- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,352
Finally! Three of us test negative! That’s the good news. We still have to quarantine another week because it’s 50% accurate. So far no symptoms. Illinois has gone up to 13% positivity rate in our area. 65,000 tests were run in my county in the last 24 hrs. Stay in and stay safe.
So happy for all of you! Stay safe and well @AprilBaby.
As for the positivity rate, it is climbing here as well, at an alarming rate. There are areas of NJ where the positivity rate is over 35%!!! It feels as if I am watching a slow train crash. People are too stubborn (and entitled to their "freedom") to know what is best for them and they are bringing others down with them. Horrifying and I hope and pray we can stop the downward spiral...
Finally! Three of us test negative! That’s the good news. We still have to quarantine another week because it’s 50% accurate. So far no symptoms. Illinois has gone up to 13% positivity rate in our area. 65,000 tests were run in my county in the last 24 hrs. Stay in and stay safe.
I’m wondering if the current spike is related to the excellent weather for Halloween?
I’m wondering if the current spike is related to the excellent weather for Halloween?
here are no excuses, no arguments, no smarting-off about "my freedom." Going mask-less, to me, is like saying "Sure, we know the room is full of asbestos. But take off your respirators and run free." It makes no sense. WHY are people not interested in protecting themselves??
Life is not 'living' if it's just 'existing' so I totally understand this viewpoint. I am sure that many of the older generation would prefer to risk having a shorter but more fulfilling remainder of their life, however long it may be!To give a counterpoint, there are elderly people dying from isolation and loneliness! Yes, we are careful around my 91 year old mother-in-law, but she would not survive in solitary confinement for months or years. What kind of life would that be???!!! Obviously if she didn't want to see family, that would be her choice, but she is 91 and could die anytime, so she surely doesn't want to live her last weeks, months, or years alone! I choose to see my children and grandchildren and some others. I am careful but I will not live in constant fear. That's not healthy, either. We also happen to live in an area that has a low level of positive cases. I think each person and family has to make these decisions based on their situation and needs. And I find it extremely offensive to be accused of abuse or deserving of illness because I don't isolate to the degree that someone else thinks I should.
Is it the case that your position is similar for those that die of smoking- or alcohol-related illnesses, diet-related illnesses, inactivity-related illnesses, single-vehicle car accidents, sporting accidents, 'adventure' activity accidents, accidents that occur while travelling for leisure abroad, or for those who commit suicide?I did not state that people deserve an illness, I said they don't deserve compassion if their freely chosen actions lead to their illness/death or the illness/death of their loved ones. Free to choose, free to bear the consequences.
Life is not 'living' if it's just 'existing' so I totally understand this viewpoint. I am sure that many of the older generation would prefer to risk having a shorter but more fulfilling remainder of their life, however long it may be!
An 'abundance of caution' can of course bring benefits, but those benefits need to be weighed against the disbenefits.
Is it the case that your position is similar for those that die of smoking- or alcohol-related illnesses, diet-related illnesses, inactivity-related illnesses, single-vehicle car accidents, sporting accidents, 'adventure' activity accidents, accidents that occur while travelling for leisure abroad, or for those who commit suicide?
It really sucks if you're in that percentage that doesn't make it.
If you chose to take a risk, ok.
With COVID you chose to risk others,
And that's not the same.
And that's not OK.
To give a counterpoint, there are elderly people dying from isolation and loneliness! Yes, we are careful around my 91 year old mother-in-law, but she would not survive in solitary confinement for months or years. What kind of life would that be???!!! Obviously if she didn't want to see family, that would be her choice, but she is 91 and could die anytime, so she surely doesn't want to live her last weeks, months, or years alone! I choose to see my children and grandchildren and some others. I am careful but I will not live in constant fear. That's not healthy, either. We also happen to live in an area that has a low level of positive cases. I think each person and family has to make these decisions based on their situation and needs. And I find it extremely offensive to be accused of abuse or deserving of illness because I don't isolate to the degree that someone else thinks I should.
You keep stating this over and over again.
Yet you never address the argument that those people do
-not overrun the healthcare system
- do not infect others with a disease that other person MIGHT DIE from.
Please don't say it's only the old.
It's not true.
My 76&78 y/O neighbor and their autistic daughter with many immune problems just lived through a mild case.
I am so relieved.
Out friend's cousin, however, 49 y/O man without any (!) risk factors just passed away.
It really sucks if you're in that percentage that doesn't make it.
If you chose to take a risk, ok.
With COVID you chose to risk others,
And that's not the same.
And that's not OK.
All Causes | Covid | |
<1 | 31 | 0 |
1-4 | 6 | 0 |
5-9 | 2 | 0 |
10-14 | 5 | 0 |
15-19 | 15 | 0 |
20-24 | 23 | 0 |
25-29 | 39 | 1 |
30-34 | 48 | 1 |
35-39 | 96 | 4 |
40-44 | 102 | 6 |
45-49 | 160 | 9 |
50-54 | 271 | 21 |
55-59 | 411 | 31 |
60-64 | 513 | 46 |
65-69 | 709 | 99 |
70-74 | 1136 | 138 |
75-79 | 1404 | 224 |
80-84 | 1758 | 259 |
85-89 | 1936 | 281 |
90+ | 2222 | 259 |
Methods: Bed availability and occupancy data was extracted from daily reports submitted by all English secondary care providers, between 27-Mar and 5-June. Two thresholds for ‘safe occupancy’ were utilized (85% as per Royal College of Emergency Medicine and 92% as per NHS Improvement).
Findings: At peak availability, there were 2711 additional beds compatible with mechanical ventilation across England, reflecting a 53% increase in capacity, and occupancy never exceeded 62%. A consequence of the repurposing of beds meant that at the trough, there were 8·7% (8,50fewer general and acute (G&A) beds across England, but occupancy never exceeded 72%. The closest to (surge) capacity that any trust in England reached was 99·8% for general and acute beds. For beds compatible with mechanical ventilation there were 326 trust-days (3·7%) spent above 85% of surge capacity, and 154 trust-days (1·8%) spent above 92%. 23 trusts spent a cumulative 81 days at 100% saturation of their surge ventilator bed capacity (median number of days per trust = 1 [range: 1 to 17]). However, only 3 STPs (aggregates of geographically co-located trusts) reached 100% saturation of their mechanical ventilation beds.
Interpretation: Throughout the first wave of the pandemic, an adequate supply of all bed-types existed at a national level. Due to an unequal distribution of bed utilization, many trusts spent a significant period operating above ‘safe-occupancy’ thresholds, despite substantial capacity in geographically co-located trusts; a key operational issue to address in preparing for a potential second wave.