Non-IT News Thread

Russian President Vladimir Putin has postponed a vote on constitutional change that would allow him to stay in power, because of coronavirus concerns.
He said the public vote - previously due to be held on 22 April - would be delayed until a "later date". The proposed changes include scrapping a ban on allowing Mr Putin to run for office again. The changes have already been approved by parliament and Russia's constitutional court. They would give Mr Putin - who is serving his fourth presidential term and has dominated Russian politics for two decades - the right to serve two more consecutive terms.

black3dynamite

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/entire-senior-home-new-jersey-94-people-presumed-have-coronavirus-n1168701

scottalanmiller

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

Obsolesce

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

I think it's like that everywhere in every country now. If you think about it, nobody is equipped to test millions of people in a short period of time. And there's really no reason to unless you are in the risk group and/or showing symptoms.

JaredBusch

@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

I think it's like that everywhere in every country now. If you think about it, nobody is equipped to test millions of people in a short period of time. And there's really no reason to unless you are in the risk group and/or showing symptoms.

Correct. The article example is a failure, yes. She should have been able to get tested once symptomatic.

But Scott's tin foil hat rant is just that. A rant.

No country states more infected than tested positive. Most news quotes the medical professionals as assuming there are more, but they have no way to test, in almost all countries.

1337

@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

I think it's like that everywhere in every country now. If you think about it, nobody is equipped to test millions of people in a short period of time. And there's really no reason to unless you are in the risk group and/or showing symptoms.

Correct. The article example is a failure, yes. She should have been able to get tested once symptomatic.

But Scott's tin foil hat rant is just that. A rant.

No country states more infected than tested positive. Most news quotes the medical professionals as assuming there are more, but they have no way to test, in almost all countries.

It's also counterproductive to test.

In the beginning when you have few cases it could be beneficial to test to be able to trace people who have been in contact with the patient. But that becomes a waste of resources once you already have lots of people that are infected and the virus is spreading. Then it's a matter of taking care of those in need. So you test those that have serious symptoms and need to go to the ER.

There is simply no need to test those that have mild symptoms. And it's illogical. It's the really sick that needs health care. If you don't need health care, stay at home until you are feeling well again.

Dashrender

@Pete-S said in Non-IT News Thread:

@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

I think it's like that everywhere in every country now. If you think about it, nobody is equipped to test millions of people in a short period of time. And there's really no reason to unless you are in the risk group and/or showing symptoms.

Correct. The article example is a failure, yes. She should have been able to get tested once symptomatic.

But Scott's tin foil hat rant is just that. A rant.

No country states more infected than tested positive. Most news quotes the medical professionals as assuming there are more, but they have no way to test, in almost all countries.

It's also counterproductive to test.

In the beginning when you have few cases it could be beneficial to test to be able to trace people who have been in contact with the patient. But that becomes a waste of resources once you already have lots of people that are infected and the virus is spreading. Then it's a matter of taking care of those in need. So you test those that have serious symptoms and need to go to the ER.

There is simply no need to test those that have mild symptoms. And it's illogical. It's the really sick that needs health care. If you don't need health care, stay at home until you are feeling well again.

I suppose I understand testing those with severe symptoms, but anything else, I agree why bother? It's like the normal flu - almost no one gets tested for that.

Grey

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Pete-S said in Non-IT News Thread:

@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

If you are wondering what lengths the US is still going to deny testing and make sure that real numbers don't leak out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52019509

We know firsthand people who are sick and are being denied tests. Dallas has strict limits to the number of reportable a day, 500 max. Anything over that is the next day's problem, period. The numbers coming from the US are 100% what we test, in no way reflective of the infection rate.

I think it's like that everywhere in every country now. If you think about it, nobody is equipped to test millions of people in a short period of time. And there's really no reason to unless you are in the risk group and/or showing symptoms.

Correct. The article example is a failure, yes. She should have been able to get tested once symptomatic.

But Scott's tin foil hat rant is just that. A rant.

No country states more infected than tested positive. Most news quotes the medical professionals as assuming there are more, but they have no way to test, in almost all countries.

It's also counterproductive to test.

In the beginning when you have few cases it could be beneficial to test to be able to trace people who have been in contact with the patient. But that becomes a waste of resources once you already have lots of people that are infected and the virus is spreading. Then it's a matter of taking care of those in need. So you test those that have serious symptoms and need to go to the ER.

There is simply no need to test those that have mild symptoms. And it's illogical. It's the really sick that needs health care. If you don't need health care, stay at home until you are feeling well again.

I suppose I understand testing those with severe symptoms, but anything else, I agree why bother? It's like the normal flu - almost no one gets tested for that.

Except it isn't. Covid-19 exacerbates issues you already have, and you're going to see lungs get destroyed far more than the flu as though the subject were a smoker. That means that you're more likely to get pneumonia, more likely to relapse in to older sicknesses and if you are a compromised individual, you will have problems. Unfortunately, your lackadaisical attitude is also part of the problem since you can be a silent carrier, never getting sick, but allowing one of those compromised or elderly people to become ill.

Francisco Garcia was 21 and died from complications due to undiagnosed leukemia and covid-19. You may not even know you have a problem until you do.
So, if you're not going to take this seriously, then you're also admitting how blase you are with other people's grandmothers, parents, cancer kids, and any person with a parent who decided not to vaccinate. Know anyone with diabetes? After covid-19, you have a 4% of visiting their grave inside of 2 weeks.

To put that another way, if I gave you 100 skittles and only 4 were made with arsenic, would you still eat one? Your chances are good! Don't shake the bag, though. The poison might rub off to another, and then your chance is 8-12%.

The flu does NOT spread like C19, so that same bag of skittles could be jostled around like David Beckham's nuts at a soccer game and you'd only see an additional 5 or 6 poison skittles, but that pouch o' c19 is going to be 100% poison, and all your green skittles with cancer are gone, the blue ones with diabetes are faded and some are missing, plus the red, vintage ones over 60 are probably dead because there was no one to help them.

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

I suppose I understand testing those with severe symptoms, but anything else, I agree why bother? It's like the normal flu - almost no one gets tested for that.

It's like you aren't even aware of anything going on. Holy cow.

We need to be tested to know...

Who has been infected.
Who needs to be quaranteened.
Where supplies are needed.
How it is spreading.
What to expect.
How to get a cure.
Who to warn.

How the heck are you comparing this to the flu? WTF cares about the flu? No one, it doesn't spread like this, it doesn't kill like this. It's NOTHING like the normal flu.

scottalanmiller

@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:

No country states more infected than tested positive. Most news quotes the medical professionals as assuming there are more, but they have no way to test, in almost all countries.

No, they are running the tested numbers, medical professionals are saying the assumption is that the real numbers are 1,000% higher because we are testing almost no one.

And the refusal to test was being reported long before they were short on tests.

scottalanmiller

@Pete-S said in Non-IT News Thread:

It's also counterproductive to test.

Zero tests, or open testing. Both have a purpose. The problem with limited testing is that it is being used to claim that the spread isn't happening, that the infection rate is low, and make it seem like containment is working. So they say that only tested numbers are real, and only give out as many tests as they feel that they can admit to at the time.

scottalanmiller

@Pete-S said in Non-IT News Thread:

There is simply no need to test those that have mild symptoms. And it's illogical. It's the really sick that needs health care. If you don't need health care, stay at home until you are feeling well again.

If you don't test, you don't know to stay home. I've got a cousin quarantined away from his family leaving them struggling to take care of the kids, but fearful that he will infect them. But he can't get tested, even though he's extremely sick. So he can't get treated, and it is impacting his family.

People who have mild symptoms, but don't know, will keep functioning. Someone has to grocery shop. Someone has to work. Without tests it's flippant to tell the whole world to self quarantine "just in case", because we'd all starve if everyone did that. No logistics, no farms, etc. We depend on people who think that are likely safe to keep working to keep the wheels turning. By testing, we can protect them from spreading it like wildfire.

Testing matters, a lot. Like, a lot a lot.

JaredBusch

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

The problem with limited testing is that it is being used to claim that the spread isn't happening,

No it is not.

scottalanmiller

@Pete-S said in Non-IT News Thread:

So you test those that have serious symptoms and need to go to the ER.

Why? Those seem like the least useful to test. They are known sick, known to be in need, and already being treated.

It's the mild symptoms we need to know most. We need to know how to change behaviour to keep as many people functional as possible, while stopping the spread as much as possible.

scottalanmiller

@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

The problem with limited testing is that it is being used to claim that the spread isn't happening,

No it is not.

Um, try all news outlets, every government speach.