LogFAQs > #961911370

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Have you ordered your free at-home COVID tests?
adjl 01/20/22 9:06:49 AM #18:	BEERandWEED posted... People are making money from them. Do you think people aren't also making money from high Covid rates? That many of the politicians actively opposing masks and vaccines under the pretense that they benefit corporations selling such products don't have stock in companies that service ventilators and sell oxygen so they can directly profit from increased hospitalizations? People are going to make money off of Covid regardless of how it goes. To that end, you might as well ignore the money angle and focus on saving/improving lives. BEERandWEED posted... I have principles and stand against pointless spending. Principles with no basis in practicality are useless. Principles at the expense of practicality are stupid. Principles at the expense of literal lives are evil. Krazy_Kirby posted... which is ridiculous... why do they need to test twice a week? Generally speaking, if you're infected, you can expect to start testing positive (and therefore being infectious) about 2-3 days after exposure. By testing every 3-4 days, you ensure that the longest you can possibly go being infectious without knowing it is 4 days, which is a lot better than waiting a week for symptoms to show up. You can improve that even further by adjusting your testing schedule to reflect when an exposure might have been possible (e.g. if you went out on Sunday but didn't interact with anyone on Friday, Saturday, or Monday, the best day to test is Wednesday because Sunday was your only possible exposure) or testing right before going somewhere that might result in you infecting somebody. It's a matter of being proactive and identifying infectious cases as early as possible to limit the number of people they can infect. Obviously, if you're only leaving the house once a week, testing twice a week is kind of pointless (the best schedule would be to test right before leaving for that outing), but for those that are going out regularly, testing twice a week strikes a nice balance between early identification of positive tests and ensuring there are enough tests for everyone. SunWuKung420 posted... Taxpayer dollars being funneled pointlessly into the greedy hands of profiteers and Americans are unsurprisingly ok with it. Remember kids: Being proactive for the sake of limiting the impact of the greatest public health crisis in a century is "pointless." --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:961911370] in Have you o... [t:79860969]...</cite> <quote>BEERandWEED posted... </cite> <quote>People are making money from them.</quote> Do you think people aren't also making money from high Covid rates? That many of the politicians actively opposing masks and vaccines under the pretense that they benefit corporations selling such products don't have stock in companies that service ventilators and sell oxygen so they can directly profit from increased hospitalizations? People are going to make money off of Covid regardless of how it goes. To that end, you might as well ignore the money angle and focus on saving/improving lives. BEERandWEED posted... </cite> <quote>I have principles and stand against pointless spending.</quote> Principles with no basis in practicality are useless. Principles at the expense of practicality are stupid. Principles at the expense of literal lives are evil. Krazy_Kirby posted... </cite> <quote>which is ridiculous... why do they need to test twice a week?</quote> Generally speaking, if you're infected, you can expect to start testing positive (and therefore being infectious) about 2-3 days after exposure. By testing every 3-4 days, you ensure that the longest you can possibly go being infectious without knowing it is 4 days, which is a lot better than waiting a week for symptoms to show up. You can improve that even further by adjusting your testing schedule to reflect when an exposure might have been possible (e.g. if you went out on Sunday but didn't interact with anyone on Friday, Saturday, or Monday, the best day to test is Wednesday because Sunday was your only possible exposure) or testing right before going somewhere that might result in you infecting somebody. It's a matter of being proactive and identifying infectious cases as early as possible to limit the number of people they can infect. Obviously, if you're only leaving the house once a week, testing twice a week is kind of pointless (the best schedule would be to test right before leaving for that outing), but for those that are going out regularly, testing twice a week strikes a nice balance between early identification of positive tests and ensuring there are enough tests for everyone. SunWuKung420 posted... </cite> <quote>Taxpayer dollars being funneled pointlessly into the greedy hands of profiteers and Americans are unsurprisingly ok with it.</quote> Remember kids: Being proactive for the sake of limiting the impact of the greatest public health crisis in a century is "pointless." --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1