Tested Negative

Unfortunately, I tested negative for the SARS-COV-2 antibodies, otherwise known as COVID-19. And I say unfortunately because I had hoped for a positive test.1 It would have alleviated some fear of exposing the hubby and the roommate. The hubby got laid off so he is at home every day. The roommate still works but he is practically alone in his office so I’m pretty much the exposure risk. I still work 4-days a week. I am somewhat isolated in my current assignment but I work in a small office with 3 people. Even with masks on, any single exposure would mean an exposure for all of us.

I took a blood test, not the unreliable nasal swab. The test is rated 99.9% effective with a 100% sensitivity. That basically means the chances of false negatives are very remote. I was fortunate to get it done thru LabCorp, which is the lab provider for my insurance. I didn’t even have a co-pay. I got a doctor’s order, dropped by the lab, *stab*, *bandage*, and off I went. I had results in about a day and a half.

There is no scientific consensus yet on the idea of immunity once you do have antibodies. And the common flu is so varied that antibodies to one strain are useless against another strain. However, the common flu has been around much much longer and had lots of time to mutate wildly. Being so new in humans, even with the mutations we know of, I would have felt a lot better knowing I was at least a little bit immune.

It has taken a told on my mental well-being constantly worrying about bringing it home. *knock on wood* My work has only had 1 confirmed case since the beginning. We are all very grateful for that. And before I leave work every day, I go in the bathroom and bathe myself in disinfectant wipes. I carry an additional one in my pocket so I can avoid touching surfaces like door handles. I am horribly absent-minded so I’ve tried to create habits for myself to avoid slipping up. Most people don’t realize how easily they can touch or share contaminated space and end up becoming a transmitter. Anyway, I worry less for myself and more for them.

We are relatively healthy so we would probably be ok, but I’d rather not play games with anyone’s health, including my own. So yeah, knowing all the realities, it still would have put me a little more at ease. I would not have relaxed my vigilance at protecting myself or others, but I would have worried less. I can only control my own actions and have all but given up on trying to encourage others to do better. On the daily, I see people flaunting the shelter-in-place restrictions. Frankly, I’ve stopped caring as it is less stressful and I have enough to worry about.

  1. Not something you routinely hear anyone say. lol []

Snap

There are days where I see what humans are doing to this planet and I think to myself, “ya know, maybe Thanos had the right idea?” Then I realize we’d still be stuck with half the stupid people and I just shake my head.

If you told me 20 years ago we’d still be disparaging people over the color of their skin or calling vaccines sorcery I wouldn’t have believed you. Sadly, that is where we are today in 2019.

Our selfishness will be our undoing.

Bias

One of the main reasons I’ve grown to loathe Facebook most days is the growing bias. Selective bias is slowly replacing our idea of logical reasoning. Just pick practically any topic and scroll thru your own friends list. You might be surprised it is closer to home than you think.

When social media came along, I just knew it was going to be a unifying force in the world. I was so excited and hopeful. Sadly, all it has done is allow folks to selectively reinforce their own biases. More and more every day you see people who favor bias over truth, honesty, or any sense of integrity. Talk about an unexpected outcome. hehehe In the past, the rules (and manners) of social interactions helped curb outrageous ideas, conspiracies, and all round nutjobs. they were confined to the fringe where they belong. Now can reach out to others that with like ideas with just the click of a button. This has emboldened them and we see many ideas and concepts considered absolutely insane break into the national consciousness.1

I don’t blame social media so much as our own failings. Our technology has outpaced our ethical ability to keep up with it. Our social media outlets have changed the world, just not necessarily for the better IMO. Oh don’t get me wrong, they do some good. You see fundraisers, goFundMe pages, outreach, etc. Local tragedies can grab national even global attention at times. But I find myself pondering whether the good it does outshines the harm? Sadly, I am beginning to think it doesn’t. The level of vitriol and toxicity is so very disheartening. After all my attempts to ditch FB in the past, this is the one that is slowly pushing me further and further away.

I wish I could say it was mainstream stuff and not local communities. Sadly, no. Be it NextDoor, FB, Twitter, etc. It is all becoming one toxic hole of spite, triggers, and/or attempts to shame each other. It gives new meaning to the idea of mob-mentality. People are tried and convicted based on click-bait articles, regardless of the lack of details. We are seeing the fallout even within our own LGBTI umbrella. We find allies fighting each other over the tiniest slights or misunderstandings. Conversations are polarizing discussions of who is right or ‘more wrong’.

There are times where I just kick myself for even bothering to try to point out distinctions. Our biases and indifference to others are forcing us into a sort of devolution of sorts. For myself, I can only control my actions. I continue to strive to bring things into my life that enrich it and avoid those that stain it. Social media is falling into the latter category more and more lately.

  1. Flat-Earthers, Anti-vaxxers, Holocust deniers, etc []

Stupefy

Today is brought to you by the letter S.

stu·pe·fy

ˈst(y)o͞opəˌfī/

verb

verb: stupefy; 3rd person present: stupefies; past tense: stupefied; past participle: stupefied; gerund or present participle: stupefying

  1. make (someone) unable to think or feel properly.

And how do we avoid stupefying those around us on social media when presented with a story or “news” item we want to believe but aren’t really sure is true? Let me offer you these short rules. 

  • Read the article. Does it match the title? If not, ignore it. Otherwise,  move on to the next step. 
  • Do you trust the source? Is the source well known or legitimate?1 If not, don’t share. Otherwise, move on to the next step. 
  • Has the source been caught fabricating stories or publishing false and/or misleading edits of stories? If so, don’t share. If not, move on to the next step. 
  • Seriously, go read the article. We all know you didn’t read it. If it really passed the previous steps move on to the next step. 
  • Does the action / event / article cite sources or provide proof to back up claims, accusations, and/or accomplishments? Sourcing yet another article with no proof is not a valid source. If not, don’t share. Otherwise, move on to the next step. 
  • If you’re too busy to read it, can’t go thru all the steps, or you feel the article is too long, don’t share it. Otherwise, move on to the next step. 
  • Does the article attempt to guilt or scare you into sharing it? If so, don’t share. No, you arent helping others “just in case“. Otherwise, move to the next step.
  • Does the article attempt to incite hatred or violence against others based on bias? If so, don’t share it.

If it passes all these steps then and ONLY then should you consider sharing it. Even then, you should still ask yourself if sharing will contribute in any way to the discussion? 

Now you know. Next time you are about to share a news story on social media you know what to ask yourself to avoid stupefying others. 

😜

  1. stating how many people removed from you can contest to its authenticity is not trustworthy ie “my coworker’s cousin’s wife can attest to this and she is  [insert contrived position of authority here]” []

Bionic


I must say I was pretty excited when I read this. It is scifi come to life even if it does sound almost too good to be true. But seeing it move into human trials means it is past the theory phase and moving into implementation. The implications are staggering.1 It wouldn’t help every problem but it would cover a large percentage of people who experience declining vision or have certain genetic issues. Image you could get a surgical procedure on your eye and never worry about most vision problems ever again. Your eyes could focus w/almost perfect clarity. It raises a whole host of questions but I still love the idea. It could help a lot of people see better or even see again.

There are a plethora of questions that come up, of course. What is projected life span of the insert(s)? What happens if one fails? Can it be replaced? Cost? Insurance? The list goes on and on. But a bigger question might be, would said person now be considered bionic? This would certainly fit the bill of artificial enhancement.

*

For myself, I doubt I’d qualify any time soon as my actual vision has only deterriated every so slightly as I age. I don’t even qualify for Lasik right now. And the diplopia issue, being muslcle related, would not be repaired by said replacement either. So clearly it wouldn’t fix every problem. But this last year has taught me how fragile our vision can be. Reading up on advancements like this are amazing.

  1. It helps if you go read the not-very-long article first. []