This guy is a definite initial false negative. It technically wasn't an initial rule out, it was a confirmation test, that's why the doc immediately ordered second test. Since my initial post there's been a lot of policy activity at the facility. A lot of staff exposure occurred.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 4:56 PM Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > Keep in mind that that could be a false positive as well there are a lot > of both false negatives and false positives on the test. Unless they > perform several more tests you will never know for sure. > > > On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > So, the wife has a good probability of infection. She works at a > hospital as PCT (used to be CNA before PC). Patient came in with high > likelihood of COVID, Isolation protocols were put in place, initial test > came back negative, they pulled precautions. Still using basic surgical > masks and gloves (says right on box that it doesnt stop COVID-19). Patient > is on assistive ventilation, aerosolized secretions. > > Doctor snaps and orders new test, of course it comes back positive. > > So now multiple staff are exposed, the bad kind with aerosolized > secretions, thats the healthcare exposure they warn about. > > Of course today the hospital changes policy to mandatory eye protection > (bit late knuckleheads) > > inept > > > > I could co on about how pissed I am about this, and the fact that theyre > not offering testing to exposed employees, and that the WHO recommendation > is healthcare staff continue coming into work until they show symptoms, and > the fact that staff wear the same mask for 12 hours and are scolded if they > want to change them even though mask production is sufficient to support > anything that comes at healthcare now. but thats a whole other rant. > > > > Moving forward we are treating the household as probably infected. Sons > baptism sunday is postponed. But trying to figure timelines and how to > handle exposure risks at my job. Trying to read up on all the current > politically motivated data is a joke. Best I can tell is transmissibility > minimum is 3 days, based on the newest harvard study. So assuming wife did > get it, we have 3 days from initial exposure for her to infect me and 3 > days after that that in transmissible, so working on a minimum 6 day > window until I have to shut down contact. > > > > I already notified everybody that If I come in for anything (primarily > working remote anyway) that ill be masked and gloved (lol, cloth masks from > her insurance provider) and wont be within 6 feet of anybody. > > > > After the 6 days until she is cleared, I wont be making in person > contact with anyone. If I enter the office, masked and gloved, sanitize > everything as i come out. We already have staff separation, with different > entrances for everyone. No one inside at the same time as me, ill try to > limit in office to after hours. Any equipment I touch will be masked and > gloved, will be placed in out non air conditioned garage (gets hot) for 24 > hours before any other staff touches it and will be sanitized. > > > > My site work (assuming no positive tests or symptoms in my house) will > be limited to me only and exterior work only, unmanned locations only, If > any at risk climbing is required of me, a second ground 911 man present, in > vehicle only. I I have to supervise any work, It will be from an isolated > location. Any site area I am in is not to be entered for 24 hours. > > > > Any symptoms or positive tests in my house and we go on full quarantine. > > > > Ive made it abundantly clear that I think this whole thing is blown out > of proportion, the masks are nothing more than something to make people > feel like theyre doing something, even though theyre really not effective > and come fall theyll be massive bacterial breeding grounds. But there is > due diligence, and I think this plan of attack is pretty reasonable. It > mitigates any risk while allowing us to maintain productivity (assuming no > symptoms or positive tests). It feels like its something with minimal major > company impact and id easy to replicate given that my spouse works in > healthcare and this likely wont be the last high risk exposure. But I still > am not matt hoppes level. > > > > At this time, I havent had any "exposure" but there is a probable > looming exposure. I'm personally relieved that its probably in my house > now, and we have time to prepare for the inevitable. Im high risk because > of COPD, so theres that, but Ive already made right with that. Id rather > just get it over with, I had planned to get exposed a while back to get > past it but got that plan taken out from under me. > > > > We may "luck out" and this exposure was a near miss, but if > transmissibility is anywhere near what the politics say it is, this ones > all but certain. > > > > I think the 6 day window is a logical one to increase precautions until > we are past it. I think the non contact addresses any risk to coworkers. I > think the timeframe between shared surface/inventory contact is reasonable > and "science based". and after 14 days from the last exposure (she was > exposed over two consecutive 12 hour shifts) is a good window for increased > precautions to be in play, with a review and swap test at the drive through > site nearby. > > > > anybody but matt have any thoughts on this plan. I really think its more > than what is actually needed, but meets the abundance of caution threshold > > -- > > AF mailing list > > AF@af.afmug.com > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
