|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 8, 2022 8:37:33 GMT -5
Well, it turns out those who’ve suddenly 😉 (after two years) come around to the notion that ‘Covid hospitalization’ stats may not actually be hospitalizations for Covid may be onto something : New statistics show that more than 40 percent of the state’s hospitalized coronavirus-infected patients were admitted for “non-COVID reasons” — with the ratio in New York City “about 50-50,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday.
He also said there was “thankfully, very little in the way of children being admitted, which we hope will continue” and said those cases were also divided “50 percent with COVID, 50 percent for COVID.” nypost.com/2022/01/07/many-nyc-patients-hospitalized-with-covid-admitted-for-other-reasons/amp/That's not quite right. But I suspect you know that. Pre Omicron, individuals were not being admitted to the hospital who were asymptomatic or had mild COVID symptoms, and then were treated for COVID. Those who were admitted for COVID were sufficiently ill that their condition required medical intervention and treatment in a hospital. Infection with the Omicron variant is generally not as debilitating as infection with Delta. And a significant majority of Americans have been vaccinated -- which is protective to varying degrees depending on how many shots -- against COVID. Because of this, many Americans who become infected with Omicron may be asymptomatic, or have a mild illness almost indistinguishable from a mild case of the flu. And some of these many COVID-protected Americans are arriving at the hospital for admission for a medical condition other than COVID, are tested as are all admitted patients, and found to be currently infected with COVID. Having COVID is not why they were admitted to the hospital. But until very recently, these individuals were coded as COVID patients. This erroneous coding does not go back two years, but only to recent weeks with the emergence of Omicron.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 8, 2022 8:44:08 GMT -5
Well, it turns out those who’ve suddenly 😉 (after two years) come around to the notion that ‘Covid hospitalization’ stats may not actually be hospitalizations for Covid may be onto something : New statistics show that more than 40 percent of the state’s hospitalized coronavirus-infected patients were admitted for “non-COVID reasons” — with the ratio in New York City “about 50-50,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday.
He also said there was “thankfully, very little in the way of children being admitted, which we hope will continue” and said those cases were also divided “50 percent with COVID, 50 percent for COVID.” nypost.com/2022/01/07/many-nyc-patients-hospitalized-with-covid-admitted-for-other-reasons/amp/That's not quite right. But I suspect you know that. Pre Omicron, individuals were not being admitted to the hospital who were asymptomatic or had mild COVID symptoms, and then were treated for COVID. Those who were admitted for COVID were sufficiently ill that their condition required medical intervention and treatment in a hospital. Infection with the Omicron variant is generally not as debilitating as infection with Delta. And a significant majority of Americans have been vaccinated -- which is protective to varying degrees depending on how many shots -- against COVID. Because of this, many Americans who become infected with Omicron may be asymptomatic, or have a mild illness almost indistinguishable from a mild case of the flu. And some of these many COVID-protected Americans are arriving at the hospital for admission for a medical condition other than COVID, are tested as are all admitted patients, and found to be currently infected with COVID. Having COVID is not why they were admitted to the hospital. But until very recently, these individuals were coded as COVID patients. This erroneous coding does not go back two years, but only to recent weeks with the emergence of Omicron. That’s a very complicated explanation for a rather commonsense (and long-suggested in some quarters) metric shift. I guess one should be grateful for all moves that ratchet down (however obliquely) Covid-alarmism. Any chance there will be a similarly commonsense (and long suggested in some quarters) metric shift regarding those dying from Covid v those dying with Covid?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 8, 2022 9:09:05 GMT -5
That's not quite right. But I suspect you know that. Pre Omicron, individuals were not being admitted to the hospital who were asymptomatic or had mild COVID symptoms, and then were treated for COVID. Those who were admitted for COVID were sufficiently ill that their condition required medical intervention and treatment in a hospital. Infection with the Omicron variant is generally not as debilitating as infection with Delta. And a significant majority of Americans have been vaccinated -- which is protective to varying degrees depending on how many shots -- against COVID. Because of this, many Americans who become infected with Omicron may be asymptomatic, or have a mild illness almost indistinguishable from a mild case of the flu. And some of these many COVID-protected Americans are arriving at the hospital for admission for a medical condition other than COVID, are tested as are all admitted patients, and found to be currently infected with COVID. Having COVID is not why they were admitted to the hospital. But until very recently, these individuals were coded as COVID patients. This erroneous coding does not go back two years, but only to recent weeks with the emergence of Omicron. That’s a very complicated explanation for a rather commonsense (and long-suggested in some quarters) metric shift. I guess one should be grateful for all moves that ratchet down (however obliquely) Covid-alarmism. Any chance there will be a similarly commonsense (and long suggested in some quarters) metric shift regarding those dying from Covid v those dying with Covid? That's more complicated, given that many COVID deaths occur in settings other than hospitals. Massachusetts classifies deaths as confirmed and probable. It counts only the confirmed as 'official' COVID death. I think probable means the deceased was not tested for COVID. The Massachusetts reporting form for deaths, IIRC, has check boxes for co-morbidities. I do not know, in the instance of an individual hospitalized with severe kidney failure and who also is / or becomes infected with COVID and dies, whether the primary cause of death would be classified as kidney failure, with COVID as a contributing cause of death. Strikes me as judgmental by the attending physician. Reminds me of my days trying to develop metrics for the lethality of carrier battle group weapons platforms.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jan 8, 2022 12:11:25 GMT -5
Pak, Thanks for your fact-based presentation. We owe you a lot for your ongoing informative comments.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 8, 2022 12:18:49 GMT -5
Pak, is it possible that hospitals may be attributing deaths to corona even if that wasn't the cause of death because that equates to additional federal funding? What do you think?
Dado may have a better understanding of this, given his medical background.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 8, 2022 13:49:46 GMT -5
Hospitals get more money for the number of people who die . . . . of Covid?! That'd be news to me. I might see the number of people who they care for who have Covid but certainly not how many who died. Otherwise, wouldn't there be an financial incentive for hospitals not to treat Covid patients, or go through the motions, and let them die?
I'm assuming this is pure speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 8, 2022 15:51:08 GMT -5
Pak, is it possible that hospitals may be attributing deaths to corona even if that wasn't the cause of death because that equates to additional federal funding? What do you think? Dado may have a better understanding of this, given his medical background. Link below is to a Sept 2021 article in the Washington Post about the evolving patchwork of who pays for COVID hospitalizations. www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/09/18/covid-hospital-bills-insurance-deductible/[/irl]Basically, from the article, if an individual is covered by: Medicare: the Federal government will pay for a portion of the cost, but one best have Medicare supplemental insurance if one wants to avoid being stuck with a big bill. Medicaid: the Federal government and states cover 100 percent of the costs Private insurance: Private insurers are increasingly re-introducing co-pays and deductibles, which can result in an individual getting stuck with a big bill. Marketplace insurance: See link below for coverage: www.healthcare.gov/coronavirus/Hospitals do not get 'additional funding' from the Federal government for patients hospitalized with COVID. The Federal government (and states) are picking up 100 percent of the costs for one cohort of Americans, those enrolled in Medicaid. Hospitals do not receive "additional funds" for Medicaid patients. _______________________ The Federal government does pay for the burial cost of an individual who dies of COVID. See: www.fema.gov/disaster/coronavirus/economic/funeral-assistance#eligibleand particularly see, www.fema.gov/disaster/coronavirus/economic/funeral-assistance/faq]/url]It is entirely possible that a person signing an official death certificate could falsely attribute COVID as the cause of death. However, given that a false declaration would be criminal felony fraud, I very much doubt that the issuance of false declarations is widespread. I will say, without reading the Federal regulations for this program, that its quite possible that the burial benefit can be awarded when COVID was a contributing cause of an individual's death, and not the primary cause.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 9, 2022 14:56:46 GMT -5
The NY Times calculated that one of every 100 Americans ages 65 and older has died of COVID. The COVID death rate for Americans 65 and under is one in 1,400. The 800,000 COVID-related deaths to date in the U.S., is an undercount. The number of deaths in the United States in September 2021, was 138 percent of the expected death count. (Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for these time-periods in 2020 or 2021 compared to the average number across the same time-period in 2017–2019.) In September 2021, total deaths in the United States were 304,400, of which 64,000 were recorded as COVID. The number of excess deaths in that month was about 115,000. This suggests that the reported U.S. COVID death toll to date is an undercount probably by at least several hundreds of thousands. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htmTotal deaths from COVID now exceed total deaths in the Civil War, and if excess deaths are factored in, COVID deaths now exceed total deaths in the Civil War and WWII, combined. It is important to note that as a percentage of the total population, the death rate from COVID is much lower than that of war-related deaths in the 19th and 20th Centuries. May be time to revisit this.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 10, 2022 9:06:16 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/07/us/covid-data-explained.htmlThe NY Times dives into data shortcomings. The data problems stem, in large measure, from public health being decentralized in the United States, which leads to ad hoc attempts at standardization and uniform reporting. IMO, this decentralized public health system hinders rather than helps a national response to a major pandemic. The Federal government has tried to paper over this decentralization by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at it, because after all, only it can legally print money.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 10, 2022 21:39:19 GMT -5
PP, you may be interested —
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2022 22:15:00 GMT -5
Most states make the distinction either died from covid or covid with pre existing conditions. son do you wear Q shirts all day & night.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jan 10, 2022 22:17:57 GMT -5
Sons of Vaval, the video you have shared shows two people who do not know what they are talking about, sharing their ignorance about a topic, while exposing their prejudice. Elon Musk is brilliant, but not about this.
I am someone who has had the responsibility of assigning the cause of death and signing death certificates throughout my career, for 40 years. I know something about how it is done, and how rigorously we are trained and monitored by independent medical staff and state and local public health departments.
Most people in our country carry multiple medical diagnoses while alive, so I hope you can you can understand that it is very common for multiple diagnoses to also exist at the time of death. The question that the death certificate is asking for the primary diagnosis is, "What diagnosis caused this persons death?" Said another way, "What diagnosis, if it was not present, would result in this person still being alive?". THAT is what the physician is asked to certify. Subsequent diagnoses are also listed, and can have the modifier of how they are related the to primary cause of death. For example, a person could die of pneumonia, due to COVID-19 infection, for example. Although pneumonia killed them, it was due to COVID-19.
There is no conspiracy to make COVID-19 look more deadly. It has nothing to do with how the hospital gets paid, who the president is, or the politics of anybody.
On another topic - COVID in the hospital.
Whether or not a person is in the hospital primarily because of COVID-19 or another cause, where COVID-19 was diagnosed subsequently, the hospital must devote special care to each one. Both must be isolated and treated according to infectious disease protocols, which involve intensive staff time and resources that are far in excess for what would otherwise be required for a person without COVID. From the hospital health system point of view, they all need to be counted as a way of documenting the disease burden, understanding staffing needs, quantifying the burden on the system and understanding why things are breaking down. In many ways, this is a distinction without a difference. If you become a person who needs emergent care but cannot be accommodated due to a hospital that is over run with COVID patients, you will be dealing with the effects of this problem.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 11, 2022 4:56:20 GMT -5
Just as the narrative theory on the Origen of Covid got a big second look, some of the statistics relative to Covid and some of the restrictions/mandates relative to Covid are now getting a big second look.
I think that’s a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 11, 2022 6:31:29 GMT -5
The response from the politicians and media regarding corona will do whatever they can do help POTUS’ pitiful numbers. Was it the HC loss or the money you lost on Bama that had you drinking on Monday night?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 11, 2022 7:20:38 GMT -5
The response from the politicians and media regarding corona will do whatever they can do help POTUS’ pitiful numbers. Was it the HC loss or the money you lost on Bama that had you drinking on Monday night? 1) I'm right. POTUS has acknowledged defeat. He wasn't able to contain the virus like he said he would. He's now turning matters over to individual states (something he should have done from the beginning) and doing damage control as the midterms approach. 2) The post you quoted was made on January 7th. Good attempt at a joke, though. 3) Sure seems that many of the things being said now such as cloth masks are useless, corona deaths are inflated, vaccines and boosters don't limit spreading of the virus, lockdowns are harmful to children, etc. -- which were all once considered conspiracy -- are now true. Funny.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jan 11, 2022 8:18:58 GMT -5
In the end, success in dealing with COVID depends on the willingness of enough people to get vaccinated. The jab is available to anyone who wants one. "He wasn't able to contain the virus like he said he would" is a funny sentence, I assume not written seriously.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 11, 2022 8:38:35 GMT -5
Was it the HC loss or the money you lost on Bama that had you drinking on Monday night? 1) I'm right. POTUS has acknowledged defeat. He wasn't able to contain the virus like he said he would. He's now turning matters over to individual states (something he should have done from the beginning) and doing damage control as the midterms approach. 2) The post you quoted was made on January 7th. Good attempt at a joke, though. 3) Sure seems that many of the things being said now such as cloth masks are useless, corona deaths are inflated, vaccines and boosters don't limit spreading of the virus, lockdowns are harmful to children, etc. -- which were all once considered conspiracy -- are now true. Funny. My bad on the date of your post. As to the rest of your drivel: 1. We have always known that hospital grade masks were better than cloth. 2. I'll stipulate that there have been overcounts as long as you stipulate that given that there are excess deaths nationally in a greater number than the official Covid death count. 3. No one ever said that kids weren't harmed by staying at home. It was a tradeoff which was especially important before vaccination. Teachers, kids and school staff live with people who needed to be protected from the virus. I don't see where Biden has admitted defeat. Instead, he has made it is his mission to convince Americans to get vaccinated. You are worried about conspiracy--go read Daddy's twitter.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 11, 2022 8:50:59 GMT -5
In the end, success in dealing with COVID depends on the willingness of enough people to get vaccinated. The jab is available to anyone who wants one. "He wasn't able to contain the virus like he said he would" is a funny sentence, I assume not written seriously. "Vaccinated", to nobody's surprise, is a (very) relative term. (And nobody really thinks the vaccines stop the infection and spread.) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now recommending that some people with compromised immune systems receive four shots, three primary doses and one booster. Israel has rolled out fourth Pfizer doses for people over the age of 60. Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold. www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/pfizer-ceo-says-two-covid-vaccine-doses-arent-enough-for-omicron.htmlOn a lighter note, Pfizer announced they should have a vaccine specifically for Covid Omicron in March of 2022. If it is another Covid vaccine that permits infection and spread but mitigates ICU and death amongst the vulnerable I'm not sure how many takers there'll be. I'm not even sure if colleges would go down the road of mandating this one. (I assume we all understand Biden's repeated campaign assertions about ending Covid weren't meant to be taken seriously. As far as I am concerned there is one leader who deserves real blame...and he is in China.)
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jan 11, 2022 9:04:32 GMT -5
Biden overestimated, perhaps naively, his ability to convince the American people to get vaccinated. I heard a Dr. from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital say a few days ago that the ICU is full and that every patient is an unvaccinated COVID patient. My next door neighbor, an ER Dr. at Hartford Hospital, tells me the hospital's COVID cases are 80%+ unvaccinated people. Yes, there are breakthrough cases. Maggie Haberman of the NYT tweeted that, although vaccinated and boosted, she got COVID and that it was like a bad flu (which is plenty bad enough in my book). Does anyone dispute that the vaccinations at the very least are likely to reduce hospitalization and death (and perhaps spread)? The booster provides more protection. But these aren't permanent vaccinations, and the protections wane over time.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 11, 2022 9:27:08 GMT -5
One of the problems, as I understand it, is the equating Omicron with Delta and Alpha.
Masks were helpful against the first two. Now, the only masks that help reduce transmission against Omicron are N-95/KN-95 masks and not cloth masks nor the single ply throw away masks most people use.
The vaccinations, most notably Moderna, were effective in preventing and transmitting Covid from the first 2 varieties - not absolute - but helpful. With Omicron, less so and more breakthrough cases but less severe and, as noted above, "less severe" is a relative term.
Unquestionably, the full spectrum of vaccinations that include boosters reduce the likelihood of hospitalizations and death.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 11, 2022 9:30:24 GMT -5
Biden overestimated, perhaps naively, his ability to convince the American people to get vaccinated. I heard a Dr. from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital say a few days ago that the ICU is full and that every patient is an unvaccinated COVID patient. My next door neighbor, an ER Dr. at Hartford Hospital, tells me the hospital's COVID cases are 80%+ unvaccinated people. Yes, there are breakthrough cases. Maggie Haberman of the NYT tweeted that, although vaccinated and boosted, she got COVID and that it was like a bad flu (which is plenty bad enough in my book). Does anyone dispute that the vaccinations at the very least are likely to reduce hospitalization and death (and perhaps spread)? The booster provides more protection. But these aren't permanent vaccinations, and the protections wane over time. 1. The millions (literally) of 'breakthrough' cases in the US kinda killed the argument regarding the vaccines and infection/spread. (The original argument for vax mandates was to stop the spread and protect the vulnerable from infection). (At this point distinguishing between past and present variants is OBE...overtaken by events) 2. The fully vaccinated vulnerable folks aren't generally dying or hitting the hospital ICU's. Two things (1 and 2) can be true at the same time. Ditching the vax mandates (given reality) and pivoting to vax availability/educating/persuading/treating the vulnerable is the obvious (and unifying) way forward.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 11, 2022 10:46:18 GMT -5
1. The number of recorded COVID-related deaths in the United States undercounts the number of deaths caused by COVID. Epidemiologists calculate excess mortality to help determine the number of deaths for which COIVID was a primary or contributing cause but not recorded as such. See a description here,: ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covidp/url]The Economist, a weekly magazine that editorially favors economic liberalism, -- which should not be equated with political liberalism -- and has a reputation for data journalism (defined as data-driven journalism, a journalistic process based on analyzing and filtering large data sets for the purpose of creating or elevating a news story) has created what many consider to be the best global model for calculating excess deaths related to COVID. This model has calculated that through January2, 2022, there have been 333.4 excess deaths due to COVID in the United. The measure is 333.4 deaths per 100,000. Taking the population of the United States as 330 million, the number of excess deaths is about 1,100,000. The 'true' death toll is at least 33 percent higher than the recorded death toll of 830,000+ ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?region=NorthAmerica&country=OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~BRA2. The origin of Omicron. There are two competing theories., The first is that an immuno-compromised individual was infected with a COVID-19 variant, possibly Alpha but not Delta, and this infected individual was continuously infected for 16-18 months. Continuous infection over a prolonged timeframe is critical for the virus to slowly mutate into what has become the Omicron variant, with nearly 50 mutations compared to Delta. The second is that a COVID-19 variant jumped from humans to an animal reservoir, mutated there, and then jumped back to humans as Omicron. I lean toward the second, mainly for one reason. If an immuno-compromised individual was the source, he/she should have shed intermediate variants of the mutating virus -- which has turned out to be extremely infectious -- over the many months he/she was infected, yet no intermediate variant has been uncovered. As for a possible animal reservoir, see: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34954396/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34954396/3.) The number of Americans at risk from a serious COVID-19 infection because of age or underlying health condition(s)41.4 million Americans under the age of 65 are at risk because of an underlying health condition/ 51.1 million Americans are age 65 or older, many of whom also have an underlying health condition(s) www.kff.org/report-section/state-covid-19-data-and-policy-actions-policy-actions/#stateleveldataWhat obligation does society have to reduce the risk of serious COVID disease or death in these 91 million Americans? And Dr. Wallensky did not say that 75% of those who have died of COVID had at least four co-morbidities, she said that 75% of the vaccinated who have subsequently died of COVID had at least four co-morbidities. A not small distinction. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htmI suppose if one's academics centered on doing literary analyses, e.g., interpreting Spencer's The Faerie Queen, one might have difficulty sufficiently comprehending a science-based narrative. 4.) As for An0maly, his real name is Albert J. Faleski, a white rap musician from Manville New Jersey who may be a high school drop-out, and I go to him for my science all the time.,
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 11, 2022 12:45:21 GMT -5
With respect to vaccinations, the goal was and continues to be to reduce symptomatic infection, serious illness, and possible death after exposure to the virus. After two shots of a mRNA vaccine, such as Pfizer and Moderna, the risk of symptomatic infection was cut by about 95 percent. The single shot J&J vaccine reduced symptomatic infection by about 72 percent, IIRC, but was comparably effective as Pfizer/ Moderna in reducing the risk of symptomatic infection progressing to severe illness / death. In time, the effectiveness of all three vaccines in protecting against symptomatic infection waned significantly, but these still maintained good protection against severe illness / death. Hence the boosters, to restore heightened protection against symptomatic disease.
No vaccine is protective against exposure. If one is exposed to Omicron, symptomatic infection occurs typically by day three. For the vaccinated, or for those with robust acquired immunity, the immune system begins kicking in once the virus' presence is recognized. Immune response is not coincident with exposure; it takes time, otherwise one would have an immune system running haywire. It is generally accepted that a person who is sufficiently vaccinated is at risk for transmitting the Omicron variant to others on or about day three after exposure, The risk drops substantially in the immediate days following, as the immune system suppresses and kills the virus. For those who are vaccinated and with symptomatic Omicron, the risk continues for as long as they are actively symptomatic.
The risk of an infected, unvaccinated person further transmitting the virus to others is much greater than the risk posed by a vaccinated person. These unvaccinated individuals, unless they have a robust immune response resulting from prior infection(s), can remain infectious for days longer. And the likelihood of their infection progressing to serious infection, with even greater and prolonged infectiousness, is significantly higher.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 12, 2022 17:55:11 GMT -5
Antigen tests are like the quick strep tests we and our kids took-a waste of time and money
Molecular PCR can get you results in about 90 minutes and all are way more accurate than antigen
Ranking Seven COVID-19 Antigen Tests by Ease of Use Megan Brooks; January 11, 2022 Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization. ECRI evaluated seven rapid COVID-19 antigen tests available for purchase online and in retail stores since December. None of the tests were rated as "excellent" in terms of usability and some had "noteworthy" usability concerns, the company said. If a test is hard to use, "chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result," Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told Medscape Medical News. To gauge usability, ECRI used the "industry-standard" system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use. More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex. TEST RATING SCORE (0 TO 100) On/Go (Intrivo) Very Good 82.9
CareStart (Access Bio) Very Good 80.8
Flowflex (ACON Labs) Very Good 79.5
QuickVue (Quidel) Good 75.6
BinaxNOW (Abbott) Good 73.3
InteliSwab (OraSure) Good 73.3
BD Veritor (Becton Dickinson) Okay (marginally acceptable) 51.8 ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly. "If you have a tremor from Parkinson's, for example, or anything which won't allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the number one concern we have," Schabacker said. "The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn't even have instructions — you have to download an app," he noted. Given demand and supply issues, Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available. These tests are a "hot commodity right now," he said. "If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex," he said.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 16, 2022 13:42:13 GMT -5
|
|