Search the Blog
Latest Comments
It's getting interesting.
It's been a non-sunny, rather drab day outside as well. Not bad, but also not really good. We're going to do a little round on the bike now, to keep our sanity and our health up, something we've found is utterly important in these times. These times, which are about to become interesting, or even more interesting, again. Here in Germany, hairdressers have opened since about the first of March, and as of today, if the numbers are "low" enough and "stable" enough, other shops are also allowed to open. I can't actually tell you the exact rules for what is allowed to open where and under what circumstances - but I can tell you that all the openings are allowed for incidence numbers way above the fabled 35.
Germany measures things in cases per 100.000 inhabitants in the last 7 days, and 35 was decreed as the first threshold, after which measures should be taken. That was a long, long while ago, back when the first wave had ebbed off. Back then, some of the scientists already said that it would be a rather high number for that first threshold, and that 20 would be way better. Now, as it is quite certain that we won't reach 35 - or in some cases even 50! - without a real, proper shutdown, there has been a change of heart, or of whatever, and now things are suddenly possible and no problem in the range of 50, or up to 100. The reason given is that "we have quicktests now! we can test! We can use a test strategy to make openings possible!" Well, if that strategy is about as good and solid as the vaccination strategy hereabouts...
So. We're opening things, and are taking back measures for curbing the spread of the virus, at a point in time when our numbers are not falling anymore, but already rising again. Slowly yet, but rising - this is almost exactly what happened back in autumn and before Christmas. On top of this, the more aggressive variants of the virus are definitely on the rise here, according to virus DNA tests... so my pessimistic self is just waiting for numbers to explode again, and for the next "lockdown" to happen, again way too late and way too lax to get things under control for a good while, and another Easter without friends and family.
Sigh. I would really like to go bouldering again, and sit in a café outside, and meet with friends... but the way it looks here right now? That's not going to happen anytime soon.
Oh, yes, and I do know that today's International Women's Day... but I'm not going to rant about that, too. Feel free to help out with that in the comments, though, if you feel like it!
Comments 4
When it started to be stated that increasing covid tests alone prevented covid, a good comparison made was that increasing pregnancy tests didn't decrease the number of pregnancies. It then had to be pointed out that decreasing the number of tests didn't decrease the number either - the number might look much lower to begin with but there would still be a surprising number of unaccountably large people in a few months time and a whole load of new people that appeared from nowhere shortly after that.
(I get that knowing someone has covid means they can isolate, thereby lowering numbers, but by that time without any other prevention they've given it to countless others).
Not exactly the same, as pregnancy is (observation notwithstanding) not catching. (As you say.)
But to get the infected into quarantine before they have used their full spreading potential (say, one or two days after infection instead of four to ten), one would have to test every day each person is meeting more than, say, one other person (logistically easiest: test at home, get a "clean for $DATE" receipt, and provide it when going to any public place. Yeah, sure.) and ideally one would *also* trace back to the spreading event and forward to contacts.
The first I simply do not see happening, when even school kids and teachers are planned to be tested once or twice a week (once they have figured out the logistics, and, sorry, but WTF?) -- and those are the people who, with crowded pubs and live venues closed, seem to me the ones making up the "most people longest time closest together least prevention" situations routinely occuring. The second ... well, it seems everyone who has *some* clue about this says it can be done only at very low incidence. Which "50 to 100" isn't.
IMO this talk about "we'll stop spreading by testing" is valium for the people. Nothing to see here, things are being done, all fine, now go out and work in whatever conditions your company considers most suitable to its bottom line, and don't forget to spend all that nice money you make...
*headdesks*
A friend has her "home" tests twice a week in her work's car park by a separate organisation. That's how reliable home testing is if it asks people who can't afford to miss work days to test in private and report the results, then relies on their managers accepting the results. Thankfully the friend has a good employer but I know many others who aren't as fortunate and who are home testing on their own.