Re-opening Procedure after Covid-19

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
I would look at what the others are doing before making that decision. For instance, if the all the place with thermal scanning does is thermal scanning, and the other place requires mask for customers and employees, provides for social distancing, shows evidence of regular deep cleaning, perhaps will offer on the spot testing in the near future, etc., the thermal scans are of little concern or value to me.

fms point that someone can be very contagious and not show signs, including temperature, is true in entertainment venues as well as travel.
Apologies -- I should've pointed out that I assume every venue will be doing the masks, deep cleaning, etc. So, if I were to edit my earlier post, I would say "all other responses being equal, I would choose the one with the tech 100% of the time."

And again, yes, not every person who is sick has a fever. But someone with a fever nearly always has an infection, so having the ability to detect those folks is always a plus and never a minus. m
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonHebbard

BillConnerFASTC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Location
Clayton NY 13624
Let's hope that there is a rapid test that can detect the virus on the spot with high accuracy. Abbot's current 5 minute test seems to still have too many false negatives, but it seems to be improving. Likewise the saliva tests is reported in some journals as more accurate than the swabs. I don't know if audience would come to events perhaps hours in advance and wait to be tested before entering, and not sure how you protect them one form another before testing - I guess by requiring drive through so they are cleared before getting out of car.

As far as I can tell these tests can detect the virus immediately upon the person being exposed to it, but I don't know if someone not infected can carry it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: RonHebbard

What Rigger?

I'm so fly....I Neverland.
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Location
PPT.
The gig in Arkansas was moved to a new date and has happened. I'm super curious to see what results from this, public health wise.

 

egilson1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Location
Boston, MA
Not the case at all. While a certain number of cases do present asymptomatically -- or, at least, without a fever as one of the symptoms -- the majority of cases seem to include an elevated temperature as an indicator. Additionally, an elevated temperature is still a reliable indicator of a whole host of other contagious diseases, so the system helps catch those folks, too. No system will be 100%, but using this type of technology is very effective; so much so, the FDA and CDC have published guidelines for it's use. Also, if you've flown to Asia (HK, Seoul, Tokyo, etc.) in the last ten years or so, one of these systems scanned you while you were waiting in the customs line...
Your comment has the key to the issue with body temperature as an indicator. "the majority SEEM to include...". We don't know that. In fact the data is leaning to the potential that a majority of those who have been infected may NOT have a fever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonHebbard

BillConnerFASTC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Location
Clayton NY 13624
  • Like
Reactions: RonHebbard

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
Your comment has the key to the issue with body temperature as an indicator. "the majority SEEM to include...". We don't know that. In fact the data is leaning to the potential that a majority of those who have been infected may NOT have a fever.
I can't find any study that says that most of the people with CV19 don't ever have an elevated temperature -- where did you read that? m
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonHebbard

egilson1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Location
Boston, MA

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
  • Like
Reactions: RonHebbard

sk8rsdad

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Location
Ottawa
but wouldn't you rather have extra precautions than fewer...?
If the extra precautions add more benefit than they cost then yes, otherwise probably not. Cost and benefit aren't necessarily measured in terms of money, although that's not a bad way to normalize the data. However, an additional precaution could cause more harm. If an added precaution causes a false sense of security it may reduce the use of another precaution that was actually more effective. Googling "Does extra testing do more harm than good" returns 139 million hits, so the jury is definitely out on making the claim that more is better.
 

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
If the extra precautions add more benefit than they cost then yes, otherwise probably not. Cost and benefit aren't necessarily measured in terms of money, although that's not a bad way to normalize the data. However, an additional precaution could cause more harm. If an added precaution causes a false sense of security it may reduce the use of another precaution that was actually more effective. Googling "Does extra testing do more harm than good" returns 139 million hits, so the jury is definitely out on making the claim that more is better.
Nonsense (and I mean that literally). Here's why I say that:

1) Under discussion is a three-step process that will identify a person with an elevated temperature 99.99% of the time (it's probably better than that, because the odds of all three devices failing and/or malfunctioning at the same time have to be infinitesimally low);
2) "A fever is a temporary increase in your body temperature, often due to an illness. Having a fever is a sign that something out of the ordinary is going on in your body" (Mayo Clinic, retrieved today);
3) If a venue operator knows that someone -- whether guest or employee -- has an elevated temperature (and we recommend scanning for 100.4F or higher, which is the medical definition of a fewer), they now have the information they need to make an informed choice based on actual science, and not just blindly wipe everything with bleach and hope that's enough.

What is the cost to a venue operator if they become a nucleus of infections (or worse, deaths)? What if doing temperature checks allowed the venue to have 60% occupancy instead of only 30% - would it be worth it then? Would you value that extra 30% more (because it's easy to do the revenue math) than having some additional -- again, not a guarantee -- peace of mind based on science and not wishing/hoping? m
 

MNicolai

Well-Known Member
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Location
Sarasota, FL
FWIW, more of my construction sites are doing temperature checks and wrist bands for the day of the week. Every day you're on-site you get checked and get a wrist band for that day. It's not going to catch everyone, and it appears the virus may be more contagious before symptoms present, but it at least weeds out some of the obviously sick people. Employees are supposed to be wearing masks, but so far what I'm seeing is that the design team shows up wearing masks but the construction workers have masks but don't choose to actually wear them. Earlier in the week I was in a small storage closet with 8 people talking about where equipment mounts on the wall and only myself, my electrical engineer, and the architect were wearing masks.

My personal opinion is that something's better than nothing, but what serves as an acceptable indicator for allowing people to show up to work while also maintaining social distancing does not necessarily mean it's a substitute for social distancing and that you'll be able to increase audience capacities just because you have temp checks in place. You should still be distancing even with temp checks.
 
  • Love
Reactions: RonHebbard

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
I seem to see consistently that symptoms like fever may not appear for 2 to 14 days in a majority of people. The fever check therefore does not give me much confidence.
That is correct, but the fever generally indicates when people are the most infectious (whether it's CV19, the "common" flu, measles, chicken pox, whatever). m
 

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
FWIW, more of my construction sites are doing temperature checks and wrist bands for the day of the week. Every day you're on-site you get checked and get a wrist band for that day. It's not going to catch everyone, and it appears the virus may be more contagious before symptoms present, but it at least weeds out some of the obviously sick people. Employees are supposed to be wearing masks, but so far what I'm seeing is that the design team shows up wearing masks but the construction workers have masks but don't choose to actually wear them. Earlier in the week I was in a small storage closet with 8 people talking about where equipment mounts on the wall and only myself, my electrical engineer, and the architect were wearing masks.

My personal opinion is that something's better than nothing, but what serves as an acceptable indicator for allowing people to show up to work while also maintaining social distancing does not necessarily mean it's a substitute for social distancing and that you'll be able to increase audience capacities just because you have temp checks in place. You should still be distancing even with temp checks.
The new OSHA guidelines are out -- form 3990 if you're interested.

The new CDC guideleins are also out, but it's 60 pages long and will take me a day or two to get through it. m
 

josh88

Remarkably Tired.
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Location
Ypsilanti, Michigan
That is correct, but the fever generally indicates when people are the most infectious (whether it's CV19, the "common" flu, measles, chicken pox, whatever). m
Most infectious vs infectious is kind of a moot point, you're infectious either way. Yes you might hit a peak somewhere that is detectable, but the whole point of contact tracing is once you are showing symptoms, its too late and you were at least harboring the virus and leaving potential points of infection, even if you're not actively spreading it person to person, and the likelihood of you having already infected someone before you show a fever or symptoms is reasonable assumption. I was just listening to an NPR report today about another study that backs what Bill is saying and that airports are wanting TSA to do temperature screenings but that that the impact is minimal, and thats one of the reasons TSA is pushing back and trying to get the airports to implement it themselves if they want to. They don't want to waste the time or money when it isn't a real reliable measure.

I'm all about as many safeguards as possible, but a big expenditure for thermal cameras and or staff for something that (for lack of a better way to put it) is less bang for your buck than other options. Sure you may catch that one person that is infectious and showing a fever, but at the same time you're letting through three people that have it, are contagious but look like their fine, but will infect other people and spread it to surfaces in your venue. The larger cause for concern amongst some of the epidemiologists is more about duration. 6 feet away for a minute isn't a huge problem if you're both wearing masks and one of you might be infectious, but 2 hours 6 feet apart (ESPECIALLY) if one of you is infectious, greatly increases the probability of transferal.
 

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
Most infectious vs infectious is kind of a moot point, you're infectious either way. Yes you might hit a peak somewhere that is detectable, but the whole point of contact tracing is once you are showing symptoms, its too late and you were at least harboring the virus and leaving potential points of infection, even if you're not actively spreading it person to person, and the likelihood of you having already infected someone before you show a fever or symptoms is reasonable assumption. I was just listening to an NPR report today about another study that backs what Bill is saying and that airports are wanting TSA to do temperature screenings but that that the impact is minimal, and thats one of the reasons TSA is pushing back and trying to get the airports to implement it themselves if they want to. They don't want to waste the time or money when it isn't a real reliable measure.

I'm all about as many safeguards as possible, but a big expenditure for thermal cameras and or staff for something that (for lack of a better way to put it) is less bang for your buck than other options. Sure you may catch that one person that is infectious and showing a fever, but at the same time you're letting through three people that have it, are contagious but look like their fine, but will infect other people and spread it to surfaces in your venue. The larger cause for concern amongst some of the epidemiologists is more about duration. 6 feet away for a minute isn't a huge problem if you're both wearing masks and one of you might be infectious, but 2 hours 6 feet apart (ESPECIALLY) if one of you is infectious, greatly increases the probability of transferal.
Forgive me if I don't trust the TSa to make logical decisions. And, using that logic, we should remove air bags from cars because most car accidents don't involve airbag deployment and cars would be less expensive without them.

Just out of curiosity, what is your preferred method for screening large groups of people to see if they're sick and contagious? I haven't heard/seen anything remotely as efficient as thermal cameras followed up by a thermometer for those folks that show an elevated temperature...and, keep in mind that the solution will need to be in place for 1 - 2 years (as long as it takes to get a proven-effective vaccine mass-distributed). m
 

josh88

Remarkably Tired.
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Location
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Forgive me if I don't trust the TSa to make logical decisions. And, using that logic, we should remove air bags from cars because most car accidents don't involve airbag deployment and cars would be less expensive without them.

Just out of curiosity, what is your preferred method for screening large groups of people to see if they're sick and contagious? I haven't heard/seen anything remotely as efficient as thermal cameras followed up by a thermometer for those folks that show an elevated temperature...and, keep in mind that the solution will need to be in place for 1 - 2 years (as long as it takes to get a proven-effective vaccine mass-distributed). m
Personally? I don't think there is a good method. Reliable, accurate, fast screening tests. but I don't see that happening either. Congrats if you can convince some people to buy your services and thermal cameras. You've made my point and illustrate why we as a venue, don't plan on reopening to audiences any time soon. There isn't anything thats truly reliable yet and we're not about to install thermal cameras and the added infrastructure to view and monitor those. Yeah we're still checking temperatures as people come in, but we're also not expecting that to be anything that really mitigates anything. It's been mentioned more than once, the real issue is that at the current moment you CAN'T, see the sick and contagious. Finding the 10% that has a temperature is great, but there's still the chance you're letting someone who's asymptotic in and then it doesnt really matter about the people you did find. My wife and I have been checking our temperatures each day out of an abundance of caution as well, knowing that if we have a fever it means we've already been sick for awhile.

THAT is the crux of the problem. The tests and temperature indicators don't help because they stop potential for infection. That person has already come in contact with people and surfaces by the time they're discovered. It help stops the spread because once that happens you can isolate them and track who've they've come in contact with. Which is a bad scenario if that's happening at a mass gathering (even if it is outside or in the lobby).

None of us are experts in this. I wouldn't let the LD mix a show, so I'm looking to the science and the people who know what their doing and so far the science seems to be saying that the efficacy of thermal imaging isn't great. With the long incubation, the fact that not all people even show a fever and the fact that there's plenty of data indicating that its unreliable and even with the WHO saying its only useful as a single component in a big picture and can't be used for diagnosis. To change your metaphor, its more akin to whether or not you're wearing arm floaties in a pool while also wearing a life jacket. The floaties might help save you, but it isn't going to be useful 90% of the time.

There were upticks in sales for thermal cameras for SARS and MERS as well and both of those trailed off eventually and went back to largely being ignored for the exact same reason.
 
Last edited:

mbrown3039

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Location
vegas, baby..!
So, by your logic, since rigging inspections can't prevent 100% of rigging accidents, you don't do them..? Or, in more detail, since the typical rigging inspection can't reveal micro-fractures or anomalies in the metal itself, they're not worth it...? Of course they are! You do the best you can with what you know at the time; when you know better, you do better.

I certainly hope you don't go back to work fearful or even anxious, but, at some point, (I assume) you're going to have to go back to work. And, unless it's as a penguin counter in Antarctica (the only continent that is CV19-free) you're going to want to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible (again, I assume). Thermal imaging is just one part of an overall strategy to do just that. m
 
  • Love
Reactions: RonHebbard

TimMc

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
So, by your logic, since rigging inspections can't prevent 100% of rigging accidents, you don't do them..? Or, in more detail, since the typical rigging inspection can't reveal micro-fractures or anomalies in the metal itself, they're not worth it...? Of course they are! You do the best you can with what you know at the time; when you know better, you do better.

I certainly hope you don't go back to work fearful or even anxious, but, at some point, (I assume) you're going to have to go back to work. And, unless it's as a penguin counter in Antarctica (the only continent that is CV19-free) you're going to want to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible (again, I assume). Thermal imaging is just one part of an overall strategy to do just that. m
Body temperature checks are good for finding either 1) liars or, 2) those who don't know what a fever feels like. Otherwise it's like 'security theater' - the public-facing side of the TSA (their real work is done where we can't see).

I think the consideration being ignored here is exactly the PUBLIC facing side. There are plenty of folks who will not feel safe unless there are infection control measures they can see. So signage about video temp sensing (maybe a monitor like the stores do to show the CCTV surveillance is actually on), hand sanitizers and controlled access will help make those ticket buyers feel better about their choice of entertainment. Of course, there are those who don't give a damn, either, and we'll see them infecting others including their own families and co-workers (Wisconsin, Florida... I'm talking about you).