Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

So, here's the play:

You call out sick, ask the boss of you should get tested. He says, "Not up to me, HIIPA and all; call the nurse or wellness coordinator." They confirm and recommend test. Go to FastMed, get tested, download their app, go home and wait. FastMed is currently at 3-5 days.

When test come back negative, you go back to work and apply for emergency sick leave reimbursement. This is because you had to sit home for 3-5 days, use your sick time to wait on a test which came back negative, your employer now has to give you those 3-5 days worth of sick time back and you collect regular pay and not lose sick days. 

Municipal government, folks. 

Murica

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Remember when the increase in new cases was being blamed on more testing? Well, the data refuted that claim but here recently, the opposite has been true. The dip in new cases seems to be directly correlated to less testing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1291140412711690240/photo/1

So, does this mean that increased testing did equal increase in cases? I am under the assumption that we already have people who have the Virus, we are just finding more, it is not really new cases. 

 

Edited by Devil Doc
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Devil Doc said:

So, does this mean that increased testing did equal increase in cases? I am under the assumption that we already have people who have the Virus, we are just finding more, it is not really new cases. 

 

If you understand data the answer is right there in the link. 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If you understand data the answer is right there in the link. 

Ok, I wanted your opinion. Looking at the data, what I assumed is true. We are just finding cases with testing, they are not exactly "New" cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You can't be this dumb.

Ya, I got nothing. If you think that is dumb, that is on you. People are going to get the virus, there is no stopping it. It is just when they will get it, and when we will find it. Will we have a vaccine before everyone get the Virus? Who knows. Will the virus circle back around to the states who have opened back up? Who knows. The problem is, people have this Virus, they can have it for awhile and not be tested. Hell, I could have the Virus, and be spreading it around, who knows. Is me having the Virus going to change anything? The people I have been around have already been exposed, I will not be exposing more, due to social distancing, wearing a mask, hand washing, not visiting new stores, etc. 

Edited by Devil Doc
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to test everyone, to isolate those who are positive, which would have course make the positive cases go up. At this very late point in the game, since testing is very disarray and sporadic, keeping track of deaths, and not positive cases, should be the focus. The slinky effect of this Virus still has 3 flights of stairs to go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think the majority of people are getting tested? It's not just for shots and giggles. These people are largely developing symptoms and seeking testing. The symptoms are new because they're newly sick - a.k.a. new cases. The dip in cases is directly correlated to fewer tests, it's not due to a smaller percentage of positive tests just like the increased number of tests months ago wasn't the primary cause of the rise of the number of cases since rates of positive tests also increased.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Why do you think the majority of people are getting tested? It's not just for shots and giggles. These people are largely developing symptoms and seeking testing. The symptoms are new because they're newly sick - a.k.a. new cases. The dip in cases is directly correlated to fewer tests, it's not due to a smaller percentage of positive tests just like the increased number of tests months ago wasn't the primary cause of the rise of the number of cases since rates of positive tests also increased.

People are getting tested, regardless of symptoms. Is this not what I just said "The dip in cases is directly correlated to fewer tests, it's not due to a smaller percentage of positive tests". Yes, We are finding less positive cases, because of less test. People are already positive, and there is possibly millions that are positive that we have not found yet. Instead of being focused on positive cases, which do not mean anything, we need to be focused on deaths. The same amount of people are going to the virus regardless of testing, we just have to find them. 

Edited by Devil Doc
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devil Doc said:

People are getting tested, regardless of symptoms. Is this not what I just said "The dip in cases is directly correlated to fewer tests, it's not due to a smaller percentage of positive tests". Yes, We are finding less positive cases, because of less test. People are already positive, and there is possibly millions that are positive that we have not found yet. Instead of being focused on positive cases, which do not mean anything, we need to be focused on deaths. The same amount of people are going to the virus regardless of testing, we just have to find them. 

You're not making any sense. We find them by them dying? 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2020 at 10:23 AM, Devil Doc said:

 "The dip in cases is directly correlated to fewer tests, it's not due to a smaller percentage of positive tests". Yes, We are finding less positive cases, because of less test.

No. The projection websites I follow have been saying that cases would peak a couple of weeks ago and deaths would peak this week. And they did and they should. Correlation does not imply causation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...