• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? | The BMJ
Rigid safe distancing rules are an oversimplification based on outdated science and experiences of past viruses, argue Nicholas R Jones and colleagues

Physical distancing is an important part of measures to control covid-19, but exactly how far away and for how long contact is safe in different contexts is unclear. Rules that stipulate a single specific physical distance (1 or 2 metres) between individuals to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing covid-19, are based on an outdated, dichotomous notion of respiratory droplet size. This overlooks the physics of respiratory emissions, where droplets of all sizes are trapped and moved by the exhaled moist and hot turbulent gas cloud that keeps them concentrated as it carries them over metres in a few seconds.12 After the cloud slows sufficiently, ventilation, specific patterns of airflow, and type of activity become important. Viral load of the emitter, duration of exposure, and susceptibility of an individual to infection are also important.

Instead of single, fixed physical distance rules, we propose graded recommendations that better reflect the multiple factors that combine to determine risk. This would provide greater protection in the highest risk settings but also greater freedom in lower risk settings, potentially enabling a return towards normality in some aspects of social and economic life.
Has this chart:
L O
L I
L P
H O
H I
H P
+F S Sl
.
.
.
.
.
o
+F S Sp
.
.
.
.
.
o
+F S Sh
.
.
o
o
o
@
+F L Sl
.
.
o
.
o
@
+F L Sp
.
.
o
o
o
@
+F L Sh
.
o
@
o
@
@
-F S Sl
.
.
o
o
o
@
-F S Sp
.
o
o
o
@
@
-F S Sh
o
o
@
@
@
@
-F L Sl
.
o
@
o
@
@
-F L Sp
o
o
@
@
@
@
-F L Sh
o
@
@
@
@
@
What's what
  • Top: L = low occupancy, H = high occupancy
  • Top: O = outdoors and well ventilated, I = indoors and well ventilated, P = poorly ventilated
  • Side: +F = wearing face coverings, -F = no face coverings
  • Side: S = contact for short time, L = contact for prolonged time
  • Side: Sl = silent, Sp = speaking, Sh = shouting, singing
  • Transmission risk: . = low, o = medium, @ = high
 
The 2-m-or-1 paper referred to:

Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) | medRxiv
The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9).

Back to the 2-m-or-1 paper:
Few studies have examined how airflow patterns influence viral transmission; most studies report (if anything) only average indoor ventilation rates. Neglecting variation in localised air flow within a space oversimplifies and underestimates risk modelling.
Doing such research may be important in enabling people to move back into indoor spaces.
Though it is widely assumed that duration of exposure to a person with covid-19 influences transmission risk (studies of contact tracing, for example, consider thresholds of 5-15 minutes beyond which risk increases3334), we are not aware of studies that quantified this variable.
Strength of exposure also counts. What makes some people very sick with COVID-19 and some people asymptomatic? Some other research suggests how many individual viruses each patient received, something known from other kinds of infections. This means that face coverings can be helpful for reducing infection strength.
Physical distancing of <1 m was reported to result in a transmission risk of 12.8%, compared with 2.6% at distances ≥1 m, supporting physical distancing rules of 1 m or more.
So one can get a bit closer.

Environmental influences are complex and are likely to be mutually reinforcing. This is shown, for example, in meat packing plants, where outbreaks have been attributed to the combination of high levels of worker contagion, poor ventilation, cramped working conditions, background noise (which leads to shouting), and low compliance with mask wearing.37 Similar compound risk situations might occur in other crowded, noisy, indoor environments, such as pubs or live music venues.

Physical distancing rules would be most effective if they reflected graded levels of risk. Figure 3 presents a guide to how transmission risk may vary with setting, occupancy level, contact time, and whether face coverings are worn. These estimates apply when everyone is asymptomatic. In the highest risk situations (indoor environments with poor ventilation, high levels of occupancy, prolonged contact time, and no face coverings, such as a crowded bar or night club) physical distancing beyond 2 m and minimising occupancy time should be considered. Less stringent distancing is likely to be adequate in low risk scenarios. People with symptoms (who should in any case be self-isolating) tend to have high viral load and more frequent violent respiratory exhalations.
I'd posted a BBCode-table version of Fig. 3 in my previous post here.
 
Meanwhile, this virus has brought on the worse economic recession the world has ever experienced since WW2. A vaccine at this stage still seems to be a long way away, leaving the world in dire straits for decades to come.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/p...onomy-into-worst-recession-since-world-war-ii
Kind of a large scale reminder that god doesn't give a damn.

I use that to abuse fundamentalists.

The toll is now well over 27 million. And the year has still 3 months to go.
 
New theory about masks

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/health/covid-masks-immunity.html

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.

The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.

Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.


Experiments in hamsters have hinted at a connection between dose and disease. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in China found that hamsters housed behind a barrier made of surgical masks were less likely to get infected by the coronavirus. And those who did contract the virus became less sick than other animals without masks to protect them.

A few observations in humans seem to support this trend as well. In crowded settings where masks are in widespread use, infection rates seem to plummet. And although face coverings cannot block all inbound virus particles for all people, they do seem to be linked to less illness. Researchers have uncovered largely silent, symptomless outbreaks in venues from cruise ships to food processing plants, all full of mostly masked people.

There isn't enough data to support this idea, but I thought it was interesting and to some extent, it sounds plausible. The article did mention that there is some concern that people might purposely try to expose themselves to the virus thinking that this will work. Hopefully, that will not be the case.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/health/covid-masks-immunity.html

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.

The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.

Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.


Experiments in hamsters have hinted at a connection between dose and disease. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in China found that hamsters housed behind a barrier made of surgical masks were less likely to get infected by the coronavirus. And those who did contract the virus became less sick than other animals without masks to protect them.

A few observations in humans seem to support this trend as well. In crowded settings where masks are in widespread use, infection rates seem to plummet. And although face coverings cannot block all inbound virus particles for all people, they do seem to be linked to less illness. Researchers have uncovered largely silent, symptomless outbreaks in venues from cruise ships to food processing plants, all full of mostly masked people.

There isn't enough data to support this idea, but I thought it was interesting and to some extent, it sounds plausible. The article did mention that there is some concern that people might purposely try to expose themselves to the virus thinking that this will work. Hopefully, that will not be the case.

Not very good because asymptomatic cases don't mean no damage, but it does mean masks are better than no masks even if they don't "work" perfectly.
 
Meanwhile, this virus has brought on the worse economic recession the world has ever experienced since WW2. A vaccine at this stage still seems to be a long way away, leaving the world in dire straits for decades to come.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/p...onomy-into-worst-recession-since-world-war-ii
Kind of a large scale reminder that god doesn't give a damn.

I use that to abuse fundamentalists.

The toll is now well over 27 million. And the year has still 3 months to go.

Actually it comes about as close as possible in my mind to counting as proof that a moral God does exist and HE IS PISSED! Religious Fundamentalist support for Trump, willfully ignoring the signs of global warming, rising nationalism on a global scale, the shutdown of global economic activity, and now willfully embracing the mantra of a pandemic as hoax are about to produce some tough love. Comes a time when subtlety is no longer an option.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/health/covid-masks-immunity.html

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.

The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.

Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.
...

That's a very encouraging theory. Still, the decreased level of exposure isn't in the main for the person wearing the mask, but instead because of how it benefits those around him. The mask doesn't limit the amount of contaminated air one breaths in but the amount of aerosol virus produced by the wearer. So wearing a mask still comes down to thoughtful concern for the wellbeing of one's community. That's still a stumbling block for lots of people. The fact that having everyone follow that rule will also serve one's own self interest seems not to matter as much as making a display of one's right to independent action. Ironically in the name of "God and Country".
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile:
Thursday update
New covid-19 deaths, yesterday:

Spain: 34
Italy: 14
Japan: 16
Canada: 2
UK: 8
Germany: 1

United States: 1,209

Population of countries above: 420 million
Population of United States: 328 million

Kinda makes all the 9/11 memorials ring hollow. We don't really give a fuck, unless we can fuck over some brown people* as a result.

*or libs.
 
Meanwhile:
Thursday update
New covid-19 deaths, yesterday:

Spain: 34
Italy: 14
Japan: 16
Canada: 2
UK: 8
Germany: 1

United States: 1,209

Population of countries above: 420 million
Population of United States: 328 million

Kinda makes all the 9/11 memorials ring hollow. We don't really give a fuck, unless we can fuck over some brown people* as a result.

*or libs.

And, just this morning, dear leader was lying agin. He said that the US has a much lower death rate than the EU! It make me think of the expression..... "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/health/covid-masks-immunity.html

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.

The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.

Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.
...

That's a very encouraging theory. Still, the decreased level of exposure isn't in the main for the person wearing the mask, but instead because of how it benefits those around him. The mask doesn't limit the amount of contaminated air one breaths in but the amount of aerosol virus produced by the wearer. So wearing a mask still comes down to thoughtful concern for the wellbeing of one's community. That's still a stumbling block for lots of people. The fact that having everyone follow that rule will also serve one's own self interest seems not to matter as much as making a display of one's right to independent action. Ironically in the name of "God and Country".

The most recent evidence is that masks give some protection to both the wearer of the mask as well as others who come in contact with the person wearing a mask.

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/cloth-masks-likely-protect-wearers-from-the-worst-effects-of-covid-19/


Since the CDC began recommending it, wearing a mask has been a badge of selflessness. It may not be the most comfortable and it may not offer you much protection, but wearing a mask protects your community from you if you’re contagious with COVID-19. Now, some experts are saying cloth masks actually protect the wearer. The reason? Cloth masks stop some coronavirus particles from reaching your face. If you get infected, it will be with a smaller dose, and you’ll be less likely to get sick.

Though wearing a mask might not prevent you from getting COVID-19, it can make you less likely to develop severe symptoms, Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, writes in The Conversation. “t might be the difference between a case of COVID-19 that sends you to the hospital and a case so mild you don’t even realize you’re infected,”


I've read this in many sources, including medical journals. So, wearing a mask is a win for you and for those who have contact with you. If we all wear masks, we can greatly reduce the number of infections, or at least serious infections. That may be why the numbers are down a lot in cities and states that have put mandatory masks rules in place.
 
And it has been found that 100% of people who have tested positive for covid-19 had both eaten and taken a shit during the previous two weeks.

Coincidence? I think not. ;)

In a world with both anorexia and constipation, I find that claim doubtful.

Though it's likely true if you are not working to five or six significant digits.
 
And it has been found that 100% of people who have tested positive for covid-19 had both eaten and taken a shit during the previous two weeks.

Coincidence? I think not. ;)

Nope. A low bound for the number that neither ate nor shat in the last two weeks is 40,000 in the US alone.
 
With positivity rate being the major reason for lockdown in NYC...

Wouldn't the approaching to the level of herd immunity ALSO be a guarantee of lockdown?

Are the tests getting better and is that accounted for?
 
With positivity rate being the major reason for lockdown in NYC...

Wouldn't the approaching to the level of herd immunity ALSO be a guarantee of lockdown?

Are the tests getting better and is that accounted for?

Nobody's approaching the level of herd immunity. Assuming (and it's still not clear) that herd immunity is even possible, it's not going to happen until either around 250 million Americans have had the disease or been vaccinated against it.

In the absence of a vaccine, reaching that level of exposure implies between three and fifteen million deaths, and between six and thirty million chronic disabilities from tissue damage, in the USA; so you're still (at best) less than ten percent of the way there.

Herd immunity via infection with the disease would be an unimaginable disaster, and no sane and educated person has ever considered it a reasonable objective towards which to aspire.

"Herd immunity" is a propaganda phrase that means "forget modern science and just get on with suffering like a bunch of medieval plague victims". It's beyond stupid.
 
Vaccination efficacy rates are likely to be between 40-60%,.

Is that enough?

Are you saying that amount of deaths in the US?
 
Back
Top Bottom