Cases rising or dropping by you?

[quandrea]

So you won’t believe medical professionals and scientists, but will be believe a lot of “my neighbor’s uncle told them?” Cool.

If you’re going to spout this nonsense, you might want to clean up your argument. First, retesting after a positive is no longer recommended, so that isn’t happening widespread. Second, frequent workplace testing being counted would help the numbers look better, not worse. It would lower percent positive overall. Third, the death certificates thing has been explained over and over again.That is NOT how it’s working.

I seriously thought we had moved past this kind of Facebook news months ago.

We haven’t moved past it. If anything, attitudes are getting worse.

 

[quandrea]

I disagree. The government should not mandate how you serve food or how loud you sing in your own home.

They are guidelines—good ones, rooted in science. I wish the government could mandate intelligent behaviour. Sadly, not possible.

I fail to see the big uproar. So we shouldn’t have a big holiday meal one year out of many. Who cares? Not the greatest sacrifice one could undergo.

You couldn’t pay me to gather around a Christmas table indoors with anyone other than the four people I live with right now. Not worth the risk, however small. Christmas will be there next year.

 

[piglet1979]

You couldn’t pay me to gather around a Christmas table indoors with anyone other than the four people I live with right now. Not worth the risk, however small. Christmas will be there next year.

This is where we are as well. We are debating on have my DH's grandmother over as she lives on her own but she is not being completely safe either. So not sure what we will do.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

They are guidelines—good ones, rooted in science. I wish the government could mandate intelligent behaviour. Sadly, not possible.

I fail to see the big uproar. So we shouldn’t have a big holiday meal one year out of many. Who cares? Not the greatest sacrifice one could undergo.

You couldn’t pay me to gather around a Christmas table indoors with anyone other than the four people I live with right now. Not worth the risk, however small. Christmas will be there next year.

It's where personal lives come into play.

Had this virus happened last year I would have tried anything to see my grandmother..because she passed away last year. On the other hand if this virus happened last year there's a good chance she would have passed away in her long-term care facility which has had cases and deaths from it.

So when you say who cares? Well some people do because realistically it may be the last time they see their family member. And I think it would behoove us all to keep in mind the sensitive nature of things

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is where we are as well. We are debating on have my DH's grandmother over as she lives on her own but she is not being completely safe either. So not sure what we will do.

We won't travel the 3 1/2 hours to see my husband's grandmother for the foreseeable future (normally we go anywhere between the week in-between Christmas and New Year's or sometime in January). She is staying away from most everyone and isn't going out really at all except for normal appointments. Right now she's still in good enough health for her age and prior health history. If she were like my grandmother was it would be a different viewpoint.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

In talking to some people that work in health care... and listening to some of my friends and neighbors on things that have happened to them or family member and their other friends...and just looking at the whole thing... kinda stepping back taking away all the fear mongering, and political jargon out.

I honestly... Don't believe anything that they - what the media reports or what is being reported - are saying about the numbers at all... I really don't think that anyone has any real idea on whats whats..

First - before you start throwing flames...
Yes I believe that Covid is real...and yes we should protect ourselves and our loved ones... No argument there...Safety for all is number one.

First off - the testing numbers are skewed...
In most hospitals, medical facilities - everyone is being tested weekly... so every-time they are tested, It is counted like it is a new test... not a retest for the same person, and part of medical protocol... Just counting as a new test like a new person is being tested...

In 2 different nursing home that one my niece and my old colleague work at another... both said the same thing, they test everyone, weekly... So at a 180 facility they are testing all the residents, and all the staff... so around 300+ test weekly which is 1200 a month, and that just one facility that show as new testing... not retesting... for medical protocol... Which is how it should be counted...

All first responders, EMS, Firemen, Police, As well as teachers, and all school employees... lots of them are being tested weekly as well, again they show all as new testing, not ongoing testing for the same person... for protection and medical protocol...

Second - If you are positive for Covid - after the 2 weeks you have to be tested again to make sure your not still positive, so again another retest... if you are still positive, then they report as its a new case... not a ongoing case for the same person... who has already been counted..

Third - they reported a whole small town along the coast, had more covid testing, and positive results than the people that they had in the town... how does that work... So if the town had 8,000 people and 10,000 were tested and all positive... That should raise some red flags for sure. when asked how they were going to fix it.. it would be look into... And several of the testing centers were showing 100 + percent positive which was the same number of testing that they had done... No way 100 percent day after day... again people were going back and being retested and again they are counted like new people being tested...

As well the death toll, is skewed... Of course many people have died from Covid... I'm not disputing this..

So a guy that my DH works with his mother passed away, several months ago... she was in hospice care at a hospice house, for lung cancer... As he is sifting through the bills, and paper work, and waiting on the death certificate... As well his mother had requested a autopsy, which he did at her request, for the American Cancer society.. The bills are showing that they tested her and were treating her for Covid 19, which he was unaware of, yet he was told of all other med's and treatments... as well the cause of death was Lung failure, due to Covid ... which is not what she died from... the Autopsy showed she died from lung cancer plain and simple and did not have Covid 19 or any other type of Covid strain... So he went to the facility, and demanded the records... The administrator said that anyone dying is presume to have covid 19 and is consider compromised, due to their age and or disease process...and most likely to have it... Which means that they can get more money with a Covid Diagnosis, added to everything else... and they never treated her with med's for covid, yet they were billing for it... he was told she was on oxygen... well of course she had lung cancer...

A very good friends mother died, and the death certificate stated heart failure due to Covid 19... Which is not true at all, the reason she died was because she was afraid to leave her apartment, when her pace maker need replacing... again it was presumed she had it... even though she was tested several times, by the visiting nurse, and was negative every-time... So she died because of the fear of Covid not because she physically had it.... Again the hospital and such gets more money for a Covid Diagnosis...

Another person that we are acquaintance with their Daughters boyfriend, was killed in a car crash... and the death certificate said that he died from Covid related problems... along with massive trauma, and internal bleeding... is what he actually died from, again no proof that he had or ever had Covid...

Then there is the other side of the coin...

How many people had it, and no symptoms, or just mild like a summer cold or a bad allergy day that went by and no-one thought any more of it...

Or the homeless, who knows how many of them have had it or passed it on, or passed away from it and nothing was every done to see the true cause of death...

A good friend of ours father passed away unexpectedly, he had sever allergies, he refused to go for testing, and no testing was done afterward to see if he had covid was the cause of death...

A girl that I know her whole family had it, with no symptoms at all...

So you can see why I wonder if we really know what the true numbers are?

They need to only report new testing... and not people returning to re-test or being retested for work, health care or Essential workers... and again if the people who are positive when they are re-tested should not be reported as a new case and should be reported as continuing care case...

Only true causes of death should be reported, and this tacking on Covid has to stop.... some type of penalty for false reporting should be put in place...

Then we will have better information all the way around... Which can help with resources, getting them to where they need to go in a timely manner and efficiently... and getting a a clearer picture of how the virus works, and why it effects the body this way and that way and even differently in some people... why some people it only effects them like a summer cold or no symptoms and in other's it can be fatal...In the long run, true reporting, and honest accounting... is the only way we are going to be able to have and create a clear picture to help with the vaccine...
Just my thought for what they are worth...

Some things.
1. No. They don't count second, third, or fourth or whatever positive tests from those that undergo multiple tests as new cases. Only the first test counts as a new case. The total of tests is kept as a separate figure but isn't used for new case figures. This one has been debunked time and time and time again since March.
2. Just because there are comorbidities, many of which covid actually contributes to or cause, does not mean it isn't a covid death. That one has been debunked for quite some time too.
3. Though not completely 100% spot on accurate right down to the single death, the counts of deaths are all fairly close and still quite accurate for our purposes. Further, there is another data set that is completely independent and generated by different individuals that we can use as a fact check on the direct counts. It is excess deaths. And when we check such, we see that our count, though not perfect, is at least fairly good but if anything, we have undercounted, not over counted. It also shows that a big chunk of the undercount came early and that we're getting better at the counting.
4. For now, we're going to have to count them up for Covid. We can't do statistical modeling yet like influenza where we count in just a few places and model how many we had. We have years worth of data on other diseases to do that. But we don't for Covid.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

It's where personal lives come into play.

Had this virus happened last year I would have tried anything to see my grandmother..because she passed away last year. On the other hand if this virus happened last year there's a good chance she would have passed away in her long-term care facility which has had cases and deaths from it.

So when you say who cares? Well some people do because realistically it may be the last time they see their family member. And I think it would behoove us all to keep in mind the sensitive nature of things

I agree with you in a sense. We aren’t promised tomorrow, so I do understand where you’re coming from. My FIL turns 90 next month and this has been really hard on all of us. So I do understand people wanting to see family and that doing their own household just isn’t the solution. But there is a way to do it safely (or safer) than many are planning on. And that these guidelines address. Doing a small gathering this way is much different than having the normal 50 people large family dinner. I don’t want to speak for the previous poster, so these are my thoughts - as much as I would love to see extended family, THIS year it isn’t worth putting my own family at risk to do so.

ETA: just saw your second post, so I think we’re on the same page

 

[amylevan]

They are guidelines—good ones, rooted in science. I wish the government could mandate intelligent behaviour. Sadly, not possible.

I fail to see the big uproar. So we shouldn’t have a big holiday meal one year out of many. Who cares? Not the greatest sacrifice one could undergo.

You couldn’t pay me to gather around a Christmas table indoors with anyone other than the four people I live with right now. Not worth the risk, however small. Christmas will be there next year.

Who cares? My dear friend who just found out her mother’s colon cancer has metastasized. This is likely their last holiday season with her. They have a large extended family and usually around 80 for Thanksgiving (that the mom usually hosts).

The holidays are an important part to a lot of families. My family is small and we are usually just 8 for holidays, so the guidelines don’t mean much to me. And God willing, there’s always next year. But there isn’t always next year for everyone. And it’s possible to see how they could feel.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I agree with you in a sense. We aren’t promised tomorrow, so I do understand where you’re coming from. My FIL turns 90 next month and this has been really hard on all of us. So I do understand people wanting to see family and that doing their own household just isn’t the solution. But there is a way to do it safely (or safer) than many are planning on. And that these guidelines address. Doing a small gathering this way is much different than having the normal 50 people large family dinner. I don’t want to speak for the previous poster, so these are my thoughts - as much as I would love to see extended family, THIS year it isn’t worth putting my own family at risk to do so.

ETA: just saw your second post, so I think we’re on the same page

We are on the same page

It's more the "who cares you'll have next year, it's just a day, etc" type talk. I was more saying people's personal lives come into play. Risk analysis-wise seeing my husband's grandmother=no, but risk analysis-wise seeing my grandmother=would have been worth it.

I think there's a balance when talking about such things because we should be imploring empathy, sympathy even whilst encouraging risk analysis and usage of precautions (which may include avoidance of gatherings as a general rule while allowance for variance in one's situation). I don't quite know what we'll be doing for the holidays which for us isn't about the number of people in a given dinner it's that there would be 3 of them (I'm more leaning towards 1 family but still working it out), but there's some consideration for IMO for how one discusses such a sensitive topic.

 

[quandrea]

Who cares? My dear friend who just found out her mother’s colon cancer has metastasized. This is likely their last holiday season with her. They have a large extended family and usually around 80 for Thanksgiving (that the mom usually hosts).

The holidays are an important part to a lot of families. My family is small and we are usually just 8 for holidays, so the guidelines don’t mean much to me. And God willing, there’s always next year. But there isn’t always next year for everyone. And it’s possible to see how they could feel.

I lack the sentimentality surrounding the holiday, I suppose. Lives are long, thank goodness, relationships are long. I don’t attach heaps of importance to one day.

The science doesn’t care that it’s Christmas. Gathering indoors during the pandemic carries risk that then translates into cases, hospitalizations and deaths. This is not a normal way. Perhaps I should have said who cares, but rather the virus does not care.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I lack the sentimentality surrounding the holiday, I suppose. Lives are long, thank goodness, relationships are long. I don’t attach heaps of importance to one day.

Growing up Thanksgiving and Christmas were the only days out of the year that my family all got together (unless for a wedding or a funeral which wasn't often at all). Your lack of sentimentality towards holidays speaks more towards your viewpoint but even so it's possible to be sensitive to the situation when discussing it

 

[RamblingMad]

I lack the sentimentality surrounding the holiday, I suppose. Lives are long, thank goodness, relationships are long. I don’t attach heaps of importance to one day.

The science doesn’t care that it’s Christmas. Gathering indoors during the pandemic carries risk that then translates into cases, hospitalizations and deaths. This is not a normal way. Perhaps I should have said who cares, but rather the virus does not care.

The virus doesn’t care. It doesn’t take a break for Santa. It sees it as an opportunity to spread.

 

[quandrea]

Growing up Thanksgiving and Christmas were the only days out of the year that my family all got together (unless for a wedding or a funeral which wasn't often at all). Your lack of sentimentality towards holidays speaks more towards your viewpoint but even so it's possible to be sensitive to the situation when discussing it

That sensitivity comes at a price. But make no mistake, that sentimentality and sensitivity will open the door to the virus. I’ve accepted this is the way things are right now, nothing I can do about it. I get on with things.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That sensitivity comes at a price. But make no mistake, that sentimentality and sensitivity will open the door to the virus. I’ve accepted this is the way things are right now, nothing I can do about it. I get on with things.

I said while discussing it.

Saying "I understand how someone who is in a delicate position with a family member who may not have much more life left may make a different choice than someone who is not in that same situation" is a lot different than saying "who cares".

Most of us aren't ignoring what the virus does (which I've been very vocal it does what it wants to do and doesn't care about this or that) but I can still be sensitive when talking with other people, recognizing that they may be in a different position than I am in where this year I have the ability, even while upsetting people, to say no to a family gathering. I would not have made that same decision last year and I would have been aware of the implications (and would have quarantine as much as I could afterwards, sought testing if possible, etc).

With all due respect you might want to be more tactful here for further discussions You can't control other people's decisions, you can control how you interact with people.

With that I'll move on from this particular discussion; please take no offense at me not answering you should you choose to response

 

[RamblingMad]

That sensitivity comes at a price. But make no mistake, that sentimentality and sensitivity will open the door to the virus. I’ve accepted this is the way things are right now, nothing I can do about it. I get on with things.

The virus doesn't have feelings.

 

[hsmamato2]

So if bad behavior gets a person sick whose responsibility is cleaning up the fallout?

Unless you say the outcome is on the individual alone, as in no pooled assets in medical insurance or gov support paid for by pooled taxes, to fix the individuals error in judgement, then I disagree.

If the cure is a pooled effort then prevention is a pooled decision, it's a social contract. Someone doesn't get to say me me me and then ask others to contribute to fixing him or her and take away resources from the larger group that is behaving in a mutually beneficial manner.

this is a useful point.

 

[piglet1979]

I think there's a balance when talking about such things because we should be imploring empathy, sympathy even whilst encouraging risk analysis and usage of precautions (which may include avoidance of gatherings as a general rule while allowance for variance in one's situation). I don't quite know what we'll be doing for the holidays which for us isn't about the number of people in a given dinner it's that there would be 3 of them (I'm more leaning towards 1 family but still working it out), but there's some consideration for IMO for how one discusses such a sensitive topic.

It is very much a balancing act. My grandfather passed away of heart failure at the end of August. I went to the funeral but was extremely nervous about it. DH did not go. For the holiday's my mom has at least canceled Thanksgiving. She is a teacher with kids in the schools so she is afraid she will infect us. She is going to make a meal for each of us. The meal that we don't make ourselves because others in the house won't eat it. I will make a turkey dinner here though.

For Christmas we are not sure what we will do. It will not be normal though. It might be just dropping off gifts and saying hi from afar. Though I am pretty sure that schools will be fully remote here shortly. So we will see what happens.

I am avoiding my dad's family as they are not following any guidelines at all. There is no social distancing and no one will wearing a mask. To them all of this is fake. So I will not take a chance with them.

 

[Farro]

I lack the sentimentality surrounding the holiday, I suppose. Lives are long, thank goodness, relationships are long. I don’t attach heaps of importance to one day.

The science doesn’t care that it’s Christmas. Gathering indoors during the pandemic carries risk that then translates into cases, hospitalizations and deaths. This is not a normal way. Perhaps I should have said who cares, but rather the virus does not care.

All I can say is we are facing probably our last Thanksgiving with my mom.

My parents will be spending Thanksgiving with the two of us, my brother and one of my sisters who both live alone. Everyone has agreed to quarantine the two weeks before the day. My other two sisters and their families will not be coming as they either participate in or are in contact with people who participate in higher risk behavior.

If my dad decides he doesn't want them to come, then that's okay too, we can cancel. But for now he and my mom want to, so that's what we are doing.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is very much a balancing act. My grandfather passed away of heart failure at the end of August. I went to the funeral but was extremely nervous about it. DH did not go. For the holiday's my mom has at least canceled Thanksgiving. She is a teacher with kids in the schools so she is afraid she will infect us. She is going to make a meal for each of us. The meal that we don't make ourselves because others in the house won't eat it. I will make a turkey dinner here though.

For Christmas we are not sure what we will do. It will not be normal though. It might be just dropping off gifts and saying hi from afar. Though I am pretty sure that schools will be fully remote here shortly. So we will see what happens.

I am avoiding my dad's family as they are not following any guidelines at all. There is no social distancing and no one will wearing a mask. To them all of this is fake. So I will not take a chance with them.

I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather

That's so nice of your mom though to make meal for y'all.

It's just my husband and I (and our kitty of course) so we don't really do these things by ourselves. We don't really have Thanksgiving or Christmas for just us two. I do know about avoiding family members. I did that a lot with one of the sister-in-laws and still largely do that with her now, she's gotten a bit better than early on in the pandemic when she was hopping from place to place in the state to escape a stay at home order (when a stay at home order would just inevitably happen where she was staying at).

We're at square one right now with decisions. I can skip my family without angst, it's my in-laws (both) that are a different story. Your dropping off gifts with a hi and bye socially distance option is an idea I may put forth for my father-in-law for Christmas.

 

[Pyotr]

They are guidelines—good ones, rooted in science. I wish the government could mandate intelligent behaviour. Sadly, not possible.

I fail to see the big uproar. So we shouldn’t have a big holiday meal one year out of many. Who cares? Not the greatest sacrifice one could undergo.

You couldn’t pay me to gather around a Christmas table indoors with anyone other than the four people I live with right now. Not worth the risk, however small. Christmas will be there next year.

But it's not rooted in science. It's rooted in fear and control. You mean to tell me that if the gathering lasts two hours and one minute everyone suddenly gets Covid? Or if someone sings louder than speaking voice?

Christmas won't be there for many people next year. Tomorrow is not guaranteed.