COVID-19 'Pandemic'
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Koreans, Swedes, Taiwanese, and Dutch are, by and large, not assholes who KNOW AHR RAHTS!
Just a thought.
Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I'm not convinced wooden shoes protect a body from coronavirus.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Koreans, Swedes, Taiwanese, and Dutch are, by and large, not assholes who KNOW AHR RAHTS!
Just a thought.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Canadian-approved N95 mask targeted by Chinese counterfeiters
Health Canada issues recall of some KN95 masks made in China
Canadian-approved N95 mask targeted by Chinese counterfeiters
Health Canada issues recall of some KN95 masks made in China
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Massachusetts has been under strict lock down and we have the third most deaths in the country. We're not stopping anything.
Massachusetts has been under strict lock down and we have the third most deaths in the country. We're not stopping anything.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Like the massive amount of testing they did?
Yep, sure would have helped, I don't know about here but Trump didn't want mass testing because he feared it would spook the market and now they are talking about 100,000 deaths....it will be higher than that.
Sad.
Like the massive amount of testing they did?
Yep, sure would have helped, I don't know about here but Trump didn't want mass testing because he feared it would spook the market and now they are talking about 100,000 deaths....it will be higher than that.
Sad.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Fact of the matter is, those countries that didn't sh*t-can their entire economies aren't experiencing the crazy fatality rates that were predicted
Fact of the matter is, those countries that didn't sh*t-can their entire economies aren't experiencing the crazy fatality rates that were predicted
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
South Korea did.
They were also doing mass testing right at the beginning.
What they didn't do was brush it off as some sort of liberal hoax or just an average flu.
They fought it like champions during the early stages.
They followed the science, not fantasies.
U.S. 4200 cases per million
Canada 1950 cases per million
SK 214 cases per million
South Korea did.
They were also doing mass testing right at the beginning.
What they didn't do was brush it off as some sort of liberal hoax or just an average flu.
They fought it like champions during the early stages.
They followed the science, not fantasies.
U.S. 4200 cases per million
Canada 1950 cases per million
SK 214 cases per million
Last edited:
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
The CDC turned down using German testing to go with their own tests. That wasn't Trump's doing.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
When do restaurants open in Cgy? I have to go there next weekend and I want to hit Jane Bond BBQ. You in?
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
Yeah, it's never his fault.
Having said that, the mass testing would have helped on top of immediate action to shut things down instead of brushing it off.
South Korea wasn't worried about short term effects on its economy but over the long term.
They did a good job. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Yeah, it's never his fault.
Having said that, the mass testing would have helped on top of immediate action to shut things down instead of brushing it off.
South Korea wasn't worried about short term effects on its economy but over the long term.
They did a good job. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
That's the point I was making.
They took aggressive action(s) and were successful in both limiting the impact of the virus and minimized the impact on their economy
That's the point I was making.
They took aggressive action(s) and were successful in both limiting the impact of the virus and minimized the impact on their economy
YYC may not have everything in full swing by then. Yesterday, they suggested another 10 days.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
The CDC violated its own standards when developing the testing kits in a lab that was also working with synthetic coronavirus material, the Post reported. This led to contamination of one of the components used in the tests, which is believed to have caused false positives in the first batch of tests. The CDC took more than a month to correct the issue, hindering efforts to limit the early spread of the coronavirus in the US.
Federal officials told the Post the Department of Health and Human Services is investigating the development of the original kits, which was first flagged in January when 24 of 26 test kits sent out to public health departments showed false positives.
The error — and the delay in fixing it — likely contributed to a delay in testing that allowed the virus to spread undetected
because of Trump.
The CDC violated its own standards when developing the testing kits in a lab that was also working with synthetic coronavirus material, the Post reported. This led to contamination of one of the components used in the tests, which is believed to have caused false positives in the first batch of tests. The CDC took more than a month to correct the issue, hindering efforts to limit the early spread of the coronavirus in the US.
Federal officials told the Post the Department of Health and Human Services is investigating the development of the original kits, which was first flagged in January when 24 of 26 test kits sent out to public health departments showed false positives.
The error — and the delay in fixing it — likely contributed to a delay in testing that allowed the virus to spread undetected
because of Trump.
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'
More about how Trump made the CDC **** up.
People who are sick or have been in contact with sick people are struggling to get tested. Until last week, the number of tests that could be run per day in the United States was limited to around 7,000. Labs are struggling to get the supplies they need to meet the demand.
At the center of all of this chaos is a relatively straightforward type of test called a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, that’s been around for decades. To run it, a doctor swabs a patient’s nose or throat and sends the sample to a lab. The lab then looks for tiny snippets of the virus’s genetic material. PCR analysis is complicated but reliable.
“If the health system is working well, those tests should be good and help us manage this epidemic,” says Catherine Klapperich, director of the Laboratory for Diagnostics and Global Healthcare Technologies at Boston University. “It’s frustrating that the testing we thought we could rely on didn’t roll out the way we expected it to.”
PCR works. But in an outbreak situation, even if it’s working well, it’s still too slow. Ideally, physicians would be able to run tests in an office or right at a patient’s bedside. The technology to test that way exists. But there hasn’t been a large-scale investment made to commercialize it, so there’s no clear pathway to get it up and running during an emergency.
“POINT OF CARE TESTING IS REQUIRED FOR THESE OUTBREAK SITUATIONS”
“Point of care testing is required for these outbreak situations. We’re just not quite there yet as a scientific community,” Klapperich says.
Current gold standards
A week after the genetic sequence for the novel coronavirus first became available in January, German researchers had designed a PCR test that could detect the virus in a patient sample. That test became the basis for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) test used in countries around the world, including South Korea, but which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declined to use. PCR tests are, in theory, fairly simple to create: scientists pick snippets of the virus’s gene and use a series of chemicals to look for that gene snippet in the sample. If they find the snippet, it means the patient has the virus.
Cuz Science...
More about how Trump made the CDC **** up.
People who are sick or have been in contact with sick people are struggling to get tested. Until last week, the number of tests that could be run per day in the United States was limited to around 7,000. Labs are struggling to get the supplies they need to meet the demand.
At the center of all of this chaos is a relatively straightforward type of test called a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, that’s been around for decades. To run it, a doctor swabs a patient’s nose or throat and sends the sample to a lab. The lab then looks for tiny snippets of the virus’s genetic material. PCR analysis is complicated but reliable.
“If the health system is working well, those tests should be good and help us manage this epidemic,” says Catherine Klapperich, director of the Laboratory for Diagnostics and Global Healthcare Technologies at Boston University. “It’s frustrating that the testing we thought we could rely on didn’t roll out the way we expected it to.”
PCR works. But in an outbreak situation, even if it’s working well, it’s still too slow. Ideally, physicians would be able to run tests in an office or right at a patient’s bedside. The technology to test that way exists. But there hasn’t been a large-scale investment made to commercialize it, so there’s no clear pathway to get it up and running during an emergency.
“POINT OF CARE TESTING IS REQUIRED FOR THESE OUTBREAK SITUATIONS”
“Point of care testing is required for these outbreak situations. We’re just not quite there yet as a scientific community,” Klapperich says.
Current gold standards
A week after the genetic sequence for the novel coronavirus first became available in January, German researchers had designed a PCR test that could detect the virus in a patient sample. That test became the basis for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) test used in countries around the world, including South Korea, but which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declined to use. PCR tests are, in theory, fairly simple to create: scientists pick snippets of the virus’s gene and use a series of chemicals to look for that gene snippet in the sample. If they find the snippet, it means the patient has the virus.
Cuz Science...