We went HEB on Friday evening and bought vitamin E, zinc, and Vitamin C. Plenty of those on the shelves. Figure a good immune system and hygiene is the best defense.

Clorox wipes? Gone.

Hand sanitizer..gone.

I don't get that.
You can't kill a virus. Washing hands is a much better option.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Yes, it's good to know. Not so good to use as an excuse for why it's just over-hype, in my opinion.

---

Agreed. I am not saying it's an excuse for over-hype.

I'm just saying why not give people some hope when we're having a run on toliet paper, the stock market seems to be crashing and the headlines tie to to Coronavirus, and business/schools are beginning to shut down.

Any reasonable person looks at all that is happening and says, holy crap, this thing is really bad, but then you look at that bolded number and see over 50% of cases are recovered. I get we can't use total cases because of the denominator problem, but none-the-less.

We want people to take this thing seriously, so we report all the negatives, but we don't counter it with the good news or even a hint of conservatism until it's too late and people's panic has been worked up into a lather.

Doesn't matter if it's over-hyped or not, the fire sale is on.

Combine that with election year politicking and the MSM/Democrats will use this at every turn now to beat down Trump and panic most Americans...at the expense of the world economy. They will create a self-fulfilling economic prophecy of doom and gloom and corporate America and the average herd mentality American will eat it up.

You can sit by and continue to say "it's no big deal"...or you can protect yourself (not just from the virus).

I look for this trend to continue for at lest 3-4 weeks. Even if the virus abates we still get to look at the economic ramifications of 2 months of turmoil...which might be too much to recover from without a full blown global recession and a long/slow fight back to where we were.

deddog said:

---

Hand sanitizer..gone.

I don't get that.
You can't kill a virus. Washing hands is a much better option.

---

You can't kill something that's not alive.

Maybe. Morans don't respond to positive reinforcement though.

Joking aside, it may not have been the point of your post in particular, but you can't really claim that there haven't been loads of comments using the deaths as a way of saying it's no big deal. Death isn't the only bad thing, or even the only catastrophic thing, that can happen to you. The reports to date on this virus demonstrate that.

KorbinDallas said:

---

deddog said:

---

Hand sanitizer..gone.

I don't get that.
You can't kill a virus. Washing hands is a much better option.

---

You can't kill something that's not alive.

---

Exactly..

It assumes aggressive testing. What's the point of tracing and isolating if you know you're not seeing every case? Look at the original premise of the study. The more infectious the disease, the higher the hit rate on tracing contacts has to be. But that assumes you have contacts to trace.

I absolutely stand by - look at S Korea and Singapore and see what appears to be working. And look at the US not doing that, and it should be concerning. Even if we take the low end of R0 at 1.5, and 0% asymptomatic transmission requires containment with 50% of contacts traced in the model. If we have silent cases, the contact tracing of known has to offset that.

Do you think we are able to be tracing 50% of total contacts of infection? If we're doing 100% successful tracing that means we have to be identifying half of all cases. You think we're doing that?

The green new virus?

Coronavirus will reduce the global population and
crush the global economy, which will massively reduce emissions. Already seeing it in China.

Idk why the climate activists aren't praising trump for not taking it seriously and the CDC for not testing anyone. It saves us from the world ending in 11 years

Killing 10,000 people is the same as planting 2 million trees.

CDub06 said:

---

Anyone know the story with Germany? They've announced 1151 confirmed cases, but no deaths.

---

What have I done...

https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Zwei-Coronavirus-Todesfaelle-in-Deutschland-article21629404.html

First two confirmed deaths in Germany. In Heinsberg and Essen.

Skillet Shot said:

---

The green new virus?

Coronavirus will reduce the global population and
crush the global economy, which will massively reduce emissions. Already seeing it in China.

Idk why the climate activists aren't praising trump for not taking it seriously and the CDC for not testing anyone. It saves us from the world ending in 11 years

Killing 10,000 people is the same as planting 2 million trees.

---

I'm sure more than a few Sierra Club members in the PNW are crossing their fingers for a higher fatality rate. There are some real psychos involved with that group.

Skillet Shot said:

---

The green new virus?

Coronavirus will reduce the global population and
crush the global economy, which will massively reduce emissions. Already seeing it in China.

Idk why the climate activists aren't praising trump for not taking it seriously and the CDC for not testing anyone. It saves us from the world ending in 11 years

Killing 10,000 people is the same as planting 2 million trees.

---

Thanos and Greta are happy at least.

deddog said:

---

Hand sanitizer..gone.

I don't get that.
You can't kill a virus. Washing hands is a much better option.

---

Actually alcohol does denature the coronavirus, the higher the concentration, the better.

There are other chemicals which work better, but not all can be used on the skin.

Yes, washing your hands is best, but in a pinch, a good hand sanitizer is far better than nothing.

fooz said:

---

Due to COVID19, all TCP applications will be converted to UDP to avoid handshakes.

---

Based on all the s**tty code I've seen I thought all computer bugs were bacterial and not viral.

gonemaroon said:

---

He really needs his twitter taken away

---

I would say he's playing that part of his role pretty well.

The panic is outpacing the current risk by a good margin right now. He should be trying to calm the panic. This is absolutely part of the comprehensive approach to dealing with a pandemic that is necessary from our govt officials, a balancing of the risks of the panic caused by the virus with the risks of the virus itself.

Now, what I would like to see from his twitter account and public comments is some educational stuff about hand washing and the like.

That would be a prudent, balanced approach.

Quote:

---

Any reasonable person looks at all that is happening and says, holy crap, this thing is really bad, but then you look at that bolded number and see over 50% of cases are recovered. I get we can't use total cases because of the denominator problem, but none-the-less.

We want people to take this thing seriously, so we report all the negatives, but we don't counter it with the good news or even a hint of conservatism until it's too late and people's panic has been worked up into a lather.

---

Just like a hurricane warning from the Weather Service. The message is always prepare for the worst and pray for the best.

On the heels of Katrina, the attempt to evacuate Galveston and Houston for Rita was a cluster f*** and not the best idea.

Mr.Infectious said:

---

---

Idiots were warned not to share common communion elements. This is dumbassery writ large.

Common element in this case appears to be the priest. Womp womp

https://abc13.com/5996024/

Admittedly I have not kept up with this thread, so I may be asking a repetitive question concerning testing.

Ted Cruz's self-quarantine story has the following quote:

Quote:

---

He also said his situation does not meet the CDC criteria to self-quarantine, and he cannot be tested since testing is not effective before symptoms manifest.

---

This seems contrary to post complaining about not enough testing. Also media are complaining about not enough testing, insinuating random testing and testing when someone comes off an international flight.

If a person has no symptoms, how is testing going to help? And if a person has symptoms, they would either stay home and call medical authorities or avoid testing anyway. Test would appear to be key to identify why you have fever or a cough, but not if you are feeling fine but suspected you had been exposed.

Again, this is based on the quote from the Cruz story above.

A couple of 80 degree days here in the metroplex expected to start the week. Unfortunately, it does not look like it is going to hold.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It assumes aggressive testing. What's the point of tracing and isolating if you know you're not seeing every case? Look at the original premise of the study. The more infectious the disease, the higher the hit rate on tracing contacts has to be. But that assumes you have contacts to trace.

I absolutely stand by - look at S Korea and Singapore and see what appears to be working. And look at the US not doing that, and it should be concerning. Even if we take the low end of R0 at 1.5, and 0% asymptomatic transmission requires containment with 50% of contacts traced in the model. If we have silent cases, the contact tracing of known has to offset that.

Do you think we are able to be tracing 50% of total contacts of infection? If we're doing 100% successful tracing that means we have to be identifying half of all cases. You think we're doing that?

---

Here is your original post:

Interesting paper here: Feasibility of controlling COVID-19 outbreaks by isolation of cases and contacts.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Simulated outbreaks starting with five initial cases, an R0 of 1.5, and 0% transmission before symptom onset could be controlled even with low contact tracing probability; however, the probability of controlling an outbreak decreased with the number of initial cases, when R0 was 2.5 or 3.5 and with more transmission before symptom onset. Across different initial numbers of cases, the majority of scenarios with an R0 of 1.5 were controllable with less than 50% of contacts successfully traced. To control the majority of outbreaks, for R0 of 2.5 more than 70% of contacts had to be traced, and for an R0 of 3.5 more than 90% of contacts had to be traced. The delay between symptom onset and isolation had the largest role in determining whether an outbreak was controllable when R0 was 1.5. For R0 values of 2.5 or 3.5, if there were 40 initial cases, contact tracing and isolation were only potentially feasible when less than 1% of transmission occurred before symptom onset.

---

If you're watching S Korea or Singapore aggressively trace and isolate and that's making you feel good, looking at the cluster that is the US right now should do the opposite.

I overall agree with you in your points. I agree our testing has been crap and has led to undetected cases. I think we have left ourselves vulnerable with the undetected cases.

I am more optimistic that we probably traced back the cases we did know about decently. It is possible we did get 50% of those. How can we even know that now?

I think wtih the mix of the tracing we have already done and leaving ourselves vulnerable with the undetected cases that we might end up with a higher R0 than SK.

I don't know for sure if it means our R0 value is going to be greater than 2, 2.5, 3, etc or not. What do you think it is or will be?

Also, another question, does us having more lead time and changing out behaviors as a nation play into this R0 equation? I have seen A LOT more people simply washing their hands than normal. Maybe some of the behavior changes mitigate the undetected cases. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here and saying one factor probably doesn't lead to one outcome. Many factors are at play here - it's a complex issue.

By the way, I'm not in the "just the flu" camp, but I do think reason should win the day.

Also, from the edit, I do want more testing done because I think the denominator is the most important number we need. Facts and data calm fears, and the US is not doing a good job of that at the moment.

Quote:

---

If a person has no symptoms, how is testing going to help?

---

Many people are asymptomatic carriers. You can easily spread the disease and not show any symptoms. If you test positive without symptoms you still need to be isolated to avoid giving it to others who may be effected.

Good Grief we are all going to suffer from this insanity.

Has this thing killed ONE person under 70 that wasn't immunodeficient or had a preexisting lung issue?

I'll hang up and listen.

FbgTxAg said:

---

Good Grief we are all going to suffer from this insanity.

Has this thing killed ONE person under 70 that wasn't immunodeficient or had a preexisting lung issue?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

In before:
*you don't care about old people
*hospital beds
*it mutates
*but it'll be worse in the US

AgsMyDude said:

---

Quote:

---

If a person has no symptoms, how is testing going to help?

---

Many people are asymptomatic carriers. You can easily spread the disease and not show any symptoms. If you test positive without symptoms you still need to be isolated to avoid giving it to others who may be effected.

---

Then why didn't they test Cruz?

Mr.Infectious said:

---

---

Well that sucks. Heading to DC on Wednesday and staying in Georgetown.

Quote:

---

He also said his situation does not meet the CDC criteria to self-quarantine, and he cannot be tested since testing is not effective before symptoms manifest.

---

I don't believe this without further justification. If it were some sort of immunoassay, I might be more inclined to buy it on the basis that a symptomatic person likely has sufficient viral load to be having an immune response. The test is a PCR assay and detects the presence of viral RNA. The quantitation limit for the test should be very low.

FbgTxAg said:

---

Good Grief we are all going to suffer from this insanity.

Has this thing killed ONE person under 70 that wasn't immunodeficient or had a preexisting lung issue?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

Again, why are people thinking that deaths are the only negative outcome of getting this virus? 10% of Italians that tested positive needed critical care. The Italian hospital system is getting overwhelmed. They had to institute a quarantine to slow the spread.

Doesn't matter if most people have symptoms or not (Cruz is probably an exception because of who he is). People are still prioritized based off of if they have been in high infection places (China, Italy). The next group would be those that have come into contact with someone from these places or someone that has tested positive. Those are the people that are seeing the bulk of the tests.

It's also why we've not see much community spread, because we still have relatively few tests and most of those are used on people that travelled abroad.

Nosmo said:

---

https://abc13.com/5996024/

Admittedly I have not kept up with this thread, so I may be asking a repetitive question concerning testing.

Ted Cruz's self-quarantine story has the following quote:

Quote:

---

He also said his situation does not meet the CDC criteria to self-quarantine, and he cannot be tested since testing is not effective before symptoms manifest.

---

This seems contrary to post complaining about not enough testing. Also media are complaining about not enough testing, insinuating random testing and testing when someone comes off an international flight.

If a person has no symptoms, how is testing going to help? And if a person has symptoms, they would either stay home and call medical authorities or avoid testing anyway. Test would appear to be key to identify why you have fever or a cough, but not if you are feeling fine but suspected you had been exposed.

Again, this is based on the quote from the Cruz story above.

---

i would imagine that as with any test, biological, chemical, etc, there is a minimum detection limit. Testing before symptoms occur would be a crap shoot, as you could end up testing negative, even though the virus is present.