I've been thinking since I read the cruise ship article that the problems we're seeing are all related to the way we're sampling. If we base all of our numbers on talking with ICU staff, who only see the most critical patients, we're not going to see the big picture.
Something he doesn't address but figures in is the way we keep hearing "it stays infectious on surfaces for three weeks." That seems to contradict the CDC saying the chances of getting it from someone aren't above 10% (I think - from memory) unless you're confined with them. If it was infectious on some surface for 3 weeks, I think there'd be many more cases than there are.
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.
Posts
Very interesting paper!
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking since I read the cruise ship article that the problems we're seeing are all related to the way we're sampling. If we base all of our numbers on talking with ICU staff, who only see the most critical patients, we're not going to see the big picture.
Something he doesn't address but figures in is the way we keep hearing "it stays infectious on surfaces for three weeks." That seems to contradict the CDC saying the chances of getting it from someone aren't above 10% (I think - from memory) unless you're confined with them. If it was infectious on some surface for 3 weeks, I think there'd be many more cases than there are.