards some sort of normalcy. We cannot stop this virus from spreading in some fashion, and our main focus should be making sure no one dies from it that didn't have to because of inadequate resources. If we can maintain a status which keeps us above that threshold, I don't understand why people think it is necessary to require anything else. Flattening the curve was never a measure to prevent anyone from getting the virus, only how many people may get infected at any given time.

 
The only point I agreed with regarding lock downs was to keep the medical system from being overloaded. Sure, I consider myself a risk at the moment and will SIP, but as far as opening back up, as long as our systems do not get overwhelmed, I just don't see how anyone can argue we shouldn't work towards some sort of normalcy. We cannot stop this virus from spreading in some fashion, and our main focus should be making sure no one dies from it that didn't have to because of inadequate resources. If we can maintain a status which keeps us above that threshold, I don't understand why people think it is necessary to require anything else. Flattening the curve was never a measure to prevent anyone from getting the virus, only how many people may get infected at any given time.
It's not just about preventing the overwhelming of hospitals. It's also about giving us time to study the virus and develop better treatment plans, giving us higher % chance of survival.

 
It's not just about preventing the overwhelming of hospitals. It's also about giving us time to study the virus and develop better treatment plans, giving us higher % chance of survival.
That's a high hurdle to meet. When we were watching Italy explode, we were hearing stories about doctors having to make decisions on who to put on ventilators. I was fully on board with the crowd saying we need to worry about that sort of thing happening here, and that hasn't happened yet. The problem now is we cannot stay locked down forever, and if a certain amount of people are going to get infected, and a certain amount of people are going to die, there is just nothing we can do about it besides making sure we don't have more people die because of an overwhelmed medical system. No amount of testing or contact tracing is going to put a dent in those numbers. I'm not callous about deaths. ####, I'm 43, a little overweight, questionably high BP, and I was having sex with a person who probably has a 50/50 chance of being infected with this 8 hours or less before she presented pretty decent symptoms. I'm definitely worried about this, but we aren't going to stay locked down until there's a vaccine, no matter what anyone says.

 
It's not just about preventing the overwhelming of hospitals. It's also about giving us time to study the virus and develop better treatment plans, giving us higher % chance of survival.
Flattening the curve was the number one reason used for telling people they needed to shelter in place. It was never about preventing infection, and the assumption was that the same number of people would get infected over a longer period of time. 

 
The only point I agreed with regarding lock downs was to keep the medical system from being overloaded. Sure, I consider myself a risk at the moment and will SIP, but as far as opening back up, as long as our systems do not get overwhelmed, I just don't see how anyone can argue we shouldn't work towards some sort of normalcy. We cannot stop this virus from spreading in some fashion, and our main focus should be making sure no one dies from it that didn't have to because of inadequate resources. If we can maintain a status which keeps us above that threshold, I don't understand why people think it is necessary to require anything else. Flattening the curve was never a measure to prevent anyone from getting the virus, only how many people may get infected at any given time.
Well said sir. 
 

Im on the cautious side, but it's time to start loosening in places that are in good shape. Slow, smart, with plans to back up if needed. 

We bought 2 months... if that (plus the ~2 months it took to get here) wasn't enough time to get PPE, Testing, and Hospital capacity online, then it's just going to be a little bumpier than ideal.

Hopefully we get those fully online, and hopefully we can react/shutdown quick enough to avoid any more NYC hot zones. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said sir. 
 

Im on the cautious side, but it's time to start loosening in places that are in good shape. Slow, smart, with plans to back up if needed. 

We bought 2 months... if that (plus the ~2 months it took to get here) wasn't enough time to get PPE, Testing, and Hospital capacity online, then it's just going to be a little bumpier than ideal.

Hopefully we get those fully online, and hopefully we can react/shutdown quick enough to avoid any more NYC hot zones. 
I have definitely been on the cautious side. I don't know if my cautiousness will show up in a data mine of this thread, but I do own a Water Bob now.

I just don't agree with the testing requirements listed in reference to reopening. We have been told to trust Fauci and Birx, and both of them downplay testing. It makes sense to me, but as I've harped on enough, my main concern has been out medical community being able to handle the crisis. Even in the worst hotspot we have, NYC, we haven't been overwhelmed. I understand that could happen with reopening, but as long as that doesn't happen, my opinion is we should move forward cautiously.

 
I understand the bias some may assume with this article, and I have not vetted the source, but the dates included in this article fall in line with my opinion about our reaction to the virus. I really don't understand why some are pointing towards a period of time prior to late February for us any of our leaders to be taking extreme measures like lock downs prior to late February or early March.  

https://www.epsilontheory.com/first-the-people/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Flattening the curve was the number one reason used for telling people they needed to shelter in place. It was never about preventing infection, and the assumption was that the same number of people would get infected over a longer period of time. 
There is a point on the curve where loosening up restrictions results in outbreaks that overwhelm hospitals just like we are trying to avoid. The risk is another lockdown where we have to start from scratch.

In any case, my point before was there is benefit from delaying us catching this illness. A month ago if you were in critical conditon with it, you were put on a ventilator and more than likely you were going to die. Now they prone you and turn you over and give you oxygen, and your chances of survival appear to be much better.

Nearly everyone with knowledge of how this stuff works is saying opening now is too early. I hope for everyone's sake they are just being overcautious.

 
I understand the bias some may assume with this article, and I have not vetted the source, but the dates included in this article fall in line with my opinion about our reaction to the virus. I really don't understand why some are pointing towards a period of time prior to late February for us any of our leaders to be taking extreme measures like lock downs prior to late February, or early March.  

https://www.epsilontheory.com/first-the-people/
Wow, that is not short. It basically lambastes everyone. Conservative, liberal, organizations, nothing is really spared. A little heavy handed a maybe some cherry picking here and there, but doesn't seem too biased one way or another. To be fair I did skim in parts.

Thanks for the read.

 
Wow, that is not short. It basically lambastes everyone. Conservative, liberal, organizations, nothing is really spared. A little heavy handed a maybe some cherry picking here and there, but doesn't seem too biased one way or another. To be fair I did skim in parts.

Thanks for the read.
Sounds like they're blaming Wall Street and anybody in the Stock thread.

 
Seems like the most opportune time to make strides in completing road construction/repairs.  Especially in places like here in Michigan where they are so bad.  Seems that activity has social distancing built in, not many vehicles on the road, good for road construction workers to get a paycheck.  Governor "Fix the Damn Roads" Whitmer, I assume, has funds set aside to do this since this was her main campaign platform.  What am I missing?
They are a lot of road repairs in Indianapolis 

A project on I70 was planned for this summer that would have been performed under normal conditions by keeping some lanes open and was going to take 5 months to complete. It was decided to shut the highway down and do the work....it will be completed in 30 days at a savings of more than $10 Million 

and it’s much safer for the workers 

 
Interesting article on modeling from NYT that shows it was likely here in numbers much before anyone had even been tested. if true it shows how important testing is to understanding the virus and that our initial testing was a bigger failure than even thought. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/coronavirus-early-outbreaks-cities.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage


quite a few folks came up in this thread saying they (or someone they knew) had it earlier than the (accepted) timeline allowed, yet were basically laughed outta here by the "experts" milling about this mutha. 

ridiculous finger wagging ensued "now, now ... it's impossible for ______ to have had it back then! we know all!, and will be the ONLY arbiters of what's accepted in here! so take our gospel word for it and stop saying ______ had this already!!!1!!1!"

:unsure:

 
Still getting this when I try the IRS site

Payment Status Not Available

According to information that we have on file, we cannot determine your eligibility for a payment at this time.
Has this resolved for you, or for anyone else that was getting this message? I'm still getting it, and it's very f'n frustrating.

 
Well said sir. 
 

Im on the cautious side, but it's time to start loosening in places that are in good shape. Slow, smart, with plans to back up if needed. 

We bought 2 months... if that (plus the ~2 months it took to get here) wasn't enough time to get PPE, Testing, and Hospital capacity online, then it's just going to be a little bumpier than ideal.

Hopefully we get those fully online, and hopefully we can react/shutdown quick enough to avoid any more NYC hot zones. 
To be fair, we did actually do a good job with hospital capacity.  It just turned out that we didn't need those field hospitals after all.  Obviously that's a huge success story and shows that we were wise to lock down when we did.  

The failure to get PPE and testing capacity up is really scandalous though.  That should have kicked into high gear back in January, when this was all perfectly foreseeable.  Not casting blame at anybody in particular, but we should all be able to agree that this particular part of our pandemic response was a failure.

 
quite a few folks came up in this thread saying they (or someone they knew) had it earlier than the (accepted) timeline allowed, yet were basically laughed outta here by the "experts" milling about this mutha. 
When those folks show up positive for antibodies, they're free to say "I told you so."  Until then, I still assign approximately 0% probability to them having had covid.

 
I honestly don't understand the focus on testing.  We are never going to routinely testing everyone to find asymptomatics.  If you present with symptoms, the treatment is the same with or without the test. 

Aren't hospitalizations a much more important number and one that is much easier to track?  

 
Has this resolved for you, or for anyone else that was getting this message? I'm still getting it, and it's very f'n frustrating.
Not resolved for me. I read where part of the problem may be where if you paid in 2018 and they're processing your 2019 return, your status won't clear until after 2019 return processes.

At least that applies to me.

 
It's more complicated than you think. The most commonly employed swabs are supposed to be held in the back of the nasopharynx for ~10 seconds - not only is that uncomfortable, it causes people to sneeze, which is aerosol-generating. So people collecting the swabs should technically be using full PPE, including N95 masks...and we all know there are issues with finding enough of those.

Self testing is the way to go. Ideally we'd test both acute and resolved infection through a two-step process, but I'm not sure the general public can do all that on their own.
Sorry...I was talking about processing the samples, not collecting them and that was pushing back on the notion that it was really hard to find "professionals" to do it.  It's not, but it would require relaxing some of the regulations to get more hands involved.

 
Not resolved for me. I read where part of the problem may be where if you paid in 2018 and they're processing your 2019 return, your status won't clear until after 2019 return processes.

At least that applies to me.
I've held off filing 2019, but maybe I should just go ahead and do it electronically and see if that jars something loose.

 
Interesting article on modeling from NYT that shows it was likely here in numbers much before anyone had even been tested. if true it shows how important testing is to understanding the virus and that our initial testing was a bigger failure than even thought. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/coronavirus-early-outbreaks-cities.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
I don't think this is going to hold up to much scrutiny over time.

Without going into much detail I'll simply ask: 

NYC had cases in early Jan, had 11k cases by Mar 1, but didn't see their first fatality until Mar 14th, and didn't see 500 hospitalizations until Mar 22? With a doubling time of 2-3 days at that point? 

Okay... so the disease just suddenly got more lethal after 2+ months of just hanging out? 

 
I honestly don't understand the focus on testing.  We are never going to routinely testing everyone to find asymptomatics.  If you present with symptoms, the treatment is the same with or without the test. 

Aren't hospitalizations a much more important number and one that is much easier to track?  
How do pro sports events work without widespread testing. They're pretty easy with it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
quite a few folks came up in this thread saying they (or someone they knew) had it earlier than the (accepted) timeline allowed, yet were basically laughed outta here by the "experts" milling about this mutha. 

ridiculous finger wagging ensued "now, now ... it's impossible for ______ to have had it back then! we know all!, and will be the ONLY arbiters of what's accepted in here! so take our gospel word for it and stop saying ______ had this already!!!1!!1!"

:unsure:
There were people who said they had it in December or early January.  If you lived in NYC and San Fran or other major international travel hub and you were sick in February it is possible it was Covid.  

 
There were people who said they had it in December or early January.  If you lived in NYC and San Fran or other major international travel hub and you were sick in February it is possible it was Covid.  
Family member serves as a contractor and he was in the region of Wuhan late last year. Swears he had it. Stayed with us at the holidays and got suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper sick. I doubt it was the rona, wild story if it was though. 

 
Family member serves as a contractor and he was in the region of Wuhan late last year. Swears he had it. Stayed with us at the holidays and got suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper sick. I doubt it was the rona, wild story if it was though. 
That is also probably unlikely but possible.  He should get the antibody test.  

 
How do pro sports events work without widespread testing. They're pretty easy with it. 
You're talking about a thousands of tests for our entertainment.  I'm talking about multiple orders of magnitude more tests to assuredly reopen the country.

 
There were people who said they had it in December or early January.  If you lived in NYC and San Fran or other major international travel hub and you were sick in February it is possible it was Covid.  
i think when it's all said and done we'll see that folks did, indeed, have it back to the latter stages of '19. 

we still know so little, so any absolutes should not be bandied about as hard/fast truths. 

Family member serves as a contractor and he was in the region of Wuhan late last year. Swears he had it. Stayed with us at the holidays and got suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper sick. I doubt it was the rona, wild story if it was though. 
when i speak of how ####in' ill i was prior to the "timeline" it's no joke - i've had plenty of respiratory issues in my day, including pnuemonia hospitalizations- and, i assure you with every fibre of my being, that the dreck i suffered through this time was worse than pretty much all of them combined. 

 
There were people who said they had it in December or early January.  If you lived in NYC and San Fran or other major international travel hub and you were sick in February it is possible it was Covid.  
My mom in Florida was super sick mid February. Flu test came back negative. Doctors couldn't figure it out.   Said it was bad allergies. She was off her feet for over 2 weeks. They are convinced she had it.   Hasn't looked into antibody testing yet

 
Interesting article on modeling from NYT that shows it was likely here in numbers much before anyone had even been tested. if true it shows how important testing is to understanding the virus and that our initial testing was a bigger failure than even thought. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/coronavirus-early-outbreaks-cities.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
@icon posted a spreadsheet we've talked about many times that showed that by late February there were likely 20k cases in the USA.

To be honest, I didn't think there was any doubt as to the failure of the USA's early testing.  That's kind of a known fact at this point?

 
Seems like the most opportune time to make strides in completing road construction/repairs.  Especially in places like here in Michigan where they are so bad.  Seems that activity has social distancing built in, not many vehicles on the road, good for road construction workers to get a paycheck.  Governor "Fix the Damn Roads" Whitmer, I assume, has funds set aside to do this since this was her main campaign platform.  What am I missing?
I've been a big proponent of infrastructure maintenance for years and darn near every President seems to have a moment when it becomes part of their agenda but the money never seems to materialize for it. Remember "shovel ready" projects? Remember "all our bridges are falling down"? Remember our electrical grid was built in the 50's and needs updated?

I know some of the problems have been addressed but I'm talking New Deal Public Works kinda effort here to blanket the US and get after, seriously, upgrading our infrastructure. With 24 million out of work, be a good time to pay a fair wage to someone willing to get some blisters on their hands from something other than an Xbox controller.

CurlyNight said:
Covid19.ca.gov has resources available broken out like for the elderly,  lgbtq, young, etc. 
This made me laugh. Not trying to single anyone out, you live that life, rock on but since when did the virus target this group of people? I get old/young/obese/etc but since when did the virus care about your sexual proclivities? What am I missing as a knuckle dragging middle aged white man?

 
I've been a big proponent of infrastructure maintenance for years and darn near every President seems to have a moment when it becomes part of their agenda but the money never seems to materialize for it. Remember "shovel ready" projects? Remember "all our bridges are falling down"? Remember our electrical grid was built in the 50's and needs updated?

I know some of the problems have been addressed but I'm talking New Deal Public Works kinda effort here to blanket the US and get after, seriously, upgrading our infrastructure. With 24 million out of work, be a good time to pay a fair wage to someone willing to get some blisters on their hands from something other than an Xbox controller.

This made me laugh. Not trying to single anyone out, you live that life, rock on but since when did the virus target this group of people? I get old/young/obese/etc but since when did the virus care about your sexual proclivities? What am I missing as a knuckle dragging middle aged white man?
I'm guessing that's just standard at this point since the Aids epidemic.  A way to track if it's more common in different subsets of people

:shrug:

 
You're talking about a thousands of tests for our entertainment.  I'm talking about multiple orders of magnitude more tests to assuredly reopen the country.
No... I'm talking about universal testing... can't have fans in the seats without it. Can't have restaurants and bars open as usual without it. Can't run public transportation full capacity without it. Probably don't want to open schools and daycares without it. 

 
No... I'm talking about universal testing... can't have fans in the seats without it. Can't have restaurants and bars open as usual without it. Can't run public transportation full capacity without it. Probably don't want to open schools and daycares without it. 
Sorry.  Since I don't believe large gatherings will take place for a very long time, I was thinking at sports would be played to empty stadiums. 

I don't believe those things will happen if they are solely dependent on testing.  Its just too many tests and too much infrastructure.  Instead, I agree with the path we're currently on in which we stage reopening based on risk with the ultimate goal of maintaining hospital capacity.  This plan does not require testing.

 
quite a few folks came up in this thread saying they (or someone they knew) had it earlier than the (accepted) timeline allowed, yet were basically laughed outta here by the "experts" milling about this mutha. 

ridiculous finger wagging ensued "now, now ... it's impossible for ______ to have had it back then! we know all!, and will be the ONLY arbiters of what's accepted in here! so take our gospel word for it and stop saying ______ had this already!!!1!!1!"

:unsure:
Yes.  I still don’t believe anyone in here had it in Nov/Dec, which is what the absurd claim was.

 
My mom in Florida was super sick mid February. Flu test came back negative. Doctors couldn't figure it out.   Said it was bad allergies. She was off her feet for over 2 weeks. They are convinced she had it.   Hasn't looked into antibody testing yet
We had some weird stuff going through the kids school in January. My 11 year old son had pneumonia, and probably 30 other kids at his school had it. But it was weird. He wasn't completely wiped out and his other symptoms weren't overly outrageous. 

Edit to add: doesn't necessarily mean anything, but just an oddity we really don't see here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top