Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corona virus

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
    Imagine being a restaurant, gym, or theatre owner in New York City with the new vaccine passport, “Key to NYC Pass”. One third or more of your customer base eliminated - oof.

    The lock downs crushed the restaurant and entertainment business in NYC. Just when they started to recover they’re getting hit again with the new vaccine passport.

    But, they’ll let people dine indoors with just one dose, not fully vaccinated (if not the one jab vaccine). They’ll still let people potentially spread Covid by letting them in with one dose 🤔

    No wonder people leave NY in droves for Florida.
    Imagine forgoing recommended guidelines backed by research, data, and scientific fact - trashing and crapping on the ideas of social distancing, mask wearing, 'jabbing' vaccines - getting +COVD and becoming symptomatic - and racing to the ER to get 'muh help'.


    Last edited by Peerless; 08-03-2021, 09:10 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Peerless View Post

      Imagine forgoing recommended guidelines backed by research, data, and scientific fact - trashing and crapping on the ideas of social distancing, mask wearing, 'jabbing' vaccines - getting +COVD and becoming symptomatic - and racing to the ER to get 'muh help'.
      What does all that have to do with restaurant owners in New York City 🤔

      New research and data challenge recommended guidelines such as arbitrary social distancing:

      MIT researchers say time spent indoors increases risk of Covid at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies:

      https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/23/...new-study.html

      Good thing there are researchers who don’t get stuck on arbitrary things like 6 feet.



      Comment


      • Interesting read, I wouldn't die on a hill over that argument though. I couldn't care less about social distancing rules being in place as long as it doesn't effect the event, for example a music festival, etc. I would prefer in public to not have people in my hip pocket to be honest, but as a business owner again of a restaurant for example, if those rules are enforced on mass scale it hurts your business, so making that argument is fair. I also feel for every rule created and enforced due to well researched evidence and scientific basing, the next one seems to be created and plucked from thin air and implemented as a precaution at based

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post

          What does all that have to do with restaurant owners in New York City 🤔

          New research and data challenge recommended guidelines such as arbitrary social distancing:

          MIT researchers say time spent indoors increases risk of Covid at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies:

          https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/23/...new-study.html

          Good thing there are researchers who don’t get stuck on arbitrary things like 6 feet.


          "New research and data" - posts an article from April 2021. Did you even READ over the study? Here is the actual study: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118

          In a "well-mixed" room (what the assumption in the model is reported on), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective - which Isn't the same as "distance doesn't matter" or that "6 and 60 feet are the same"

          Also, there are a ton of assumptions in this "research."

          The model in that article ASSUMES instantaneously and continuously well-mixed conditions, like if you blow a smoke ring, the moment it exits your mouth it immediate spreads evenly throughout the room. Under such conditions, of course distance doesn't matter!

          The cigarette smoke analogy is a good one. Suppose you're in a bar with one person smoking. If you're sitting across the table from someone smoking, and they're blowing the smoke in your face, you're going to breathe a lot of smoke. If you're at the next table, six feet away, you'll get a lot less, but still some. If you're 60 feet away, and there is no ventilation, eventually you will smell it just because it builds up.

          Air is not continuously and completely mixed in an enclosed space, such as this study assumed. That's not how real life works. Indoors, air mixes *over time* but, also - virus' loses the potential for infectivity.

          I also enjoyed reading this part:

          We first apply our guideline to a typical American classroom, designed for an occupancy of 19 students and their teacher, and choose a modest risk tolerance, ϵ=10% (Fig. 3A). The importance of adequate ventilation and mask use is made clear by our guideline. For normal occupancy and without masks, the safe time after an infected individual enters the classroom is 1.2 h for natural ventilation and 7.2 h with mechanical ventilation, according to the transient bound, SI Appendix, Eq. S8. Even with cloth mask use (pm=0.3), these bounds are increased dramatically, to 8 and 80 h, respectively. Assuming 6 h of indoor time per day, a school group wearing masks with adequate ventilation would thus be safe for longer than the recovery time for COVID-19 (7 d to 14 d), and school transmissions would be rare. We stress, however, that our predictions are based on the assumption of a “quiet classroom” (38, 77), where resting respiration (Cq=30) is the norm. Extended periods of physical activity, collective speech, or singing would lower the time limit by an order of magnitude (Fig. 2).

          Wow, look at that data supporting how much safer the children would be WITH mask use.

          Thanks Fantaztic7, I'm glad you helped find some additional data supporting mask use! Although I didn't need anymore, it's always good to share!

          The headline the editors picked (which is poor) really plays on their base assumption more than the actual results... I think it's safe to say this is irresponsible journalism, and a weak attempt by you to challenge recommended guidelines - such as social distancing.
          Last edited by Peerless; 08-03-2021, 10:23 PM.

          Comment


          • Sorry, everyone, but I need a break.

            The atmosphere is like being in P&R again. We still have an Ignore feature, right? It might be wise to use it.


            Thread will reopen after I do another cleaning.
            Administrator

            Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage

            Lupus Awareness

            "a semicolon is used when an author could've chosen to end their sentence, but chose not to. The author is you and the sentence is your life ; "

            Comment


            • Another set of points why people do not trust the Establishment Health System

              Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

              Comment


              • Some points from poll showing reasons other than mis-information why people are not getting vaccinated.

                Of the wait and see people 31% of those polled would get it if full approval was given. 13% said childcare if the vaccine made them sick would convince them. 17% said mobile vaccine center would convince them.

                These seem pretty simple and reasonable ways to get wait and see people vaccinated.

                Seems like a better idea than this pretty harsh approach by mainstream media who seem to just want to make this about the people they do not like instead of trying to understand valid concerns

                Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

                Comment


                • The audacity of a person who works in a consistently polled "profession" that is regarded as one of the most untrustworthy acting like that on his soapbox and talking like that is a sad sight to see. Also, I maintain that if the goal is actually reaching those people who are considered unreachable on issues like this, speaking in this manner does nothing but causes more division and hostility, but we all know that is not the goal of people who carry themselves like this, it's the argument and the virtue signaling they seek. Despicable way to act and sums up what is wrong with "discussion" on current-day issues in the western world.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Peerless View Post
                    "New research and data" - posts an article from April 2021. Did you even READ over the study? Here is the actual study: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118

                    In a "well-mixed" room (what the assumption in the model is reported on), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective - which Isn't the same as "distance doesn't matter" or that "6 and 60 feet are the same"

                    Also, there are a ton of assumptions in this "research."

                    The model in that article ASSUMES instantaneously and continuously well-mixed conditions, like if you blow a smoke ring, the moment it exits your mouth it immediate spreads evenly throughout the room. Under such conditions, of course distance doesn't matter!

                    The cigarette smoke analogy is a good one. Suppose you're in a bar with one person smoking. If you're sitting across the table from someone smoking, and they're blowing the smoke in your face, you're going to breathe a lot of smoke. If you're at the next table, six feet away, you'll get a lot less, but still some. If you're 60 feet away, and there is no ventilation, eventually you will smell it just because it builds up.

                    Air is not continuously and completely mixed in an enclosed space, such as this study assumed. That's not how real life works. Indoors, air mixes *over time* but, also - virus' loses the potential for infectivity.

                    I also enjoyed reading this part:



                    Wow, look at that data supporting how much safer the children would be WITH mask use.

                    Thanks Fantaztic7, I'm glad you helped find some additional data supporting mask use! Although I didn't need anymore, it's always good to share!

                    The headline the editors picked (which is poor) really plays on their base assumption more than the actual results... I think it's safe to say this is irresponsible journalism, and a weak attempt by you to challenge recommended guidelines - such as social distancing.
                    The authors conclusion correlates with the article headline:

                    ”Above all, our study makes clear the inadequacy of the Six-Foot Rule in mitigating indoor airborne disease transmission, and offers a rational, physically informed alternative for managing life in the time of COVID-19.”

                    Simply saying it’s misleading doesn’t make it so, especially when the study concluded social distancing of 6 feet is inadequate without implementing other mitigation strategies.

                    With regard to masks there is no conclusive evidence masks reduce infections with school students.

                    Comment


                    • Another survey was just published on vaccine hesitancy based on education level. The most vaccine-hesitant group? PhDs

                      https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-...p-of-all-phds/

                      “But more surprising is the breakdown in vaccine hesitancy by level of education. It finds that the association between hesitancy and education level follows a U-shaped curve with the highest hesitancy among those least and most educated. People with a master’s degree had the least hesitancy, and the highest hesitancy was among those holding a Ph.D.

                      What’s more, the paper found that in the first five months of 2021, the largest decrease in hesitancy was among the least educated — those with a high school education or less. Meanwhile, hesitancy held constant in the most educated group; by May, those with Ph.Ds were the most hesitant group.”

                      Additional insights to the Kaiser survey data posted above. There’s more to the picture when it comes to hesitancy. It doesn’t surprise me to see this group be more hesitant.

                      Comment


                      • This study found the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against infection in July, when the Delta variant reported as dominant.

                        https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-va...0be357070.html

                        As time goes on we may find areas with higher natural immunity from infections have greater defense against new variants. Some early data suggests natural immunity may be more effective against new variants. Recent examples are Israel with high vaccination rate compared with Sweden with roughly 50% fewer people vaccinated. Sweden is experiencing few cases and deaths while Israel has seen a surge in cases and deaths.

                        In either case the efficacy of vaccines seems to be declining with new variants emerging.
                        Last edited by Fantaztic7; 08-11-2021, 05:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post

                          The authors conclusion correlates with the article headline:

                          ”Above all, our study makes clear the inadequacy of the Six-Foot Rule in mitigating indoor airborne disease transmission, and offers a rational, physically informed alternative for managing life in the time of COVID-19.”

                          Simply saying it’s misleading doesn’t make it so, especially when the study concluded social distancing of 6 feet is inadequate without implementing other mitigation strategies.

                          With regard to masks there is no conclusive evidence masks reduce infections with school students.
                          I could care less what the author writes in his conlcuding sentence... The title is as misleading as the actual study.

                          By the way... I ask again. DID you even READ the study? Did you even read my post above about how the study is literally supported based off assumptions compared to real world situations and results?? Of course you didn't!

                          You defend the "study" which I remind you AGAIN- is full of assumptions and perfect situational scenarios. Yet, in the same study - you disregard the results of how the masks are effective in the classroom model, even though the study proves that they do in fact help protect the children from the infected individual!

                          The importance of adequate ventilation and mask use is made clear by our guideline. For normal occupancy and without masks, the safe time after an infected individual enters the classroom is 1.2 h for natural ventilation and 7.2 h with mechanical ventilation, according to the transient bound, SI Appendix, Eq. S8. Even with cloth mask use (pm=0.3), these bounds are increased dramatically, to 8 and 80 h, respectively
                          You are alllllll over the place.






                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Peerless View Post

                            I could care less what the author writes in his conlcuding sentence... The title is as misleading as the actual study.

                            By the way... I ask again. DID you even READ the study? Did you even read my post above about how the study is literally supported based off assumptions compared to real world situations and results?? Of course you didn't!

                            You defend the "study" which I remind you AGAIN- is full of assumptions and perfect situational scenarios. Yet, in the same study - you disregard the results of how the masks are effective in the classroom model, even though the study proves that they do in fact help protect the children from the infected individual!



                            You are alllllll over the place.





                            ”The study is full of assumptions and perfect situational scenarios - but it proves that they (masks) do in fact
                            help protect children from the infected individual!”

                            I’ll leave that there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post

                              ”The study is full of assumptions and perfect situational scenarios - but it proves that they (masks) do in fact
                              help protect children from the infected individual!”

                              I’ll leave that there.
                              It's like your trying to prove one point, but disregard the other.... within the same study! You can't have it both ways. Here, let's break it down:

                              YOU say the study is adequate and reasonable. I say the study sucks, and is weighted on assumptions.

                              You then say that masks don't work, and there's no evidence that they protect children.... even though, this study (which you think is accurate) states..... that are in fact effective??

                              And frankly, masks do work. But I don't need "evidence" from this baseless study to support that... This article, was never evidence on my end for that support. My mask comment was literally thrown in there to show your cherry picking ways of what you think is evidence, and what is not.

                              The main point is you stillllll probably never read the study and stilllll want to ignore my original point on how In a "well-mixed" room (what the assumption in the model is reported on), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective - which Isn't the same as "distance doesn't matter" or that "6 and 60 feet are the same.

                              Your reply - is literally regurgitating the authors concluding sentence.

                              Like I said - it's a sad and weak attempt to challenge the recommended guidelines of social distancing (and mask wearing).




                              Last edited by Peerless; 08-11-2021, 09:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Very positive news with some school districts making masks optional for students. I’ve only been able to find one retrospective study on masks for students and the results were inconclusive. With so many other detrimental effects of kids wearing masks, it seems reasonable to make them optional in school.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X