PJYoung said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

There were reports yesterday of Central Banks dropping rates later this week, but who knows if that had anything to do with it. Glad I didn't panic sell.l last week.

---

I think it turned around last night when Japan's bank injected $.

---

So we're turning Japanese, we're really turning Japanese, we really think so?

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

I have a question about testing:

What does it accomplish? What are the goals of testing?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

If so do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

Since the treatment protocol is going to be based on the specific symptoms being experienced, does it matter for the random person whether they're infected with corona or some other virus?

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

Quote:

---

lightning bug ass protein

---

dunno why but this is cracking me up. next band name for sure.

DTP02 said:

---

I have a question about testing.

What does it accomplish?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

So do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

---

I mean, if coronavirus is actually 20X as deadly (0.1% vs 2%) and slightly more infectious than the seasonal flu (based on current estimates), it's important to know if you have it. The treatment may not change, but how healthcare workers handle you, or how long you isolate yourselves can change.

The UK still reports total tests administered....

Quote:

---

I think the assumption by some also is that if you catch it, you die.

It is not. Severity of infection and personal health of those getting it determine that. Many will just suffer cold or flu symptoms.

I do get that this is unknown, but with the exception of the 1918 Influenza, I think it is manageable without panic. We've come a long way medically in 102 years.

---

No one on this thread thinks it is a death sentence. On the other hand, cold or flu symptoms isn't really right. This presents first with a dry cough, followed by fever and fatigue. In some cases it seems to cause nausea and vomiting, or diarrhea. Productive cough and runny nose seem to come later, if at all.

We don't really know the severity or number of cases requiring hospitalization for clinical reasons (vs containment). China reported a pretty high percentage. Italy is at ~50% right now.

People on this thread (except for the locos posting stuff from 4chan) are not advocating for panic, but there's also no reason to think this is less serious than a pandemic flu strain.

DTP02 said:

---

I have a question about testing:

What does it accomplish? What are the goals of testing?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

If so do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

---

I don't know...maybe it might help to know what you're treating? To know what to do with a patient, maybe what not to do? To continue to learn about how the virus and how it spreads, how lethal it actually is, what is different from "just the flu", what drugs and vaccines that are ramping up for testing do and don't work.....

In science, it's just generally useful to be able to measure things.

I think testing is to try to slow the spread, nothing more.

DTP02 said:

---

I have a question about testing:

What does it accomplish? What are the goals of testing?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

If so do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

---

No you continue to test so that you can separate out non-cases from positives and not put those people into an environment where they then pick up corona + whatever else they had (flu, rhinovirus, w/e) and possibly have a higher risk for complications and hospitalization. That's how you overwhelm a system and are forced into the massive fever wards you saw in 1918. China was throwing people in these things and I guarantee it exposed more people to it.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

---

I think I saw a trailer for this movie not too long ago. It looks like a movie about crazy white godless liberals. Is that correct?

No it's not political. If anything it pokes fun at gullible liberals who submit to insane cultural activities to seem "woke"

Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

I have a question about testing:

What does it accomplish? What are the goals of testing?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

If so do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

---

I don't know...maybe it might help to know what you're treating? To know what to do with a patient, maybe what not to do? To continue to learn about how the virus and how it spreads, how lethal it actually is, what is different from "just the flu", what drugs and vaccines that are ramping up for testing do and don't work.....

In science, it's just generally useful to be able to measure things.

---

Your unnecessarily dismissive response predictably led to some of what I'm trying to get at but which I haven't seen anyone ask:

- Does it help the patient if the doctor knows it's corona?

We don't have a cure for corona, so we are really treating symptoms while the virus runs its course. Since the symptoms vary anyway, the treatment prescribed would seem to be based on the observed symptoms rather than the cause.

My guess is that testing at this point is more about trying to protect the healthcare workers and slow the spread than helping the individual patient. My further guess is that at some point we will give up on trying to trace the steps of infected patients as it will be too widespread. There may continue to be some benefit to healthcare workers as they attempt to segregate suspected corona patients and implement additional safeguards in terms of personal protection and sterilization in those wards.

The rest of your answer justifies testing a percentage of the suspected corona patients so as to continue to learn about it, not testing all of them.

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

---

Sure. I would say the same for anything classified as a pandemic risk. This is the literal definition of why we have governments.

Most likely 500+ additional undetected cases in WA right now:

Cruisers in SA quarantine are going to be staying there a while longer:

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

---

Sure. I would say the same for anything classified as a pandemic risk. This is the literal definition of why we have governments.

---

OK. But why this one to start that policy? Have you posted this when other, more contagious and prevalent contagious diseases have come up? What about the flu? Pneumonia?

It's a slippery slope asking for the government to pay our medical costs. I'd prefer to handle it myself and with my own insurance.

wessimo said:

---

Cruisers in SA quarantine are going to be staying there a while longer:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

I personally don't understand the mentality of - "Oh geez I've been quarantined for this deadly disease so the FIRST THING I'll do when I get out is make a bee line STRAIGHT for the most effective spot to spread disease on the planet."

Even if given a clean bill of health, I go home and chill a few days instead of crop dusting a packed mall.

---

Because most people are stupid.

Quote:

---

I think the assumption by some also is that if you catch it, you die.

It is not. Severity of infection and personal health of those getting it determine that. Many will just suffer cold or flu symptoms.

I do get that this is unknown, but with the exception of the 1918 Influenza, I think it is manageable without panic. We've come a long way medically in 102 years.

---

If catch this virus, then you have Russian Roulette odds to develop a bad case of pneumonia, with a large hospital bill to coincide with it;

And all the while not being able to work for a month.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

---

Sure. I would say the same for anything classified as a pandemic risk. This is the literal definition of why we have governments.

---

OK. But why this one to start that policy? Have you posted this when other, more contagious and prevalent contagious diseases have come up? What about the flu? Pneumonia?

It's a slippery slope asking for the government to pay our medical costs. I'd prefer to handle it myself and with my own insurance.

---

The bill ought to be sent to China.

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

---

Sure. I would say the same for anything classified as a pandemic risk. This is the literal definition of why we have governments.

---

OK. But why this one to start that policy? Have you posted this when other, more contagious and prevalent contagious diseases have come up? What about the flu? Pneumonia?

It's a slippery slope asking for the government to pay our medical costs. I'd prefer to handle it myself and with my own insurance.

---

I don't post my thoughts on every news item... so doubtful that I did.

As regards to slippery slopes and handling things on your own, pandemics disqualify you and others from being able to make that choice. You do not have the right to risk my life.

aezmvp said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

I have a question about testing:

What does it accomplish? What are the goals of testing?

We've gotten family members tested for flu a couple times in order to know whether we want tamiflu. Other times we've gotten tamiflu just based on symptoms. Either way, there is nothing like tamiflu currently for corona.

Is this just about trying to slow the spread by tracking individuals and who they might have interacted with?

If so do we stop testing once this hits critical mass and it becomes impractical or outright impossible to continue to try to stop the spread?

---

No you continue to test so that you can separate out non-cases from positives and not put those people into an environment where they then pick up corona + whatever else they had (flu, rhinovirus, w/e) and possibly have a higher risk for complications and hospitalization. That's how you overwhelm a system and are forced into the massive fever wards you saw in 1918. China was throwing people in these things and I guarantee it exposed more people to it.

---

I guess that makes sense to some extent, but if you test positive without severe symptoms it doesn't seem like you should be hospitalized either. It seems like you should be released to your home to recuperate just as you would with any flu-type illness.

In either case, it seems like it would be the symptoms, not the cause, that guide how you're treated.

I was shocked they let it go as far as they did last week. Missed that call. Hopefully you're not taking financial advice from anonymous TexAgs posters.....especially me.


Going forward, the FED has signaled pretty clearly they are going to drop rates and Trump is practically begging for negative rates.

The problem is negative rates are a complete unknown and IMO signal a default of the currency. Think about it, an institutional investor is guaranteed to lose money on his negative rate bond.....are you willing to do the same?

Crazy times we are experiencing.

The percentage of tests coming back positive is a very important indicator in determining how widespread the outbreak is.

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

TXK said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The feds are really going to have to step up and cover any and all cost related to coronavirus. This is just insane.

---

Why are the feds responsible? Why wouldn't your insurance pay for it just like any other issue?

---

The Federal government is going to have to step up and cover the bill to contain and treat this. More important than dropping a couple million more bombs on some foreign country I would say. I don't see how this is debatable. The Feds could easily start by allowing every physician/hospital to bill them back for testing.

---

OK. So should the Feds pay for bills associated with other contagious illnesses? Flu? Pneumonia?

Why this disease?

---

Sure. I would say the same for anything classified as a pandemic risk. This is the literal definition of why we have governments.

---

OK. But why this one to start that policy? Have you posted this when other, more contagious and prevalent contagious diseases have come up? What about the flu? Pneumonia?

It's a slippery slope asking for the government to pay our medical costs. I'd prefer to handle it myself and with my own insurance.

---

We already have procedures in place for disaster relief. This could follow similar precedence.

OverSeas AG said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

The UK still reports total tests administered...

---

And the US is reporting those with the disease:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S.
On This Page

• Confirmed and Presumptive Positive Cases in the United States
• Cases among Persons Repatriated to the United States
• States with Confirmed Cases of COVID-19

Updated March 2, 2020
CDC is responding to an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus. The outbreak first started in Wuhan, China, but cases have been identified in a growing number of other locations internationally, including the United States. This page will be updated regularly on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Numbers close out at 4 p.m. the day before reporting.


Here is a link to the page noted above.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html


Should the US be showing how many have been tested? Not sure it really matters... Why? Because all the test can do is measure you at a point in time. If it has gotten out across the world, the test is only going to matter for a person that needs to go in to get treatment. So good for the UK.... they are showing tests taken. Any number of those people could have left the testing station, and run right into CORONAVIRUS around the corner. So great they are showing tests done, but it does not mean much.

---

Yes, I think they should. I could be wrong (no formal epidemiology training), but I would think it would give you some sense of how bad containment is blown, especially if reported regionally. I think that would be a good message to have given that there's no good reason right now to not think that they haven't contained *****

That github is an awesome resource for information.

Some summaries (just averaging the averages)
effective reproduction number - 2.1
Incubation period - 5.2

symptom onset to death - 17.4
hospitalization to death - 9.7
proportion of symptomatics that die - 7.5%
proportion of hospitalized cases that die - 23.5%
proportion of all infected that die - 1%