Coronavirus

[arcturus]

You can make your own mask: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html . I wore my "bandana face covering (no sew method)" to the grocery store this morning. My state does not have a mandatory mask regulation in place, but most people at the store had a mask of some type or another.

[Parasaurolophus]

I have a mask, but the elastic toggles are too short for my giant face so it pulls uncomfortably at my ears (and eventually comes off). I'm currently (as I type) attempting to create toggle extensions with string, but I suspect it's hopeless and I'll have to do some sewing. If I can source longer toggle material.

Update: snot bad, actually.

[Penna]

If anyone is looking to buy mask holder extensions, I found a place that sells them for $3 each:

https://www.keffalasdesigns.com/collections/social-distancing/products/elastic-mask-clip-extender

For those of us who don't have a sewing machine or any hand-sewing skills, the same site also sells 3-layer cloth masks (outer layers of cotton, with a flannel inner layer) for $5 each.  The seem able to keep up with their orders pretty well, too.  I have placed three separate orders from them in the last month, and each order has arrived in less than 2 weeks from the time of placing the order.

[spork]

Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.

[Caracal]

Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.

Not sure, I understand. There's no reason to get tested unless you have symptoms and you probably wouldn't be given a test anyway. The antibody tests are a different thing. At the moment, they are just being used to try to figure out how many people have been infected. It isn't something you could request or get in most circumstances.

[spork]

I guess you don't live in Chico. Or Jacksonville. Or Ames. Or any of the multitudes of other locations in the USA where antibody testing is available.

[sprout]

I guess you don't live in Chico. Or Jacksonville. Or Ames. Or any of the multitudes of other locations in the USA where antibody testing is available.

Or you could join the NIH study:  NIH begins study to quantify undetected cases of coronavirus infection

[Hegemony]

I have read that all the available antibody tests are very faulty, and give both false positive and false negatives. And since we don't know what kind of immunity is conferred by having had the virus, it's not really clear how infection-proof a recovered person is. It sounds as if there's a possibility that people who had a low-level infection are not very immune. I am wondering if a bout of something I had was a low-level Covid infection, but I'm going to wait until they have more reliable antibody tests before attempting to get tested.

(Incidentally I did volunteer for that NIH study, but never heard anything back.)

[bacardiandlime]

I have read that all the available antibody tests are very faulty, and give both false positive and false negatives.

This is what I'm concerned about. I was seeing some where the margin of error was pretty close to the % they were classing as having had the disease.

[clean]

Which antibody test would you take?  My understanding of the news about them is that there are many of them, but they are not well tested themselves and some that have been tested have a very high error rate. 

A man with one watch knows what time it is, but a man with 2 is never sure.  So do you really want to risk that you get a false positive and then end up getting it and risking your life? 

Im not going to take any of the tests until I think that I have been exposed. If the CDC specifies a list of verified tests for the antibodies, only then will I consider taking the test and only if proving that I did or did not have the antibodies.  (Like IF my employer wants me to risk my life on some half thought out plan whose primary goal is to 'protect the students', but exposes faculty to 100% of them*).

* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!

[marshwiggle]

* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!

And of course the ridiculous logical hole in the approach is that the people who are exposed to all of the students are then the vector for passing the virus between the two groups.

The only way to prevent people from spreading it is to protect them from getting it in the first place.

[Cheerful]

* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare and an extra heavy burden pedagogically. Do faculty have any say?

[secundem_artem]

Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.

From what you say, it does not appear you meet the approved criteria for testing.  But if you were tested, and it came back negative, it at least provides some data for better estimates of what the prevalence of COVID is.  In my state, about 15% of people tested (not sure the method) are given a positive result - and my state has not exactly been stellar in rolling out widespread testing.

[clean]

Sounds like a logistical nightmare and an extra heavy burden pedagogically. Do faculty have any say?

Faculty have any say?  Sure faculty are Free To Agree With the administration!  (otherwise, no, at least not once the decision is made and I dont think that faculty will have any voice in the Regent level decision making). 

The governor has moved to open the state.  The regents will do what it takes to maximize revenue, especially when facing the huge budget shortfall that the shutdown caused to sales tax revenues, and any drop in tuition revenue will add additional pain.  Once the regents speak the admincritters will salute smartly and steam roll any faculty dissent.  At least that is my expectation.

Personally, I have appointments with my primary care physician in June and also my specialist in June.  I will begin collecting letters that indicate that I am in the higher risk group and should be restricting my exposure to the virus until a shot is developed.  I will then process the appropriate ADA paperwork.

Ironically, the governor's statements have noted that though he is moving to reopen the state, those with higher risks should continue to stay home.  However, I dont think that this part of the governor's advice will keep the administration from taking actions to require all faculty to return to face to face classes.

However, no official plan has been announced just yet.  Whatever the Big State Schools do, we will likely follow suit.  In my deeply Republican state, I suspect that the Back To Work call will overwhelm any measure to protect faculty, unless parents are unwilling to pay tuition to send their youngins back into harms way (to a greater extent than their demand for lower tuition for online only classes).

[Caracal]

* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!

And of course the ridiculous logical hole in the approach is that the people who are exposed to all of the students are then the vector for passing the virus between the two groups.

The only way to prevent people from spreading it is to protect them from getting it in the first place.

Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.