Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

This is out of control.  I thought it was a typo, but we just hit 3,919 new cases today with 9 more deaths.  That is nearly a thousand more cases than our previous daily record.  Hospitalizations hit another record.  We are at the breaking point and it keeps getting worse.

The Area Presidency has responded by implementing new changes in light of the surge:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50047635/gatherings-limited-as-utah-latter-day-saint-leaders-adjust-guidelines-amid-covid-19-surge

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

This is out of control.  I thought it was a typo, but we just hit 3,919 new cases today with 9 more deaths.  That is nearly a thousand more cases than our previous daily record.  Hospitalizations hit another record.  We are at the breaking point and it keeps getting worse.

The Area Presidency has responded by implementing new changes in light of the surge:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50047635/gatherings-limited-as-utah-latter-day-saint-leaders-adjust-guidelines-amid-covid-19-surge

 

 

Our stake (in davis county) started doing everything on the list last week, so not much has changed for us.  It does seem a little weird that when Utah had a few dozen cases church stopped completely and now with thousands of cases we are going allowed to attend with greater numbers than previously allowed when the lockdown lifted.  Is this because there has been little spread at church?

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 3
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Has anyone posted this? 


New CDC guidelines say face masks protect those wearing them, too—here are the best ones

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6255602002

I saw this earlier, and honestly, this kind of stuff is part of the problem.  The CDC is constantly changing their tune on whether or not we should wear masks and why.  I don't blame them for not knowing everything but at the same time, it causes problems when they go from "no one needs to wear a mask" to "we should wear a mask for the other guy" and then land on "masks help us all."  

It makes it sound like they are just guessing (or at the very least were just guessing in the past) when they've talked about masks.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw this earlier, and honestly, this kind of stuff is part of the problem.  The CDC is constantly changing their tune on whether or not we should wear masks and why.  I don't blame them for not knowing everything but at the same time, it causes problems when they go from "no one needs to wear a mask" to "we should wear a mask for the other guy" and then land on "masks help us all."  

It makes it sound like they are just guessing (or at the very least were just guessing in the past) when they've talked about masks.  

I get your point. It does seem like they have learned more over the course of the pandemic, though. It makes sense that even though masks don’t keep all of the droplets out, they can protect the wearer from a large viral load, especially if they are made from the right kind of material, i.e., tightly woven and multi-layered. 

  • Like 2
Link to post

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/525797-cdc-pediatric-visits-to-emergency-rooms-for-mental-health-problems

“The CDC data found mental health-related emergency room visits increased 31 percent for children between the ages of 12 and 17 from March to October compared to the same period in 2019. There was also a 24 percent increase in emergency room visits for children between the ages of 5 and 11.

The increase comes as in-person school schedules have been dramatically reduced to stem the spread of COVID-19, limiting children's interactions with peers and teachers. In addition, sports and extracurricular activities have been limited or canceled — conditions that could isolate children at home and causing anxiety, depression, lack of sleep and bad eating habits.”

My district is now completely online until after Christmas. 
 

 

 

 

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Our stake (in davis county) started doing everything on the list last week, so not much has changed for us.  It does seem a little weird that when Utah had a few dozen cases church stopped completely and now with thousands of cases we are going allowed to attend with greater numbers than previously allowed when the lockdown lifted.  Is this because there has been little spread at church?

I wondered the same thing about church.  I was expecting them to lower church attendance but that didn’t happen.   I think now that it is being streamed, very few wards are even close to reaching max capacity.  Where there is no singing, transmission is much lower at church than in social gatherings, that is why we are seeing restrictions on youth activities etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Are you trying to derail this thread?

It was more about debunking the ridiculous nature of Covid conspiracy theories, than it was a comment about any politician.  These ideas are very popular and are damaging to our efforts of getting people to wear masks etc. and should be addressed.  I was just using humor to poke a whole in the theory.  I am happy to delete it if Calm feels it is overboard.  I can see how some might see it that way.

Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I saw this earlier, and honestly, this kind of stuff is part of the problem.  The CDC is constantly changing their tune on whether or not we should wear masks and why.  I don't blame them for not knowing everything but at the same time, it causes problems when they go from "no one needs to wear a mask" to "we should wear a mask for the other guy" and then land on "masks help us all."  

It makes it sound like they are just guessing (or at the very least were just guessing in the past) when they've talked about masks.  

Back in the day, when I was an emt for the fire department, we always wore masks and gloves when we responded to a medical call.

It wasn't to protect the patient.

  • Like 3
Link to post

When NY was flooded, medical staff from Utah went out to help.  We can certainly use their help now  

EDH:

Quote

KUTV reported that nurses from New York City are arriving in Utah to help as hospital staff there has been stretched to its limits

Link to post
12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Our stake (in davis county) started doing everything on the list last week, so not much has changed for us.  It does seem a little weird that when Utah had a few dozen cases church stopped completely and now with thousands of cases we are going allowed to attend with greater numbers than previously allowed when the lockdown lifted.  Is this because there has been little spread at church?

We stopped generally to give everyone time to come to grips with the pandemic. Why we are reopening the church at all in the US is beyond me. We have mitigated the fatality numbers to an extent with better treatment but that will not help in the near future if people are unable to get treatment because medical facilities are overloaded. I think we need another lockdown to slow the spread but I doubt it will happen.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We stopped generally to give everyone time to come to grips with the pandemic. Why we are reopening the church at all in the US is beyond me. We have mitigated the fatality numbers to an extent with better treatment but that will not help in the near future if people are unable to get treatment because medical facilities are overloaded. I think we need another lockdown to slow the spread but I doubt it will happen.

Can't step on religious freedom I guess. :(  OTOH, the schools staying open are deemed necessary, and my sister who is part owner in a venue, usually weddings, is staying open, restaurants as well. So I probably shouldn't have put the frown emoji in. 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Can't step on religious freedom I guess. :(  OTOH, the schools staying open are deemed necessary, and my sister who is part owner in a venue, usually weddings, is staying open, restaurants as well. So I probably shouldn't have put the frown emoji in. 

Religious freedom is not the issue for the Church specifically. We shut down in the US (and most of the world) before most of the mandates in the US (and overseas there were earlier shutdowns in other areas) and we have stayed within them ever since (excepting possibly a few rogue local leaders).

The Church is rightly concerned with religious freedom but have not made any noise about shutting down due to concerns for public health being a religious freedom violation. In the US the social contract is so frayed that no one trusts anyone anymore. Even in other nations with more robust social contracts the fatigue of this situation is wearing away at safety concerns.

 

Link to post
10 hours ago, Danzo said:

Back in the day, when I was an emt for the fire department, we always wore masks and gloves when we responded to a medical call.

It wasn't to protect the patient.

This is a good point and one of the reasons that people are struggling to place any faith in the guidance of the CDC.  They keep saying things that just don't quite make sense, and then they have to change their tune when it becomes clear that it didn't make sense for a reason. 

They are working with what they have so I don't blame them, but the consequences are still there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I saw this earlier, and honestly, this kind of stuff is part of the problem.  The CDC is constantly changing their tune on whether or not we should wear masks and why.  I don't blame them for not knowing everything but at the same time, it causes problems when they go from "no one needs to wear a mask" to "we should wear a mask for the other guy" and then land on "masks help us all."  

It makes it sound like they are just guessing (or at the very least were just guessing in the past) when they've talked about masks.  

I understand why people may feel confused by this, but there are simple explanations.  The CDC has always known that masks work.  Just look at the history of medical workers wearing PPE as recommended by the CDC.  When the CDC initially recommended that the public not wear masks, it was because transmission levels were still low in the US and relative risk to the public was extremely low.  Despite this, people were hording masks in fear.  The CDC responded with the initial recommendation to protect the front-line workers who needed them the most.  It was the Surgeon General (not the CDC) who made the most misleading comment. He was right for saying that they are needed for the front-line workers, he was wrong for suggesting they don't work.   He clearly knew that they work, or they wouldn't be needed to protect the front line workers.   As information emerged about asymptomatic transmission and as the virus rapidly spread, the CDC rightfully suggested that they are needed to protect others because we can't know if we are transmitting it.

The CDC understood that simple fabric masks or surgical masks would prevent the spread of larger droplets.  It is still true that masks are most effective for the sick person to wear it to reduce transmission in the environment and on surfaces (which others could touch and then touch their eyes, or, nose, or mouth), then it is for personal protection.  Masks are better at preventing for that reason, than protecting.   We knew that as far as large droplets go, masks are more effective at protecting others.  We didn't even understand how this virus was being primarily transmitted, if it was airborne, if it was primarily transmitted through the respiratory tract, or if it was mostly through touch, etc.     We also knew that medical grade N95's would protect the wearer from smaller particles.  But we didn't know how effective fabric masks would protect the wearer from those smaller particles.  We didn't know if those smaller particles were even transmitting the disease.  We didn't know what kind of viral load was needed for infection.  There was a lot we didn't know about the level of protection from non-N95 masks.  What we did know is that regardless of how it is transmitted, masks are most effective when worn by the sick person.  As evidence has emerged, we have learned more about transmission route, viral load, effectiveness of non-N95's against smaller particles, etc. 

I understand that people have a hard time with change, and I understand that messaging was less than ideal, but I don't understand why people are still talking about masks.  Masks have been recommended by the CDC since April 3.  The CDC has never suggested or implied that masks don't work to reduce transmission.  Very little has actually changed in recommendations.  They weren't recommended when transmission was low and people were hording them, they were recommended when transmission increased, asymptomatic transmission was better understood, and cloth masks could be used to protect medical grade supply for medical workers.

Edited by pogi
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I understand that people have a hard time with change, and I understand that messaging was less than ideal, but I don't understand why people are still talking about masks.  Masks have been recommended by the CDC since April 3.  The CDC have never suggested or implied that masks don't work to reduce transmission.  Very little has actually changed in recommendations.  They weren't recommended when transmission was low and people were hording them, they were recommended when transmission increased, asymptomatic transmission was better understood, and cloth masks could be used to protect medical grade supply for medical workers.

Part of it, I think, is because the CDC and surgeon general poisoned the well a little bit, unintentionally of course, but it still happened.  Like you said, they wanted people not to hoard masks, or to give them a 'hero' mentality for wearing them to save others, so they chose courses of action to to produce those results, but the way they chose to bring about their desired results produced some negative consequences they are still dealing with.   

And then I think there are just people who don't like to wear masks because they are uncomfortable and so they hold tight to any reason they can find that gives them an out from wearing them, even if that reason is not actually reasonable or based on anything scientific.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Part of it, I think, is because the CDC and surgeon general poisoned the well a little bit, unintentionally of course, but it still happened.  Like you said, they wanted people not to hoard masks, or to give them a 'hero' mentality for wearing them to save others, so they chose courses of action to to produce those results, but the way they chose to bring about their desired results produced some negative consequences they are still dealing with.   

I don't know if I would say that the CDC poisoned the well as much as the surgeon general did.  The CDC never suggested that masks don't work to reduce transmission.  Their reason was primarily to preserve masks for front-line workers when people started hoarding them.  That seems reasonable to me and easy to understand. 

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And then I think there are just people who don't like to wear masks because they are uncomfortable and so they hold tight to any reason they can find that gives them an out from wearing them, even if that reason is not actually reasonable or based on anything scientific.  

I agree with this. I also think that politics and political media has played a HUGE role in the confusion.  I am tempted spell out how and why, but will resist. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a good point and one of the reasons that people are struggling to place any faith in the guidance of the CDC.  They keep saying things that just don't quite make sense, and then they have to change their tune when it becomes clear that it didn't make sense for a reason. 

They are working with what they have so I don't blame them, but the consequences are still there. 

That's the frustrating thing. At the beginning of Covid, if the CDC is so smart why didn't they just say make your own homemade masks, and leave the medical masks for the medical professionals. They really dropped the ball, and should have said use anything to make a barrier to the airborne droplets. 

And even after that they say wear the masks for your neighbor, where they should have made it strongly known to wear it for your protection just as much. Of course that evolved eventually. But there are a lot of people that might be more about themselves, and if they'd been told to do it to protect themselves I think that they might have been more proactive. 

Seems that it's good for everyone to go by their gut instincts. I had the gut instinct that we should wear them at the beginning, not saying I'm all smart but you'd think those at the top would have urged that. 

And those that don't want to wear one always come up with the excuse that we were told to not wear them. Sneaky people trying to make that tripe work.

I think in the future going forward it will be continuous like other countries to wear them when needed. I'm fine with that. I picture a lot of contagious sicknesses going down. 

Link to post

Masks and glasses are problematic. My glasses fog up .That tells me I am losing breath out the top and probably the sides of my mask, which is one of those accordian style masks. I find , however , if I pull the glasses lower down on my nose, they don't fog up. So what if I look like an old grandpa. That is what I am. ! 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...