The Covid19 thread

[SGalisa]

Well, if normal immunity applies as we understand it, those who test clean or have antibodies and have recovered ought to be allowed full freedoms. That's just common sense.

UNLESS this virus beats the immunity mechanism somehow. That's a whole different ballgame. We probably ought to nail that down one way or another even before we put tests on the market.

Weren't there some unconfirmed reports of re-infection a few weeks ago?

Yeah, there have been uncomfirmed reports; people who've "recovered" and tested negative then later on testing positive. But as far as I've read, no one's figured out if it was an issue with the test or an actual re-infection. I don't think there have been any cases yet where they've had someone who had antibodies test positive again. And even then, there are reports saying some of these antibody tests aren't all that accurate too.

I think testing for the COVID-19 antibodies should be done on everyone. Biggest drawback at the moment is never knowing if the tests are accurate enough now, to be effective with definite results. On one hand, I'd personally prefer to wait until we know that the tests are more reliable.

On the other extreme, I wonder that the further away from someone being sick with a mysterious illness from Dec2019-Feb2020, before the March 2020 dates became more focused on COVID-19, if there were antibodies in someone that early, how many antibodies will exist months later, if/when these tests finally become widespread available..?


Update...
Ever since we've had a few locals, whom we KNOW have had positive confirmations of the COVID-19 virus, I have personally grown tired of shopping at all. I knew which places some of these sick people worked at, so I was being super careful at what we touched and knew we had to sterilize before storing away or using.

I used to like shopping, and taking my time browsing thru looking at various products and reading their labels, etc. Now, it's just make a list, go thru the store as quickly as possible and get OUT, so someone else can shop. Also, get out and go to next store, rinse and repeat process... Reset face "mask" with filter on face, bring (reusable) gloves, bring an extra hand-wipe to clean cart because most stores run out by the PM hours, go home and clean everything off BEFORE putting away.

Because we cannot use our own recyclable bags, we must use the cheap store bags, on the way out of the store, if the winds pick up (and they usually always do), the bags and items within end up flopping all over inside the cart----if not try to fly away from the wind... The bigger *woven tarp* material bags were at least sturdy enough to prevent that from happening. I miss them, and rebag everything before I bring it into our "decontamination zone" at home. Anywho, I have grown to absolutely hate shopping now. Unfortunately, I think this process is going to be the "new normal" ...


Also, apparently, that commercial for the lack of $600 being sent out finally stopped. Heard reports that some monies finally came in, so now I guess TPTB are going to focus on updating their antiquated equipment. This is just crazy.

As for returning to work...
Lots of people I've talked with would vote for those people who are super paranoid about working at the office in future months, then let those people work at home, and let the rest of us work in the office. Problem solved. People who have to work in other jobs, where they have to be in the building to process manufacturing, etc., well, they take whatever precautions necessary to avoid breathing in someone else's "germs"...

As for this COVID-19 potentially being "seasonal", that is, if someone gets sick with it in the future months, there needs to be a system set in place if that person gets sent home to stay on short-term disability (2 weeks or more), since they would not want to dig into any company paid sick days, just in case they end up getting sick with something else that keeps them out for a day or two... here and there.

Still not sure if this COVID-19 is the product of a super-bug, or what. What it does, is --however-- extremely damaging.

[SGalisa]

Posting this separately, in case it gets wiped out, too... tho ----what is noted below---- is or may be pertinent in the future to remember regarding returning to work due to the whole COVID-19 "vaccine"... (And may someday show up in the REAL news world, too).

Unfortunately, the *tattoo-vaccine* that Bill Gates is {financially} supporting / investing within and (highly suggested as employment--medical working ability advice) wants to use it as being *enforced* on the (GP) general public, is being suggested to be used as a means of letting people go to work or not. Big discussions currently going on at Johnson&Johnson over whether this "tattoo-vaccine" combo will actually be working at all, or be used as ...oh my... (for clarification ONLY, & no other reason at this moment, please see spoiler quote)

Spoiler:

"the mark of the beast" (AntiChrist) system. Yes, it's a very HOT topic on exactly that. Just this week, I was talking with a friend of mine, and in one of those *OMG! WOW!!!* moments, discovered that one of the translations regarding that whole buying or selling, thus working or not, etc, specifically listed this mark as an identifying TATTOO mark... see, Rev.13:16-17

16) "He required everyone—great and small, rich and poor, slave and free—to be tattooed with a certain mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
17) And no one could get a job or even buy in any store without the permit of that mark, which was either the name of the Creature or the code number of his name." Living Bible (TLB)

I saw that bit of info and wondered, "Really???!" whoah... That was written decades ago. Not just recently. AND there is no mention of any "chip" or "microchip" being involved... NOPE... only just a *tattoo* thingy... So, just how close are we to that moment? However, at the moment, Bill Gates tattoo version will supposedly go into the arm, like a TB shot. However, the whole having to work or not with this COVID-19 *tattoo-vaccine* as an approved "marker" for potential enforcement is still disturbing in and of itself.

Check out those very painful looking, OUCHing images at:
"Quantum dot 'tattoos' record patient vaccine history under their skin"
By Michael Irving
December 18, 2019
at

Spoiler:

https://newatlas.com/medical/quantum...ccine-history/

One report noted that the COVID-19 tattoo-vaccine has about 400 micro-needles in it that resides within a sugar-based solution and after it is applied to the skin, the micro-needles dig into the skin and do their magical thing. uhhh, No thanks.
Whatever happened to the sugar-cube POLIO type vaccine... do it THAT way, instead. Both use SUGAR based...so...??!
Unfortunately, without the tattoo remaining, there would be no way to quickly view whether a person has had the vaccine, except via medical records history, but those can be hacked, so are therefore unreliable.

According to CNBC, (hmmm. link below in article title..may be subject to ads)
"There are now 70 coronavirus vaccines in development, as the race to find treatments also gathers pace"
by Julianna Tatelbaum
Published Tue, Apr 14 2020, 10:59 AM EDT, Updated Tue, Apr 14 2020, 12:32 PM EDT

So, maybe the COVID-19 *tattoo-vaccine* Bill Gates is suggesting to enforce on ALL (USA) people, willNOT become so dominated in our society in order to work, buy or sell or not. That would be awesome GOOD NEWS! Perhaps it is a hope in a promising GOOD direction.
Otherwise, we're all gonna be screwed and tattoo'd... like it or not. I'm going to guess folks already with tattoo's won't mind getting this vaccine at all.. it'd just be another decorative *thing* for them to wear proudly and perhaps brag about.

[Gatefan1976]

Someone has been watching Logan's run

[SGalisa]

I would ask an addendum to the above discussions about the *tattoo-vaccine* version...

Why in the world would anyone use this COVID-19 vaccination process as a means to be approved to work or not, when OTHER illnesses have occurred in the past, and employment abilities and opportunities didNOT stop those... So why this, and why ONLY COVID-19 now..?
This is pure insanity otherwise.

Plus, it sounds more like (a convenient *excuse* for) manipulative tactics against the GP than what the virus is actually causing to those who are not as affected, as the multiple immune-compromised folks...

Someone has been watching Logan's run

LOL... Saw that when I was much, much younger. Tv series, in addition to the movie.
But yeah, I can see where the analogy might fit in.

[Annoyed]

As for returning to work...
Lots of people I've talked with would vote for those people who are super paranoid about working at the office in future months, then let those people work at home, and let the rest of us work in the office. Problem solved. People who have to work in other jobs, where they have to be in the building to process manufacturing, etc., well, they take whatever precautions necessary to avoid breathing in someone else's "germs"...

As for this COVID-19 potentially being "seasonal", that is, if someone gets sick with it in the future months, there needs to be a system set in place if that person gets sent home to stay on short-term disability (2 weeks or more), since they would not want to dig into any company paid sick days, just in case they end up getting sick with something else that keeps them out for a day or two... here and there.

'Fraid it doesn't work that way. The employee doesn't make the choice about whether to work at home or not. The employer does. And it doesn't matter if the job can be done from home or not. For example:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...home-requests/

As far as your ideas for using disability or something for re-infections won't work for most. While they can indeed legislate it for big companies, do such regulations cover small businesses, which employ roughly 50% of workers*? No. Laws are always written "this applies to companies with more than 50 people or some such magic number. So half the workforce isn't covered by your idea at the starting gate.

*https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corpor...s-economic.htm

Still not sure if this COVID-19 is the product of a super-bug, or what. What it does, is --however-- extremely damaging.

I strongly suspect that it is an engineered product of China, either an accidental (negligence) release, or it could even be deliberate. I can think of some very prominent actors that would see this as benefiting them.

[Skydiver]

I do imagine, whenever there is a vaccine, that it will be come mandatory and sought after. The next frustration will be, well they said ‘we can make hundreds of millions of vaccines’....well we need billions.
So it will probably go to the most vulnerable first (and the rich and connected of course), the the rest of us eventually.

This however can also be where the anti body test comes in. If everyone can get a reliable and trustworthy antibody test then the vaccine goes to those that do not have antibodies and the vulnerable first. Those with antibodies are tested regularly - like every 2-6 months - to see how long they keep the anti bodies. this can give us an idea how long the acquired immunity lasts, which also buys time for more vaccines to be made and distributed.

The vaccine will be treated like a flu shot, something handed out in clinics and your provider’s office and treated like a public health initiative, so not for profit.

[Annoyed]

I do imagine, whenever there is a vaccine, that it will be come mandatory and sought after. The next frustration will be, well they said ‘we can make hundreds of millions of vaccines’....well we need billions.
So it will probably go to the most vulnerable first (and the rich and connected of course), the the rest of us eventually.

This however can also be where the anti body test comes in. If everyone can get a reliable and trustworthy antibody test then the vaccine goes to those that do not have antibodies and the vulnerable first. Those with antibodies are tested regularly - like every 2-6 months - to see how long they keep the anti bodies. this can give us an idea how long the acquired immunity lasts, which also buys time for more vaccines to be made and distributed.

The vaccine will be treated like a flu shot, something handed out in clinics and your provider’s office and treated like a public health initiative, so not for profit.

Of course it will go to the rich first. What's the point of being born with a silver spoon up your backside it it doesn't?
And it will always be for profit. Only difference is who pays the bill. Individual or taxpayers.

[Skydiver]

Right now, and we’ll see if this stays, at least one manufacturer has said the vaccine will be sold at cost - few dollars each shot.

Now we’ll see how this really plays out.

One reason the flu vaccine is such a success is that it sells for less but they count on mass quantities to get it - make 20 dollars off millions of shots vs 2000 dollars off thousands of shots.

Now that was one pharmaceutical person saying that and there are dozens of groups working on a vaccine with no word yet which one will win the ‘lottery’ of being the one the CDC declares works, so plenty of time for this to all shake out how my cynicism expects it to.

[Annoyed]

Right now, and we’ll see if this stays, at least one manufacturer has said the vaccine will be sold at cost - few dollars each shot.

Now we’ll see how this really plays out.

One reason the flu vaccine is such a success is that it sells for less but they count on mass quantities to get it - make 20 dollars off millions of shots vs 2000 dollars off thousands of shots.

Now that was one pharmaceutical person saying that and there are dozens of groups working on a vaccine with no word yet which one will win the ‘lottery’ of being the one the CDC declares works, so plenty of time for this to all shake out how my cynicism expects it to.

"You can't handle the cynicism!"

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a bit what any particular suit & tie says. They all went to business school, and a first year course, or even a a prerequisite for admittance is "BS 101 - How to lie in public with a straight face"
My bet is that suit is betting his company won't be the one who patents a working vaccine first, so the cost won't be his decision anyway. So he gets to get on the soapbox, making his outfit look like such good citizens. If his place ends up with the patent, he will no doubt make another speech at that time babbling on about "circumstances have changed" or some such rot, and they will end up charging the govt. 2 arms and a left nut for it.

[Gatefan1976]

That's why you need single payer healthcare, so they can't charge you like that Annoyed.

[Annoyed]

That's why you need single payer healthcare, so they can't charge you like that Annoyed.

I understand the theory.
But it doesn't work in real life, per my own personal experience.

Back in the 1980's, up to the early '90s, the region I live in had one of the best health care setups in the world. Health insurance was covered by employers, and was affordable, so it was offered as a benefit for most jobs, and was also affordable on the private market. Co-pays were reasonable, as were prescription meds, and you didn't have to worry about the insurance company overruling your doctor's judgement. The doctor or pharmacy provided the service and billed the insurance carrier.

Then came Shrillarycare, which was the first attempt to establish govt, control over the health care industry, This did absolutely nothing but raise the costs for everyone, so that employers began to "freeze" coverage or their "contribution" as it's called in corporatese, so any further increases were just passed on to the worker, instead of just providing it as a straight out benefit.

At the same time, this period ushered in HMO's, which have ever since had an increasing say in your treatment, as opposed to the doctor deciding what to do. The insurance carriers gained the authority to override the doctors choices.

The end result of this was a standard of health care that was lower than it had been, cause the doctors were being told how to treat you that cost far more than it did before Shrillary stuck her nose into it.

Go forward 20 years, and we have another attempt to establish govt. control over healthcare. We've gone round and 'round about this before; again, doubling of out-of-pocket costs for health care, losing a PCP I had been going to since the 80's 'cause she decided not to put up with the BS that came with the govt. decrees and such.

So, from direct, personal experience with two attempts to establish govt. control over the health care system, both of which had poor results, I have a very low opinion and will not support any further attempts.

Is that so hard to understand?

[Gatefan1976]

I understand the theory.
But it doesn't work in real life, per my own personal experience.

Yet, it works in nearly every "first world" nation.
I'm not talking hospitals or anything else here, I'm sticking to drug prices. If I can move 2 million units for 2 bucks profit, (netting me 4 million in profit), Why would I want to sell 100k units at 10 dollars profit which only nets me 1 million?
This is the basics of supply and demand, and balancing cost VS... umm, let's call it excusiveness. What costs you (under your model) 20 bucks costs me 5 because the federal government steps in and buys the product in bulk, which forces the price down because the company can accept a lower margin based on assured sales and still function, and might even be better off.

Back in the 1980's, up to the early '90s, the region I live in had one of the best health care setups in the world. Health insurance was covered by employers, and was affordable, so it was offered as a benefit for most jobs, and was also affordable on the private market. Co-pays were reasonable, as were prescription meds, and you didn't have to worry about the insurance company overruling your doctor's judgement. The doctor or pharmacy provided the service and billed the insurance carrier.

Which means if you are not working, or are denied access to Medicare / Medicaid you have no chance to have health treatment. What you should say is "it was good for me because I had a job"
Not so good for anyone else really, is it?

Then came Shrillarycare, which was the first attempt to establish govt, control over the health care industry, This did absolutely nothing but raise the costs for everyone, so that employers began to "freeze" coverage or their "contribution" as it's called in corporatese, so any further increases were just passed on to the worker, instead of just providing it as a straight out benefit.

In US legalese, YES.
So, where does the problem actually lie?
Is it with the government initiative, or with the corps?

At the same time, this period ushered in HMO's, which have ever since had an increasing say in your treatment, as opposed to the doctor deciding what to do. The insurance carriers gained the authority to override the doctors choices.

Don't have that problem in a single payer system. My insurance company has NO SAY in who I go to, where I go to or any other damn thing concerning my health. I go where I want and if that's a Medicare doctor that I don't have to pay a dime for, or if it's one where I do have to pay something because it's private, that's my CHOICE. Your system does nothing but limit choice because your insurance is tied to your employer, not you.

The end result of this was a standard of health care that was lower than it had been, cause the doctors were being told how to treat you that cost far more than it did before Shrillary stuck her nose into it.

Not touching this.

Go forward 20 years, and we have another attempt to establish govt. control over healthcare. We've gone round and 'round about this before; again, doubling of out-of-pocket costs for health care, losing a PCP I had been going to since the 80's 'cause she decided not to put up with the BS that came with the govt. decrees and such.

Would not have happened under a single payer system.
These are FACTS, observable, objective FACTS. I have had the same doctor for nigh on 20 years as well and he has never had to close shop because of the single payer system. In fact, he's a Medicare doctor who "bulk bills" the government so I have not had to pay a single CENT for a consult for that long. I have to pay for specialists, but not to go to my GP (PCP in your terms).
This is where the dual concept of Medicare and private insurance comes into play. I get my doctor visits for free, but because of my insurance, I don't have to pay for mine, my wife's or my sons glasses or eye exams because we are covered for that. If we did not have private insurance, they would be costing hundreds of dollars a go.
Single payer does not mean you loose choice, it's merely leveraging the economic might of the federal government to make it better for ALL.

So, from direct, personal experience with two attempts to establish govt. control over the health care system, both of which had poor results, I have a very low opinion and will not support any further attempts.

I get your reticence, but just because one plan failed does not mean the concept is not viable. Again, the concept HAS been viable for decades in MANY countries, US people even complain about it saying it's unfair. How stupid is that?

Is that so hard to understand?

I understand it, I just don't think it's valid.
I think it's a knee-jerk "our freedom" response to an issue that is far more complicated than the average joe or as you like to say "working stiff" understands.
But let me ask a question.
If your healthcare and insurance is tied to your employer, do you really have any choice?

[Annoyed]

Don't have that problem in a single payer system. My insurance company has NO SAY in who I go to, where I go to or any other damn thing concerning my health. I go where I want and if that's a Medicare doctor that I don't have to pay a dime for, or if it's one where I do have to pay something because it's private, that's my CHOICE. Your system does nothing but limit choice because your insurance is tied to your employer, not you.

Only going to respond to one point, cause my response is at least somewhat related to CV

The only candidate for the single payer is the govt.
Somebody besides your doctor gets to make the choice. In the current situation, it's the HMO or ins. carrier.
In single payer, it's the govt.

Oh, let's see how that works

https://abcnews.go.com/US/patients-c...ry?id=69933810

Effective immediately, patients in cardiac arrest will not be transported to a hospital if first responders cannot get a pulse on their own while administering CPR, a new internal memo obtained by ABC News states. City hospitals are overrun with COVID-19 patients and some cardiac patients may not receive the medical care they need to survive.

Granted, this happened during the CV crisis, but don't you think the govt. will decide who is worth paying for and who isn't? Who gets treatment, and who doesn't? That decision *should be* between a doctor and the patient. Single payer doesn't bring that about.

[Gatefan1976]

You are limiting your experience to just the USA, which is like me arguing "just in AU"
The response and infection rates in nations with nationalised healthcare have been far better than the US.
Observable, objective FACT.
The US now has over 25% of the worlds deaths from Covid-19, more than most THIRD world countries, and when you start counting people that died at home rather than just those in hospitals, that number will spike dramatically. Yes, you have a higher population, and that must be taken into account, but even then your percentage of deaths are higher.
Why do you think that is?

[SGalisa]

Update to shopping...

I used to like shopping, and taking my time browsing thru looking at various products and reading their labels, etc. Now, it's just make a list, go thru the store as quickly as possible and get OUT, so someone else can shop. Also, get out and go to next store, rinse and repeat process... Reset face "mask" with filter on face, bring (reusable) gloves, bring an extra hand-wipe to clean cart because most stores run out by the PM hours, go home and clean everything off BEFORE putting away.

Because we cannot use our own recyclable bags, we must use the cheap store bags, on the way out of the store, if the winds pick up (and they usually always do), the bags and items within end up flopping all over inside the cart----if not try to fly away from the wind... The bigger *woven tarp* material bags were at least sturdy enough to prevent that from happening. I miss them, and rebag everything before I bring it into our "decontamination zone" at home. Anywho, I have grown to absolutely hate shopping now. Unfortunately, I think this process is going to be the "new normal" ...

Seemed when I went thru the grocery store that while everyone in there was wearing some sort of facial mask/covering, most were acting more like zombies... just going thru the motions of shopping --in and out-- with sometimes stopping to let someone else go thru the aisle first or politely wait til they could enter.

The sad part was seeing all those facial masks and thinking of it as TAPE over everyone's mouth. No one spoke unless spoken to, which was usually if they needed help or at the cranky self-checkout registers. Sometimes I think those machines are deliberately rigged so that the supervising cashier HAS to come over and press some code into the machine. *sigh*

Oh, also, anyone who has any those wetted, Aloe or Lanolin, etc., toilet clothlike-tissue wipes that are old and dried out, save those, and re-wet them with soap & water. Moisten only what you will use that day, keep in a handy sandwich baggy, and use those instead for cleaning hands after (or during) shopping, if there are no Lysol or Clorox type of hand-wipes available. Sanitizing wipes seem to still be MIA... plus, the ones supplied by some stores are usually out of stock in the afternoon hours. I almost tossed out our old, dried up cloth wipes (expired in 2015..!), until I realized I could re-use them for this very purpose! Various people in the Medical community say that the COVID-19 virus doesNOT like soap. Soap breaks down the wall or something in the virus cell, and thus it dies.