Kansas Crimson

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:25 pm That's great.

Anyone who gets a positive test can un-quarantine and help the at-risk.

Whoa, that seems a good way to murder millions.

Vega wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:27 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:25 pm That's great.

Anyone who gets a positive test can un-quarantine and help the at-risk.

Whoa, that seems a good way to murder millions.

I left out the "and tests negative for the virus"

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:28 pm

Vega wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:27 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:25 pm That's great.

Anyone who gets a positive test can un-quarantine and help the at-risk.

Whoa, that seems a good way to murder millions.

I left out the "and tests negative for the virus"

Nah, it sounds like you have genocide on your mind.

I think there's a potential problem on the horizon. People who've recovered, are negative for the virus, and have antibodies will be told to go back to work while those who haven't been exposed are told to stay home.

There have been a handful of cases, not many, of patients getting COVID-19 twice.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:48 pm There have been a handful of cases, not many, of patients getting COVID-19 twice.

The fact that they are so few makes me think those are cases of a false negative surrounded by two positives, or one of the positives was a false test.

If there's no secondary immunity, it's the biggest story since the virus was discovered. That would change EVERYTHING about this pandemic.

It would fundamentally change the world and the way thw world operates. It might anyway

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm I think there's a potential problem on the horizon. People who've recovered, are negative for the virus, and have antibodies will be told to go back to work while those who haven't been exposed are told to stay home.

Apologies for being dense... But why is that a problem?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:52 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:48 pm There have been a handful of cases, not many, of patients getting COVID-19 twice.

The fact that they are so few makes me think those are cases of a false negative surrounded by two positives, or one of the positives was a false test.

If there's no secondary immunity, it's the biggest story since the virus was discovered. That would change EVERYTHING about this pandemic.

That could explain. I've also heard about 2 different strains of the virus, which, that's getting into too deep of science territory for my knowledge, but maybe that's another explanation--based on my elementary knowledge of the common cold.

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:03 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm I think there's a potential problem on the horizon. People who've recovered, are negative for the virus, and have antibodies will be told to go back to work while those who haven't been exposed are told to stay home.

Apologies for being dense... But why is that a problem?

If you did everything you were told and didn't get sick and you have to continue to stay home and maybe not get paid while the jerk who partied in florida and spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier gets to go back to normal life that will cause some problems.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:11 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:52 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:48 pm There have been a handful of cases, not many, of patients getting COVID-19 twice.

The fact that they are so few makes me think those are cases of a false negative surrounded by two positives, or one of the positives was a false test.

If there's no secondary immunity, it's the biggest story since the virus was discovered. That would change EVERYTHING about this pandemic.

That could explain. I've also heard about 2 different strains of the virus, which, that's getting into too deep of science territory for my knowledge, but maybe that's another explanation--based on my elementary knowledge of the common cold.

I believe there's only one because they keep resequencing it tracking the mutations.

But I haven't read what the mutation rate is.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:16 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:03 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm I think there's a potential problem on the horizon. People who've recovered, are negative for the virus, and have antibodies will be told to go back to work while those who haven't been exposed are told to stay home.

Apologies for being dense... But why is that a problem?

If you did everything you were told and didn't get sick and you have to continue to stay home and maybe not get paid while the jerk who partied in florida and spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier gets to go back to normal life that will cause some problems.

Ah, and people will start trying to get it purposely, all at the same time. Raise the curve. Got it.

But, at least it isn't socialism:

Warning! Lingerie Ahead!

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:47 am

Feral wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:28 am

my company is partnering with them, as are the University of Utah, University of Wisconsin, and others

So...how do we feel about this?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jge9 ... -to-police

Two U.S. states — Alabama and Massachusetts — have begun providing the addresses of those known to have been diagnosed with COVID-19 to police in a bid to contain the spread and protect first responders who might answer a call where a coronavirus sufferer is involved....

Public health and privacy advocates say the disclosures violate patient privacy while providing no benefit to public health or the safety of first responders.

I don't like it. Knee jerk reaction.

I think a lot of people won't like it, but if it was google or amazon, they'd love it.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:20 pm So...how do we feel about this?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jge9 ... -to-police

Two U.S. states — Alabama and Massachusetts — have begun providing the addresses of those known to have been diagnosed with COVID-19 to police in a bid to contain the spread and protect first responders who might answer a call where a coronavirus sufferer is involved....

Public health and privacy advocates say the disclosures violate patient privacy while providing no benefit to public health or the safety of first responders.

Easy. Show us the benefit first. I'll still probably hate it, but that's the minimum to even start the conversation.

Shouldn't police and emts treat every situation like it's a covid positive situation? With large percentages of asymptomatic carriers and long period of shedding prior to symptom development, doesn't something like this give a false sense of security anyway? Especially given that the majority of people haven't been tested?

I can't see the benefit.