Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That very link. Man went to ER worried he had it, sought testing, and had a $3k bill. Which would be cash out of pocket on a high deductible plan which is common now.
Yes, it’s better now with it being waived and being handled outside of ERs.
At this point, I'm more afraid of how panicky people are acting than I am of this corona virus. Panicky people start doing terrible things.
People need to calm down. Stop listening to talking morons on the tv belching out numbers left and right, and politicians who wear gas masks...GAS masks ffs.
Yes, numbers are going to go up because we are getting more testing, however, what the media doesn't bother to "breaking news" tell anyone is that the majority of those who have the virus are mild. Up to 82% are MILD. Everyone is not going to die, the world is not going to end.
But if you test negative you have to come back and keep getting tested to make sure you stay negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Yep!
Nope. A doc runs the test to figure out if a person with a cough has CV and needs to quarantine himself. That test does not need to be re-run on that person.
Another purpose of testing is to find out what the actual infection count is. Right now we don't know how many people are sick but not sick enough to get tested by a doctor. That is critical because those people will end up with immunity (hopefully) and should be counted as resolved cases.
The only way to do that is to do widespread testing. It doesn't need to be everyone, but a pool of people need to be selected and then tested and monitored. That pool should be a cross-section of the demographics of the population as a whole and then the number you get from it will represent the entire population.
People in that pool would need to be re-tested, yes, but this is how epidemiology works, by getting a handle on the characteristics of the disease. But again, it is not the entire population but a representative sample. Maybe 50,000 people? I don't know. But not 300 million.
I don't think it is doom and gloom, I think if we practice social distancing, there is no way we'd end up like Italy. The choice is ours.
I still think it’s overblown and I had planned to go to church on Sunday. Then I realized that for a short time we do need to slow this thing down and avoid large gatherings. Our church is having services as usual but they won’t allow more than 250 people in at a time. We won’t be going. They won’t possibly be able to keep people at least six feet apart.
If containment is used correctly it will stop the spread. Testing is a nice statistical action but it does nothing for treatment. Testing is not the issue.
How do you determine where containment is needed if you don't test? You cannot shut the whole country down at once.
I still think it’s overblown and I had planned to go to church on Sunday. Then I realized that for a short time we do need to slow this thing down and avoid large gatherings. Our church is having services as usual but they won’t allow more than 250 people in at a time. We won’t be going. They won’t possibly be able to keep people at least six feet apart.
exactly. Good choice Mike.
Lucky for us, our church moves the service online.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
