The following comment inspired the blogmaster to expand the focus on data collection and discussion about the COVID 19 pandemic. Thanks to @Lyall@Amit

Blogmaster


David; re. your 4:41 am post;

You are correct but I have indeed considered that cohort of the population.

The reason that the US experts are beating the drum for testing, testing and more testing is to get a handle on what proportion of the general public has been compromised by the virus in any way and has left its signatures in body fluids including blood in the population. The virus is shed from the infected body as the disease is brought under control. When it is controlled it has been found that it takes around 7 days for all particles to be shed from the body. Infected persons are released back into the community when they test negative twice over a period of 2 days.

Barbados, like all of our island neighbours, did or does not have access to large numbers of tests and had to use what we had very sparingly. Thus, the only measure that we had for gauging the incidence of the virus in the population (and a very imperfect one, at that) might be by comparing the evidence of infection levels hinted at by a comparison of the graphs of the progress of the various Covid-19 outbreaks in our Islands.

Most of the world was in the same position as the Caribbean and used the data obtained by the minimal testing of infected people and their contacts and their contacts to produce the graphs we see on such sites as WHO and Worldometer etc. All these graphs give an imperfect picture and significant underestimation of infection levels in the county or country in which the tests are carried out, but, since they are carried out in the same way in each country they might provide some rationale for guesstimating the comparative levels of the infection in various groups of countries.

The data shows that, starting out at essentially the same levels, there was some divergence in relation to the rate of infection and therefore progress of the various outbreaks in various countries. The graphs for Barbados showed low and declining levels of infection from the beginning, peaking at the level of 13 positive cases per day and thereafter showing a slowly declining trend. The individuals who would have contributed to the declining trend would have been primarily from the contact testing but should also have included other individuals referred by Health professionals or who presented themselves to Government institutions because of concern that their symptoms might point to untimely death due to the dread Covid-19.

Amit, in an earlier post on this blog, reported on his initiative of graphing Covid-19 incidence over weekly periods throughout the epidemic, in several Caribbean Islands. If David thinks it is appropriate and Amit agrees I can post a subset of graphs clipped from his data for 6 Caribbean territories which I think could illustrate some of what I have presented above.


Covid 19

There was 1 more positive case announced today as well as 1 death. A slight uptick of the daily cases line is indicated in the graph by the blue line. The total cumulative number of positive cases from the tests carried out yesterday is 76 – Llyall Small

COVID 19

Attached is the updated C-19 graph for 2020-04-23. There were no additional positive cases from yesterday’s tests and therefore cumulative positive cases remain at 76 – Lyall Small

covid10

covid12

Two new positive cases were identified from yesterday’s tests. There are now 5 cases of contacts with a previously identified individual. The 5 cases are workers from a Government Institution. Tests are ongoing today (25 April 2020)Lyall Small

Covid11

Updated graph for 26 April 2020. No new +ve cases were found. Cumulative count is still 79 – Lyall Small

covid13

There was one additional +ve case identified today (27 April 2020) from the last tranche of NAB workers moving the cumulative total cases to 80. The graph is still essentially trending downwards – Lyallsmall

Covid-Cumulative 1
Graphing Covid-19 incidence in several Caribbean Islands – Source data: caribbeansignal.com

3,454 responses to “COVID 19 UPDATES”


  1. https://barbadostoday.bb/2020/08/14/us-travel-advisory-not-meant-to-penalise-barbados/

    That’s not pee your leg, it’s raining.
    Pollution is why it is yellow.


  2. BBCovid15082020Carcovid15082020

    See the two COVID 19 graphs for the week ending August 14th. Jamaica, Guyana and T&T’s active cases graphs show indications of significant community spread. The data from Barbados and Grenada do not. However, the indications are that the testing and contract tracing teams will have to be very vigilant if we are to maintain that status both here and in Grenada – Lyall Small


  3. Regardless of your place on the political spectrum, one is forced to admit that the government is performing an excellent job in managing COVID-19.

    It is also obvious that one can close borders (Trinidad), but if the disease is already on the island additional measures are needed to fight community spread.

    Barbados appears to be getting it right on all fronts👍👍👍👍. Sadly, the unknown in this whole equation is the incoming tourist. Bad luck can wipe out the best planning.


  4. Two more people tested positive for COVID-19 yesterday after being tested a second time.

    The two, a 41-year-old female visitor and a 55-year-old Barbadian woman, arrived on a Virgin Atlantic flight on August 8. They are both asymptomatic.


  5. Interesting to observe Guyana, Trinidad and a few other countries in the region have had to pull back on covid protocols.

  6. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    As far as I am concerned, court is still in session on our COVID19 response. I think our success thus far might have slightly more to do with our luck rather than our skill.

    One area in need of definite improvement is our reporting of the active cases statistics in our official statistics graphic (https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/covid-19-update-two-new-cases-two-recoveries/). As we open up more, our active cases will continue to increase and due to our small population, will quickly have us looking like we are not in control.
    A more detailed breakdown on the origin of the active cases stats is required by
    – Port of Entry
    – While under Quarantine
    – Via Contact Tracing
    – Locally

  7. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @David August 16, 2020 8:40 AM
    “Interesting to observe Guyana, Trinidad and a few other countries in the region have had to pull back on covid protocols.”

    We are only delaying the inevitable as tt is only a matter of time before we are like them too. Our current strategy cannot be sustained long term. Unless we go the route of requiring all persons coming into the country that have not already had it go through a mandatory 2 week quarantine in designated facilities, we will get local transmission within the next 6 months by my guess.

    I don’t know what our early medical treatment intervention is (really hope it is not wait and see) but the only way to stay ahead of this thing is to publicize far and wide a simple procedure people can follow if they start to come down with the symptoms that does not include isolation at a government facility.


  8. Is the rapid test available in the quantities and cost to permit wide scale testing?

  9. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    I really don’t expect rapid tests to be available too soon because the profits are to be made in mass vaccinations and if rapid tests are widely available and as simple to administer as a home pregnancy test, we will be able to quickly stop transmission in a month or two tops.

    After watching this video and others on rapid tests that have been developed, some as far back as February, I realise we have the wrong idea by sticking to the very sensitive gold standard PCR Test as the one and only test we should be using. We have forgotten the primary goal with testing should be to identify if one’s viral load is high enough to be contagious so we can keep them at home, treat and monitor their progression.

  10. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    When this whole thing is over, our medical practitioners in the Caribbean and UWI have to focus on getting together to see after our own health and medical needs and engage in research for our own research and stop waiting and depending on the big drug companies and countries to do research.

    There is significant money to be made and benefits to be had for our people when we prioritize and research what we need for ourselves.


  11. What is the story about the Czar?


  12. If we cannot rapid test, how are we to manage the lag applied to those tested from low risk countries as an example to mitigate community spread?


  13. https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/247261/virus-recovery
    One new virus case, one recovery

    What happens to the other passengers and crew on the flight ?


  14. The number of confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) increased by one today with the arrival yesterday of an asymptomatic visitor aboard Caribbean Airways from Jamaica.


  15. @Hal Austin August 16, 2020 10:30 AM “What is the story about the Czar?”

    We all know where the czar works, Why don’t you call him?

    Very likely hiis home number is listed too. He doesn’t strike me as the sort of guy who would have an unlisted number.

    Let the renowned journalist call the czar.


  16. COVID19 deaths per 100,000 population:

    United Kingdom: 70.37 deaths per 100,000 population
    United States: 51.98
    Canada: 24.49
    Guyana: 2.95
    Barbados 2.44
    Antigua:3.2
    Trinidad: 0.79

    J


  17. “A visitor tested positive for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) after a second test for the viral illness yesterday.”

    https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/247292/virus-153


  18. Where is the Czar?


  19. Received in BU inbox:

    FINALLY SOME ENCOURAGING NEWS ON THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID 19

    A professor of a pharmacy at U of Toronto sent this clearly worded update to his family.

    For this pandemic there’s a greater chance of survival for those getting infected 3 months later, like June 2020, than those who got infected 3 months earlier, say February 2020. The reason for this is that Doctors and scientists know more about COVID-19 now than 3 months ago, and hence are able to treat patients better. I will list *5 important things* that we know now that we didn’t know in February 2020 for your understanding.

    1. COVID-19 was initially thought to cause deaths due to *pneumonia- a lung infection*- and so Ventilators were thought to be the best way to treat sick patients who couldn’t breathe. *Now we are realizing that the virus causes blood clots in the blood vessels of the lungs* and other parts of the body; and this causes the reduced oxygenation. Now we know that just providing oxygen by ventilators will not help, but we have to prevent and dissolve the micro clots in the lungs. This is why we are using drugs like *Aspirin and Heparin (blood thinners that prevent clotting) as protocol in treatment regimens in June 2020.

    2. Previously patients used to drop dead on the road, or even before reaching a hospital, due to reduced oxygen in their blood – OXYGEN SATURATION. This was because of *HAPPY HYPOXIA*- where even though the oxygen saturation was gradually reducing the COVID-19, patients did not have symptoms until it became critically less, like sometimes even 70%. **Normally we become breathless if oxygen saturation reduces below 90%. **This breathlessness is not triggered in Covid patients, and so we were getting the sick patients very late to the hospitals, in February 2020. Now, since knowing about happy hypoxia, we are monitoring oxygen saturation of all covid patients *with a simple home use pulse oximeter and getting them to hospital if their oxygen saturation drops to 93% or less*. This gives more time for doctors to correct the oxygen deficiency in the blood and a better survival chance in June 2020.

    3. We did not have drugs to fight the corona virus in February 2020. We were only treating the complications caused by it… hypoxia. Hence most patients became severely infected. “`**Now we have 2 important medicines: FAVIPIRAVIR & REMDESIVIR**“` These are ANTIVIRALS that can kill the corona virus.
    By using these two medicines we can prevent patients from becoming severely infected and therefore cure them BEFORE THEY GO TO HYPOXIA. This knowledge we have in JUNE 2020… not in February 2020.

    4. Many Covid-19 patients die not just because of the virus, but also due the patient’s own immune system responding In an exaggerated manner called *CYTOKINE STORM*.
    This stormy strong immune response not only kills the virus but also kills the patients.
    In February 2020, we didn’t know how to prevent it from happening. Now in June 2020, we know that *easily available medicines called Steroids,* that doctors around the world have been using for almost 80 years, *can be used to prevent the cytokine storm in some patients*.

    5. Now we also know that people with hypoxia became better just by making them lie down on their belly – known as prone position.
    Apart from this, a few days ago, Israeli scientists have discovered that a chemical known as Alpha Defensin, produced by the patients White blood cells, can cause the micro clots in blood vessels of the lungs; and this could possibly be prevented by a drug called Colchicine, used over many decades in the treatment of Gout. So now we know for sure that patients have a better chance at surviving the COVID-19 infection, in June 2020, than in February 2020, for sure. Going forward, there’s nothing to panic about Covid-19 – if we remember that a person who gets infected later, has a better chance at survival, than one who got infected early.
    Let’s continue to follow precautions, wear masks and practise social distancing.
    Please distribute this message, as we all need some positive news…


  20. “Barbados has recorded two more cases of COVID-19, out of the 205 tests conducted yesterday.

    There are a 37-year-old male visitor, who arrived on a British Airways flight on August 11, and tested positive after his second test, and a 25-year-old Barbadian male, who also arrived on a British Airways flight on August 18. Both males are asymptomatic.”


  21. A 27-year-old visitor, who arrived on British Airways on Thursday, was the only positive case of COVID-19 among the 304 tests done by the Best-dos Santos Public Health Laboratory.

    The British woman, who is asymptomatic, is now in isolation at Harrison Point, St Lucy.

  22. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    You forgot the intransit passenger yesterday.

    Will somebody tell me why we are testing in-transit passengers instead of letting them continue to their final destination and get tested there or is this test that country’s entry requirement before allowing that passenger to board the plane to reach their final destination?


  23. Would testing the intransit passenger be useful in the contact tracing exercise?

    >

  24. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    The person is in-transit so nothing to contact trace since we already have their flight information. All persons staying in Barbados must already either come with a negative test or get tested on entry or go into quarantine.

    If they test positive at the final destination, we can inform the persons that came on that flight but that would just be a extra precaution since those passengers would already have been screened.

    I don’t see why we are testing in-transits to expense ourselves for the costs of the test and subsequent isolation if they are positive alongwith artificially inflating our numbers.


  25. It is important because a negative passenger on the flight may have been exposed to the intransit passenger- thevirus needs a few days to ‘show’.

  26. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    I understand wanting to know but our protocol already covers that scenario without having to test the in-transit passenger.

    My concern is that testing of in-transit passengers is a lose-lose situation for us. It gives us extra cases we should not have to spend our taxpayer’s money on in the first place and will make our numbers look worse in the long run. This COVID fight is a marathon not a sprint and at the end of the day the only thing that will matter to our tourism-based economy is the statistics.

    They passengers should only be tested at their final destination and if they can’t board the plane to their final destination, we should require they have a negative test before being allowed to enter Barbados.


  27. How does our protocol cover ‘that’ scenario?

  28. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    My understanding of our protocol is we test on entry if they don’t come with a negative test and a follow-up test 7 days later.

    If the passenger is positive on entry with no prior test, it should be caught by the entry test. If they are unlucky to catch it on the plane from said in-transit or another passenger or be in the incubation period when they land here, it should be picked up by the 7-day follow-up test.

    A positive test from the in-transit passenger does not require any changes to how we are already treating the other passengers on the same flight so all we are doing is giving ourselves one more person to treat and add to our statistics.

    It may sound harsh but I don’t see the need to test anybody that is not staying in Barbados since that does not compromise our protocol and lets their final destination pay for their test and treatment.


  29. It depends on the risk category of the country where the passenger embarked. If it is a low risk country passengers are not subjected to the 7 day follow up covid 19 test?


  30. “It may sound harsh but I don’t see the need to test anybody that is not staying in Barbados since that does not compromise our protocol and lets their final destination pay for their test and treatment.”

    It is airborne. An in-transit infected patient could have passed it on to fellow passengers.

  31. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    By our own risk category, we would also not have tested the in-transit passenger from the low risk country unless their next destination forces us to test if they required a negative test before boarding the plane to that country.

    That reinforces my point, no testing of in-transit passengers. If the final destination requires a negative test before boarding the plane to their country, we should also require a negative test before that passenger boards the plane to our country. It does not benefit us to to be shielding the final destination. All passengers should be tested and receive treatment in either their source country or final destination country, not any countries in between.


  32. In a perfect scenario. The local authorities have a moral responsibility to test the intransit passenger who may have been affected by disembarking passenger or passengers.

    >

  33. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @TheOGazerts August 21, 2020 7:10 PM
    Someone who catches it on the plane is never going to test positive so quickly. It will take at least a few days at best for the virus to incubate and register which is why twe have the second test later.

    Knowing whether the in-transit person has it or not does not prevent from identifying who they pass it onto on the plane. All it does is give us one more person to treat. If the final destination does the test, we will still know but that is one less person we have to treat and the person will not be stuck in a possibly unfamiliar country.


  34. You are zeroing in on the smaller point.

    Knowing the person has it will allow us to quarantine those who could be considered as in close contact with him. We can then employ a protocol that minimizes the reduction of community spread. This is even more important than treating him.

    BTW, we identified a few cases that got off a plane.
    _——–xx——-

    The protocols put in place by the government has worked so far,; let us resist the urge to fix what is working.

  35. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    We must zero in on all these smaller points since each additional unnecessary case we have to deal with increases our risk and the first thing about managing risk is to avoid it in the first place if you can.

    Our mandatory 7 day quarantine/monitoring protocol for high/medium risk countries protects people already in Barbados but untested in-transit passengers pose an avoidable risk to other passengers on the flight.

    If the country a passenger is in-transit to requires a negative test before entering that country, we should also apply their rule and require that same passenger to have a negative test to enter our country. If they are not willing to take the risk for their passenger, why should we.

    In general, the only persons from high/medium risk countries we should really be accepting without a pre-flight test is our own residents. All other travelers should be required to have a negative test before getting on the plane. I would be extremely angry to know that I booked a vacation, went to all the trouble to ensure I was negative before I got on the plane only to risk a infection and or longer quarantine because the tourist next to me didn’t follow the same procedure.


  36. The prime minister stated the quality of our test kit is better than many countries. It is better to test.

  37. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    I just re-read the entire 13-page travel protocols (updated Aug 3rd) on https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/covid-19-protocols/ and realise there is already a requirement for in-transit passengers to come with a prior test for all risk classes. What now needs to be stated by the authorities is if this protocol (page 8) was breached, an exception was made or the person was unlucky and turned positive after their test or had a false negative.

    Since these travel protocols are our first and most important line of defense this 13-page needs to be tightened up and simplified as there are too many conditions to confuse passengers to follow. I propose they tighten the travel protocols document to one primary page with something like.

    Rules for Travel to Barbados
    1) To protect your fellow passengers and flight crew to the best of our ability, we require ALL persons present with a negative test before being allowed to board any flight to Barbados. Exemptions will only be allowed for people from the Bubble countries (countries with zero active cases) and on a case by case request basis.
    2) All arrivals will be subject to a mandatory test after 7 days on the island and additionally any of the following based on risk assessment at port of entry: a test on entry, 7-day quarantine or 7-day monitoring.
    3) If the mandatory 7-day test is negative, you will not be subject to any further quarantine, monitoring or restrictions for the remainder of your stay. However, if that test is positive, you will be immediately required to undergo isolation at a designated facility until you test negative and undergo the contact tracing process.

    Something like this will demonstrate to future tourists, we are serious about ensuring everyone’s safety in a simple and transparent manner.


  38. Passengers have been coming to Barbados without the required negative test document from first opening of the airport. There is a report in today’s Nation from the CMO entry protocol will be revised on avoid overwhelming the local system.


  39. CMO: Move to boost protocols
    By Barry Alleyne barryalleyne@nationnews.com
    Public health authorities will be reviewing the protocols for visitors.
    This, after a fifth visitor (three from Britain and two from the United States) tested positive for the COVID-19 virus this week.
    In an interview with the Saturday Sun yesterday, Acting Chief Medical Officer Dr Kenneth George said authorities were still satisfied the protocols were working, but that a review was needed so their system was not overwhelmed with coronavirus cases in the coming months.
    Yesterday, a 27-year-old visitor from the United Kingdom was sent into isolation after arriving on Thursday.
    “We are again looking at the protocols, and we have made some more changes which I’m not at liberty to speak to yet. We understand this situation poses a potential risk,” George said.
    “There is no population spread within Barbados and we continue to have a safety net and gatekeeping arrangement at the airport. However, we need to be moving towards having all persons come to Barbados with a test result for COVID-19. We have reached a stage where that should be strongly considered.”
    Earlier this week, the Barbados Hotel & Tourism Association (BHTA) argued that all airline passengers should arrive here with a test result.
    Need PCR test
    As the protocols stand now, people from high-risk countries such as the United States entering Barbados must have a PCR test result upon arrival and are subject to a one-week quarantine and a retest before being allowed into the community.
    Those arriving from medium-risk countries such as the United Kingdom must have a PCR test result conducted within 72 hours of arrival, while passengers from a special bubble within CARICOM region require a PCR test result done within a week.
    “If you have more passengers, about 60 per cent, who have come with a negative test, but you still have 20 to 30 per cent of them who either don’t have a test or one which is outside the required period, they are putting the rest of the persons on that aircraft in danger,” George said. “So, we are re-looking the protocols to strengthen them. This a dynamic issue with things changing all the time, and countries are also changing different categories with some moving more countries up to high-risk or down to medium. So we have to monitor that situation too.”
    Not a surprise
    He said public health authorities continued to work closely with their partners in the aviation and tourism sectors so the commercial airlines that come here do not “overwhelm our public health’s ability to respond”.
    George said the recent uptick in cases was not a surprise and showed the country was not ready to return to normality as it related to multiple flights arriving daily.
    “We knew that once we opened up our borders and are having flights from our key source markets, we were going to have cases coming to Barbados. If you have persons from the United Kingdom, which has cases going up, and if you have persons from the United States, whether it be Florida or New York, it was always a calculated risk.”
    He said Barbadians must remember they were in an active pandemic, and they should continue to wear masks in public, practise physical distancing whenever possible, stay away from negativity on social media and work along with the COVID-19 Monitoring Unit.

    Source: Nation News


  40. British woman with virus in isolation
    Barbados has placed another visitor with the coronavirus into isolation.
    The 27-year-old, who arrived on a British Airways flight on Thursday, was the only positive case of COVID-19 among the 304 tests done by the Best-dos Santos Public Health Laboratory.
    The British woman, who is asymptomatic, is now at Harrison Point, St Lucy.
    Discharged
    Meanwhile, one person was to be discharged from the isolation facility yesterday.
    Twenty-six people remain in isolation and 124 have recovered.
    Confirmed cases now stand at 157, comprising 82 females and 75 males. The laboratory has completed 15 332 tests.
    (BA/PR)


  41. “He said Barbadians must remember they were in an active pandemic, and they should continue to wear masks in public, practise physical distancing whenever possible, stay away from negativity on social media and work along with the COVID-19 Monitoring Unit.”

    I get his point… Here is the updated list:
    Social distancing
    Cover your nose and your mouth
    Washing hands and face when you come indoors
    Temperature checks (I don’t do this)
    Cover cough and sneezes

    🙁 Avoid negative social media 🙁 Stick to the core winning message. Don’t tweak it.

    And for those in authority
    Testing and
    Contact tracing

  42. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    As I have said before, we are mistaking luck for skill. There are too many holes and exceptions in the protocols that are not following the science and we have to decide if we are going to properly follow the latest science and not play politics and optics or play politics and optics. We can’t do both.

    Thankfully the lapses since that major lapse back in March have not had a major impact and we have been able to learn, adjust and recover.

    Granted, I think we are blowing this virus out of proportion and overreacting but since we decided on overreacting, at least, we should overreact and keep our risk as close to zero as we can possibly get.


  43. There will be holes given the nature of the pandemic. It is a moving target. It is not a binary issue to solve. So far so good.


  44. @Critical,
    You are making some good points.

    Allow me to share two sayings that are worth a second thought..
    1) Perfection is the enemy of good.
    Given our experience with this pandemic
    2) I would rather be lucky than good (skilled).

    Let me add that the length of the lucky streak informs me that some good skills are present.


  45. We may share a similar opinion, but not fully agree with each other. I too believe that we have been lucky and I hope this good ‘luck’ continues.

    There may be a few things that could be done differently, but I am convinced that they would not drastically change the landscape as we are currently experiencing a very good outcome.

    Let’s hope ‘good luck’ continued.
    Have a great day, all.

  46. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    I also hope our luck continues as well but i would also like our authorities to eliminate luck from the equation as much as possible and not constantly push our luck because we decided to play favourites or not follow the science and weaken our protocols for no good reason.


  47. How is testing everyone weakening the science which is the concern you brought last night?

  48. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    How our testing methodology is weakening the science is by where and when we have been allowing people to have that first test. No one should be allowed to get on a plane without a test having been done. Untested persons getting on a plane goes against the science and exposes passengers to a risk scenario that could and should have been avoided or better mitigated.

    That is why they now have to re-look at the protocols because we finally realise we don’t have infinite money and resources after choosing to go the complete isolate all positive people route and the flights are still low. I suspect the outcome of this review will be some sort of test before each passenger gets on the plane, whether the gold standard PCR or some other less accurate rapid test. An imperfect test in the source country is better than no test at all.

    That is what I mean by following the science to reduce our risk of exposure as much as possible.


  49. There is truth in this position. Could be why the CMO has hinted the protocol for incoming will be changed.

  50. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    Ultimately we will end up implementing a protocol where we will have to embrace the early outpatient treatments other doctors and countries are using the WHO are refusing to properly vet and sanction because they are so focused on a rushed vaccine.

    Until such time as we wise up, stop being terrified of this virus and make that decision to treat suspected cases, people exposed to know positive cases with those early cheap outpatient treatments negating the need for isolation, we have to continue taking every single possible measure we can to identify positive persons before they come to our shores.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending