Originally Posted by Anson Harris
(Post 3062136)
Mine came back negative, and honestly, I don't know what I could have done to be more exposed to the virus, short of taking my lunch breaks in an ICU. It makes zero sense that I (allegedly) haven't been exposed, but some 94 year old lady in one of the state's rural counties gets it and dies. Maybe she liked the slots more than me?
Seriously, this is another reason most people need to relax about their risk and accept that the opportunity for containment is long gone. On the other hand, we absolutely need to figure out why vulnerable populations are getting infected during a lockdown and how to actually protect/treat them. Just don't ask Gov. Cuomo for ideas. I’ve been flying a full schedule, my wife is a DVM and has been working full time dealing with the public as well. Both of us tested negative for antibodies. |
Originally Posted by Anson Harris
(Post 3062136)
Seriously, this is another reason most people need to relax about their risk and accept that the opportunity for containment is long gone. On the other hand, we absolutely need to figure out why vulnerable populations are getting infected during a lockdown and how to actually protect/treat them. Just don't ask Gov. Cuomo for ideas.
|
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 3062949)
Ditto,
I’ve been flying a full schedule, my wife is a DVM and has been working full time dealing with the public as well. Both of us tested negative for antibodies. |
It would seem an absolute no-brainer to test long-care home employees every second or third day before they enter a facility. Sure the brain tickle would get old, but being able to capture a potentially virus-shedding employee before they seed an outbreak in the most vulnerable demographic seems a very smartly targeted policy for the expense.
|
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 3063487)
It would seem an absolute no-brainer to test long-care home employees every second or third day before they enter a facility. Sure the brain tickle would get old, but being able to capture a potentially virus-shedding employee before they seed an outbreak in the most vulnerable demographic seems a very smartly targeted policy for the expense.
|
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 3063487)
It would seem an absolute no-brainer to test long-care home employees every second or third day before they enter a facility. Sure the brain tickle would get old, but being able to capture a potentially virus-shedding employee before they seed an outbreak in the most vulnerable demographic seems a very smartly targeted policy for the expense.
|
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
(Post 3063486)
My sister is an RN and has been working the C19 ICU for the last two months...in NYC. She is one of only four nurses on her floor to not get it yet, and just tested negative for antibodies. Mind = blown.
Your sis might be one of those. Or she should head over the Atlantic City when it re-opens. |
Originally Posted by michael525Bdo
(Post 3063491)
That does make sense. Except for the possibility of false negatives.
Every little bit helps, and the obviously vulnerable people should be protected to the extent practicable. |
Risk v. Reward, Cost v. Benefit...
|
And the latest holdup in getting a vaccine...
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...rking-11993739
Not enough cases occurring currently for a clinical trial. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:11 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands