Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 269021 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3750 on: November 23, 2021, 05:30:19 AM »
Some good news, if it works as well as the As Seen On TV infomercial.

https://news.yahoo.com/experimental-chewing-gum-may-reduce-183353601.html

"An experimental chewing gum containing a protein that "traps" coronavirus particles could limit the amount of virus in saliva and help curb transmission when infected people are talking, breathing or coughing, researchers believe. The gum contains copies of the ACE2 protein found on cell surfaces, which the virus uses as a gateway to break into cells and infect them."

Whether it works or not it's nice to see people thinking creatively.

I had thought of an idea that I might put in my next sci-fi novel, which would also be my first one, kind of along the idea of the Theranos blood test which would have let you take a very small sample of blood and test it for numerous pathogens and ailments. Maybe someone has thought of this already, but the idea is to take air samples and run them through high powered video and photographic equipment and then let a pattern recognition AI search for things like coronaviruses, black mold, asbestos, and pretty much anything you can think of as you just give the program the pattern and it looks for it. The air sampler would also be a high volume air purifier. The same idea could work for blood too. Instead of trying to get reactions out of the blood to test for everything, just have the AI do a visual inspection at the microscopic level.

Well I should have looked it up first before hoping I had thought of it first. I posted the above first and then looked it up:

https://innovationorigins.com/en/a-diagnostic-revolution-faster-blood-sample-analysis-through-ai/

"But RAPID does not stand for “fast” here, rather it is the abbreviation for “real-time analysis of physical phenotype in deformational flow.” The basis of this method is a technique in which a blood sample is sent through a transparent channel smaller than the diameter of a hair. In the process, a high-speed camera captures how the cells are deformed at about 2,000 to 4,000 photos per second. Artificial intelligence (AI) then searches these images for features that are signs of certain diseases and provides a specific suggested diagnosis. Another advantage of this method over the usual microscopic examinations is that the cells do not have to be elaborately stained in the process."

Maybe the same type of thing could be done for air except without channeling it as that may miss things, just taking like a wider angle picture or video but the resolution is so fantastic that the program can still pick out the searched for particles.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3751 on: November 23, 2021, 01:25:59 PM »
Gum tends to increase saliva spray during talking and saliva flow, so it is unclear that the net effect would be of benefit.  Interesting idea though.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3752 on: November 25, 2021, 04:57:28 AM »
So Fauci is at again putting out dangerously misleading information about Covid at odds with health experts including the World Health Organization.

https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-says-families-fully-vaccinated-034318842.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

"NIAID director Anthony Fauci told CNN Sunday that families fully vaccinated against COVID-19 "absolutely" don't need to wear masks when gathering for the holidays."

----------------------------------------------------



Meanwhile, "Europe is once again the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic amid a "false sense of security" over the protection offered by vaccines, World Health Organisation director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Wednesday...

... "In many countries and communities, we are concerned about a false sense of security that vaccines have ended the pandemic, and that people who are vaccinated do not need to take any other precautions," he said.

Vaccination, wearing masks and social distancing remain key to halting transmission, WHO officials said.

"We are back to pre-pandemic levels of social mixing (in Europe)... even in the midst of very strong resurgence in cases and even in the midst of some of those countries under high pressure in health systems," WHO emergency director Mike Ryan said.

"And the reality is the virus will continue to transmit intensely in that environment,” he said.

WHO epidemiologist Maria van Kerkhove said that it was important to take measures during the holiday period, adding: "Social measures do not mean lockdowns."


https://news.yahoo.com/false-sense-security-around-vaccines-145355032.html


---------------------------------------------------------------

Fauci is not listening to the science or the World Health Organization. If he was he would be warning people that now is not the time to start letting our guard down even if you are vaccinated. We also know, and he should know by now, that people will lie about their vaccination status, lie by omission and lie right from their unmasked face to yours, so his advice is going to lead to much more transmission than we'd see taking the more prudently cautious advice of the WHO. This pandemic not only isn't over, it's not even going in the right direction, and Fauci at many critical junctures including this one puts out false information that facilitates spreading the disease and making matters much worse than they would be if someone more competent were in his position. Like who? Like someone from the WHO. That would be nice.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3753 on: November 25, 2021, 09:49:01 AM »
In a family of say 10 where everyone is vaccinated and showing no signs of being sick  should wear a mask while gathering for Thanks Giving Dinner. Except when they sit down to eat....

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3754 on: November 25, 2021, 09:57:36 AM »
I think it's patently ridiculous to think families that are double or triple vaxxed should be wearing masks at dinner. There is a difference between something being technically superior at avoiding infection, versus reasonable precautions. Would a family be safer staying masked? Yes. They would also be safer not gathering at all, or in fact not going to work, or in fact living in a medical bubble. So where is the line? cherry, do you really think people should reasonably agree to wear masks at family gatherings forever? Personally I would call such a suggestion delusional. I am no Fauci fan, but this doesn't seem like the hill to die on.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3755 on: November 25, 2021, 10:41:46 AM »
I doubt the WHO is saying that families should be wearing masks at dinner but they did mention social distancing and that's still on the table so it may be premature to have the great big family reunion Thanksgiving dinners. Well the good thing is that nobody is going to listen to me. The bad thing is a lot of those people are going to get sick and die. People are going to travel all over the country and the world and gather in enclosed places for very long periods of time despite the WHO saying that the vaccines are only providing a false sense of security because Fauci seems to be contradicting the WHO and saying that the vaccines provide a true sense of security. Our holiday covid numbers will tell us who should have been believed and most likely Fauci will keep his consistent track record of erring on the side of danger instead of caution resulting in tens to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths by people who believed in him and prolonging the pandemic while giving the virus as many chances as possible to further mutate.

Anyway, enough doom and gloom. Everyone enjoy your Thanksgivings! I'm enjoying mine by going nuclear, nuclear family only.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3756 on: November 25, 2021, 10:48:21 AM »
Anyway, enough doom and gloom. Everyone enjoy your Thanksgivings! I'm enjoying mine by going nuclear, nuclear family only.

Each family can set its own standards. Earlier this year for a family gathering I did ban one unvaxxed couple from attending. And if you don't trust particular individuals you can absolutely keep distance from them. That said if you're in a small room for several hours with someone sick or contagious, and then sitting down to eat with them, I don't like your chances even if you keep a few feet away. If you are that concerned I would do as you suggest and just avoid most people. Masks are not going to put you at ease on that front. Just remember that this isn't going away, so whatever policy you adopt is your life now.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3757 on: November 25, 2021, 11:03:26 AM »
Canada is recommending using proper masks for anyone particularly concerned about exposure.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-covid-19-mask-guidance-1.6261032

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3758 on: November 25, 2021, 11:08:06 AM »
I very seriously doubt it's going to be forever. The Spanish Flu pandemic lasted about three years. This one looks like it could do something similar but with the advances in treatment and prevention it could be less. The idea that if we practice social distancing for this Thanksgiving and Christmas, not referring to the stay six feet apart social distancing but referring to the don't gather in big groups social distancing, then that's going to be what we have to do from now on for the rest of our lives doesn't hold. We see the writing on the wall right now with the covid surges in America and around the world just like we saw the writing on the wall when delta first started taking off and Biden and Fauci said taking off the masks was safe for the vaccinated. Well it wasn't safe. And now we hear from Fauci that mass gatherings are safe if everyone is vaccinated. Just like in the beginning it was safe for the public to go around maskless as long as they washed their hands. Every time he says something is safe it turns out he's wrong, and many times he's contradicted by the World Health Organization. But it's what people want to hear so it's accepted. And then when calamity happens, when things get worse despite Fauci's assurances that it was safe, everyone says that nobody could have known better. Well people did know better. They said as much, like the WHO right now. They were simply ignored.

If we don't get a big holiday covid surge that puts pressure on the hospitals again I'll admit I was wrong. But if we do all I want for Christmas is for people to admit Fauci was wrong and doing what he said to do was not as safe as he said it was.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3759 on: November 25, 2021, 11:15:19 AM »
That a good article about masks.

Great article in fact.

Just what little nit to pick on this point:

"There was a lot of controversy about N-95 masks because there weren't enough for the health-care workers. So the message then, quite understandably, was: 'Save those for the health-care workers and we will use other alternatives,'" said Marianne Levitsky...

---------------------------------------

Actually, no, that's not what the message was. The message we got was the lie that masks wouldn't help the general public.

But besides that... yeah... masks, good ones. Maybe Canada will give us another control group to show us how it's done so we can see the difference masks can make. Or we're the control group that shows what happens when masking is willy-nilly instead of concerted. Their message is different from Fauci's though.

"Masks are important even when you're fully vaccinated, both PHAC and doctors say, because although it's much less likely, infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 — especially the highly transmissible delta variant — can still happen."

That's a direct contradiction to what Fauci just said. Somebody is wrong here and Fauci's track record of being wrong doesn't look good for him.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3760 on: November 25, 2021, 12:21:38 PM »
Personally I don't much care for Dr Fauci either.

That said his comments should be taken in context. Which I think in this case involves Vaccinated Families getting together. In that context I agree.

My understanding of masks is that they lessen the probability of one person infecting another but that that probability goes down the longer people interact. (I read a study were keeping ones mouth shut was also effective in lessening the probability.  I'm going with that one for the holidays.)

Being vaccinated I wonder if coming into contact with a infected person might not be a terrible thing as statically I'm likely to fight it off without being contagions or being contagious for a shorter time. (While bosting my immunity???) 
I attempt to be aware when around those I know are not vaccinated not because I fear being infected by them but that I don't want to infect them.  In such cases I will wear a mask and do a risk analysis of how likely I could be infectious.   If I think there is a risk I could be sick and infectious I stay home.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 12:25:18 PM by rightleft22 »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3761 on: November 25, 2021, 03:27:04 PM »
People who are vaccinated are much less likely to be infected.  So the odds of any particular family member being infected if the whole family is vaccinated is drastically lower.

Say P(infected) is 80% less for a vaccinated individual.
And P(infected) is 1 in 100.
Then P(infected) for a vaccinated person is 1 in 500.
So for a family of 10, we have a vaccinated family
(1-(499/500)**10 = 1 in 50 chance that one (or more) of the family members in a 10 family gathering is infected.

For an unvaccinated family
1-(99/100)**10 = 1 in 10 chance that one (or more) of the family members in a 10 family gather is infected.

Next we need risk of transmission.  5 times higher for unvaccinated.
Next we need risk of death if a family member catches it 11 times higher for unvaccinated.

So the risks for a vaccinated family are drastically lower - the odds of anyone in the gathering being infected prior to the gathering is 5 times lower.  And if someone does have it, the odds of them transmitting to another family member are 5 times lower.  And if it is transfered, the risk of serious consequences are 11 times lower.

Overall about a 275 times lower risk for a vaccinated vs unvaccinated gathering of 10.

If we assume a 1 in 100 baseline chance of death if you catch covid.   Then 1 in 100 * 1 in 275 * 1 in 10 - or about a 1 in 275,000 chance of someone at the event catching and dying from COVID-19 or about 1 in 2,750,000 chance for any particular person at the gathering doing so.  That is essentially the risk of death from driving to your familys house for thanksgiving.  Of course most of the risk of dying from COVID-19 is amongst the elderly, so if you don't have a family member over 70 attending, it is probably much less risk than driving to your familys for thanksgiving.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 03:37:40 PM by LetterRip »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3762 on: November 25, 2021, 03:53:08 PM »
LR how do the odds change if the family has bathed in borax and taking ivermectin?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3763 on: November 25, 2021, 03:54:33 PM »
Note that P(infected) of 1 in 100 is probably way too high.

with 100k new daily cases a day, with no asymptomatic would be about 1 in 3000.  Assuming 50% asymptomatic and unreported, 1 in 1500.  Assuming 75% assymptomatic - 1 in 750, etc.  Perhaps divide by 3-5 for lag time between infection and symptoms for those that become symptomatic.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3764 on: November 25, 2021, 04:01:37 PM »
LR


That did not answer TheDrakes pertinent question.  :)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3765 on: November 25, 2021, 04:37:32 PM »
I can appreciate how the vaxxed refuse to punish themselves by not seeing their families in person in large friendly gatherings for the holidays. What we saw from Fauci and Biden on the unmasking debacle though is that it's not just going to be the vaxxed who do the gathering. Their advice is imprudent. The unvaxxed take every opportunity, every encouragement from Fauci that isn't even directed at them, to act as irresponsibly as possible. We see it every time. He says the vaxxed can do this or that, take off their masks and attend the great gathering. Then the unvaxxed declare themselves as good as vaxxed with their acquired or inherent immunity and do the same. They are a lot like little children. They see someone else being allowed to do something and by golly that looks like fun so they'll do it too even if, maybe especially if, they were specifically told not to, which Fauci is hardly even telling them anyway.

All I'm saying is it would be nice to get an acknowledgement from Fauci that it while it might be safe, should be safe, for the vaccinated to gather for the holidays it would be even safer if, taking the advice of the World Health Organization, they didn't. Just like while it might be safe, "should" be safe, for someone using condoms to have multiple sex partners, dozens of them, and some of them have stds, it would be even safer if they didn't. Just like though it might be safe, should be safe, for the vaccinated to take off their masks in crowded indoor places, it would be even safer if they didn't. I like the std angle come to think of it. If you don't have an std because you've been vaccinated against it, it should be safe for you to have gather in large crowds indoors and have sex for the holidays. So the obvious problem is that's probably not as safe as we're being promised and the other issue is a lot of people who aren't vaccinated to protect from stds so have them and presumably don't know it and don't care anyway or are susceptible to breakthrough std infections despite being vaccinated are going to be spreading them around for the holidays, giving them away like stocking stuffers.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3766 on: November 25, 2021, 04:44:43 PM »
LR
That did not answer TheDrakes pertinent question.  :)

Heh, I was typing my additional post before he asked his question.

If you bathe in a high enough concentration of Borax, then your odds of COVID-19 infection death drop to zero, unfortunately your risk of Borax death increase to 100%.  At non-lethal doses, no known risk reduction.  Same with Ivermectin - if you take a high enough dose to kill you, then you can avoid COVID-19 infection, but otherwise unlikely to reduce risk.

More seriously, for Ivermectin the two studies that were large enough to not be likely due to chance and that had large effect sizes,

the first was withdrawn due to 'irregularities' that suggest either incompetence or fraud.

The second one seems legit, but appears to be an artifact of methodology that reduced false positives in the treatment group.  Essentially the treatment group had a nasal rinse of saline water + a kelp extract and ivermectin multiple times daily.  The control group was no treatment.  These were all hospital personnel. Then they used nasal swabs with a extremely high amplification PCR.  So all of the medical personnel were likely getting regular nasal contamination with COVID-19 (not infected but particles in the air) - but regular saline rinses will wash out the dead COVID-19 particles in the treatment group.  Net result in high false positive rate among the control group and low false positives in the treatment group - but no reason to think there was actual benefit from the Ivermectin, Kelp extract, or saline water. 

« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 04:49:28 PM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3767 on: November 25, 2021, 04:48:19 PM »
cherry,

I just demonstrated there is more risk from going for a drive than there is in attending thanksgiving of a family of 10 where everyone is vaccinated.

It would be absurd to treat COVID-19 risk as more important than driving risk.  So unless the CDC is regularly warning people to avoid driving each day, there is no reason why they should caution fully vaccinated families to avoid gathering for thanksgiving or to recommend they wear masks.

The unvaccinated aren't going to listen to Fauci, and definitely aren't going to wear masks.  They were never going to wear masks even if Fauci said everyone, inculding vaccinated should wear them.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 04:51:41 PM by LetterRip »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3768 on: November 25, 2021, 04:56:55 PM »
The unvaccinated aren't going to listen to Fauci, and definitely aren't going to wear masks.  They were never going to wear masks even if Fauci said everyone, inculding vaccinated should wear them.

In large part because the people cherry never gets around to criticizing keep telling them they don't have to wear masks.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3769 on: November 25, 2021, 05:41:05 PM »
The unvaccinated were wearing masks though, in Walmart, in Costco, in HEB, at the library, in Boston Market, pretty much everywhere, everyone was wearing them, even in the states with Republican leadership that didn't like masks. Nobody passed a law saying that those companies and public facilities couldn't follow the CDC advice at the time which was to mask up indoors in places like those. Even DeSantis never called for a law saying Walmart couldn't require masks in its stores nationwide including in Florida. We had it. It was in the bag. We were winning. People by and large had gotten used to it and accepted it. If you don't like wearing masks you wear a loose fitting comfortable one that isn't really a big deal. Daily deaths were in the double digits. Then Biden along with the CDC suddenly came along and raised their arms in triumph saying it was safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks in those places but left it up to the honor system. And a couple of months after that we got the huge delta surge which we're still enjoying. We're seeing the same laissez-faire attitude now and it's going to get us the same deadly results.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3770 on: November 25, 2021, 05:53:20 PM »
Quote
What we saw from Fauci and Biden on the unmasking debacle
I think it would be helpful in your argument is you included Trump - which did more then his fair share in politicizing masks and leaning heavily towards the unmaskers


Quote
The unvaxxed take every opportunity, every encouragement from Fauci that isn't even directed at them
Not just from Fauci but pretty much anyone or organization with legit credentials that gives advice except for the echo chambers they are invested in which suggest things like horse medicine... that they will accept.

Quote
All I'm saying is it would be nice to get an acknowledgement from Fauci that it while it might be safe, should be safe...
I agree Fauci is a horrible communicator. He ought to have stepped down as the go to guy on Covid long ago.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3771 on: November 25, 2021, 05:56:58 PM »
https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1463620955096457220?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well this is something along the lines that I like to see from the CDC.

"Before gathering with friends and family, consider using #COVID19 self-tests to protect those you care about. Along with vaccines, self-tests can help reduce the spread of COVID-19. View videos about how to self-test and learn more: https://bit.ly/2XuuySb"


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3772 on: November 25, 2021, 06:12:12 PM »
Quote
Then Biden along with the CDC suddenly came along and raised their arms in triumph saying it was safe for the vaccinated...

The statement wasn't a lie and there is a argument to be made that it made the unvaccinated less safe
 
Personally I try to be mindful and not assume everyone around me has been vaccinated.  That said I'm tired and if the unvaccinated don't want to put themselves into danger that's up to them.

In context the issue was hospitals being overwhelmed and not being able to treat everyone. Eventually I think its a matter of time before those that are going to be end up in the hospital with Covid, vaxed or not, are going to get infected no matter what we do. Mask help spread out the timeline but they don't illuminate it.  Vaccines are the best bet to limit ones risk, those that don't want to do that can't demand the rest of us to keep them safe.  Eventually we need to move on

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3773 on: November 27, 2021, 05:27:13 PM »
cherry,

from your post in the wrong thread,

Quote
So knowing this and with everyone freaking out because the vaccines may not provide the hoped for protection against this variant, he still went out and said it was safe for all the vaccinated to gather for the holidays anyway.

Maybe omicron won't live up to the hype and it won't be a big deal but that wasn't the case with delta which did live up to the hype and was a pretty big deal.

Except there is no reason to think that vaccines aren't effective against Omnicron given that the spread is almost exclusively among unvaccinated and partially vaccinated,

Quote
“Young people, in their 20s to just over their late 30s, are coming in with moderate to severe disease, some needing intensive care. About 65% are not vaccinated and most of the rest are only half-vaccinated,” said Mathivha.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/covid-variant-threat-worldwide-scramble-81417682

Also the number of cases of Omnicron in the US are going to be close enough to zero, that even it the vaccinated were at risk from it, the risk is so small that it can be ignored without changing the risk statistics.

So again you malign Fauci without any rational basis.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3774 on: November 28, 2021, 07:11:45 AM »
So while the experts at the World Health Organization along with the leaders of other countries and even local leaders in America are all saying gird your loins and sharpen your steal for you will soon be tested and some are even screaming brace for impact we have Fauci dancing in the dandelions singing don't worry be happy and oh what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day, I've got a wonderful feeling everything's going my way.

He demonstrated that same carefree attitude with delta and look where that got us. Trump took a lot of heat, deservedly, for not taking the virus seriously enough and now we have Biden making the same mistakes and despite their differences the most obvious thing they both have in common is Fauci. I'm hardly saying anything crazy or even uncommon either. All I'm saying is the same thing leaders in other countries that have been more successful than we have in handling the virus have been saying all along. Common sense would say we just take a step back and say oh look at them they are doing so much better than we are hey maybe we should take a look at what they're doing differently.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3775 on: November 29, 2021, 11:21:14 AM »
Quote
Americans need to be prepared to do “anything and everything” to fight the omicron Covid variant, U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday.

Still, it’s “too early to say” whether lockdowns or new mandates will be appropriate, Fauci said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The World Health Organization last week classified omicron as a “variant of concern,” meaning it is more contagious, more virulent or more skilled at evading public health measures, vaccines and therapeutics.

The variant, first discovered in South Africa, has several mutations to the spike protein that allows the virus to enter the body, and some of those mutations could lead to increased antibody resistance and transmissibility.

The U.S. had already said it would restrict travel for non-U.S. citizens from South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi. The variant has been found in the U.K., Israel, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Australia and Hong Kong, but not yet in the U.S.

“Inevitably, it will be here. The question is will we be prepared for it? If and when, and it’s going to be when, it comes here hopefully we will be ready for it,” Fauci added.

I fail to see how that is dancing through the dandelions. He's saying it will be here, the administration is restricting travel from areas with high concentrations, we should be prepared to do anything and everything.

Further, on your favorite subject:

Quote
Fauci, who also serves as Biden's chief medical adviser, doubled down on how it is "absolutely essential that unvaccinated people get vaccinated and that vaccinated people get boosters" and wear masks during indoor congregations.

And this:

Quote
Fauci added, "The vaccines that we use may very well be able to contain this, and then (omicron) won't be as serious as some people are surmising it might be. A lot of unknowns, which is the reason why we're all over this. And as they say, you assume something that might be worse than it is, but better that than underestimating. You don't want people to panic, but you want to know that we're doing everything we can to stay ahead of this."

As for what other countries are doing better? Vaccine passports. Lockdowns. Mask mandates. None of which is in the federal domain in the United States, and actively fought by most Republican governors.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3776 on: November 29, 2021, 12:48:06 PM »
The current spike timing and growth rate, mirrors almost exactly a spike from a year ago when the dominant strain was Alpha.

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/south-africa/

The current 'rapid spread of infection' is quite likely just the changes in weather (humidity) and behavior that happen seasonally and nothing Omnicron specific.  We see mirror spikes for late May to early July also - again almost certainly seasonal.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3777 on: November 29, 2021, 01:04:16 PM »
Cherry, while I appreciate your frustration over Biden and the CDC not being as proactive or even as active as you believe is necessary to fight the pandemic, I do wonder why I haven't seen you express vehemence more often against those who actively try to stop preventative measures, such as the yahoo councilmen this is California town.  It seems like you are only sensitive to the actions on one side of the aisle, while ignoring the worse actions on the other.  :o

Also, have you had your booster shot yet?  A study indicates that it does more than just refresh your immunity, but actually makes you more resistant to the virus than before.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3778 on: November 29, 2021, 01:08:34 PM »
Wife got her booster just over a week ago and I am getting mine this Saturday.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3779 on: November 29, 2021, 03:44:00 PM »
Oroville huh? They thought they were an autonomous collective.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3780 on: November 29, 2021, 05:07:34 PM »
TheDrake, you might not be wrong, and we all know Trump would never do any action that might cost him popular opinion, even if it was right.

But if he had started from the beginning, wording it as a patriotic action it would have been somewhat effective. Hell, he could have said it was the American way of fighting the China virus.

The problem on this front was larger than that. Trump has no concept of self-sacrifice. So him asking people to do that runs counter to his being, and it would likely be reflected in how many perceive his asking them to do so as well.

He was known to be a garbage fire before he was elected. We got what we voted for.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3781 on: November 29, 2021, 05:08:37 PM »
It is sort of like the State of Texas saying the Federal Gov is overreaching with a vaccine mandate and that the companies should decide but then making it illegal for the companies to put in a mandate of their own. So State overreach is OK but not Federal.

10th Amendment at its finest.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3782 on: November 29, 2021, 05:17:22 PM »
Many vaccinated still wear masks.  The antivaxxers are those who predominantly don't wear masks.  They "don't wear masks" because they have been convinced it is a hoax and that masks don't work and other bizarre beliefs.

I don't tend to reliably "mask in public" when I go on campus for labs. But mostly its a mix of my physical social exposures are limited to basically just the people in that class(they're not masking either).. And as the mask only really works to protect me from infecting them... The full circle is thus reached. My highest risk factor for getting Covid is from them at this stage, so wearing a mask to protect them from getting covid from me while I got it from them in the first place is rather.. Odd.

Of course,  I'm also vaccinated, but waiting a bit longer to get my booster, considering I had my own confirmed Covid 19 exposure(w/out infection) just a couple months ago, even though I'm now coming up on month 7 of my second vaccine dose.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3783 on: November 29, 2021, 09:07:05 PM »
And as the mask only really works to protect me from infecting them...

Masks protect the non-mask wearer more than the mask wearer, because source control protects everyone from the source.  They drastically reduce the dose if you are exposed, so they definitely do protect the wearer quite a bit.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3784 on: November 30, 2021, 03:58:00 AM »
And as the mask only really works to protect me from infecting them...

Masks protect the non-mask wearer more than the mask wearer, because source control protects everyone from the source.  They drastically reduce the dose if you are exposed, so they definitely do protect the wearer quite a bit.

Unless you're wearing a N95, or spending your time within 3 feet of the other person's face, that's not what I recall seeing in the studies.

It was a high 90th percentile reduction in potential exposure to others because the larger droplets you produce get caught in your mask(but even a very basic scarf or bandanna could likely result in a 90th percentile reduction too).

But on the other end, depending on the materials used in your mask for protection from others at 6 feet of distancing... You're looking at a low single digit percentile reduction in your exposure loading at best. Until you start going to the extremes of N95, or even more exotic options.

You mask up to protect others from you. You vaccinate to protect yourself(and others to some extent). But generally speaking, masking to protect you from others doesn't do much unless you're right on top of them for prolonged periods of time, or otherwise engaged in activities where more exotic hazards enter into the fray.

Of course, the magic sauce in all of this is the people spreading Covid around without even realizing they're sick/have Covid. Which brings us back to wearing the masks for people who aren't keeping their physical/social bubbles exceptionally small(like I have been doing).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2021, 04:01:11 AM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3785 on: November 30, 2021, 09:28:05 AM »
 My understanding is that the longer you are around someone, the less likely mutual or unilateral masking is likely to benefit. I'm dubious of the value of masking against a colleague working next to me on an assembly line, and highly confident about masking against the lady behind me in the checkout aisle.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3786 on: November 30, 2021, 11:58:59 AM »
My understanding is that the longer you are around someone, the less likely mutual or unilateral masking is likely to benefit. I'm dubious of the value of masking against a colleague working next to me on an assembly line, and highly confident about masking against the lady behind me in the checkout aisle.

Exposure duration factors into there as well. Depending on how slow or fast the checkout line may be, that's probably appropriate.

Just walking past a (potential) super spreader, who is walking the other way, even while indoors and unmasked probably isn't going to put you at much risk. Spending "a few minutes" near to each other with both properly wearing masks is likely to reduce the risk factor by a lot.

But I'd tend to agree that contingent on the ventilation of the area, the longer you spend in a person's presence where they're infected, the risk of infection steadily increases regardless of if the mask is worn or not with an eventual point being reached that the mask becomes pointless on both sides.

Air flow/Air exchange becomes a huge factor in this consideration, a room that frequently makes a complete exchange of the air in the room(in theory) every few minutes, and makes use of other aggressive air sterilization practices is likely to be "mostly fine" for hours so long as you're not breathing on each other. But a building/room with poor air exchange with the outside, and often recirculates the air(for energy efficiency, circa 1980's and 1990's in particular; IIRC by the 1990's they'd realized that tightly sealed buildings did need to actively provision for air exchanges to take place, but those techniques took a while to be adopted/fielded), those are places where the viral loading in the air is logically only to go up no matter what precautions individuals pursue.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3787 on: November 30, 2021, 12:07:19 PM »
The BBC did a interesting study can't find the link
10 people in a room, one person contagious
- no masks (cloth masks)
- no masks + distance
- no masks + distance and talking
- sick person masked
- Everyone masked
- Everyone masked and distanced
Then they add duration as a variable 5 min 15 min 30 min....

In all the scenarios the probably of being protected/protecting decreased the longer the duration 
interesting keeping ones mouth shut was almost as effective as wearing a cloth mask
If the group of 10 only had one mask you defiantly want the once who is contagious to be wearing it

My take away that it comes down to risk management and probability.

There was also a indication that when people wear a mask they pay more attention to their situation and interactions. They tend to be more considerate.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3788 on: November 30, 2021, 05:19:53 PM »
And as the mask only really works to protect me from infecting them...

Masks protect the non-mask wearer more than the mask wearer, because source control protects everyone from the source.  They drastically reduce the dose if you are exposed, so they definitely do protect the wearer quite a bit.

Unless you're wearing a N95, or spending your time within 3 feet of the other person's face, that's not what I recall seeing in the studies.

Note sure what your source is but here is evidence of drastic reduction from a 65% filtration mask (3 layer surgical mask).

Quote
For all flow rates considered, wearing a mask reduces the lung dosimetry (trachea and below), regardless of the mask filtration efficiency. Wearing a 65%-filtration mask reduces the lung deposition by 2.5–3.5 folds for particles of size 1 µm–10 µm [lower panel, Fig. 9(c)].

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0034580

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3789 on: November 30, 2021, 10:04:19 PM »
Exposure still ends up being cumulative. So in that context, masking makes sense when your in the general public, out shopping, paying bills, running errands, etc. But once you sit down somewhere and begin to involve yourself in a long duration exposure... The numbers start to render it meaningless.

A 65% reduction in exposure just means it increased your exposure time limit by about X%. Where I'm not going to try to do the more precise math, but I'm sure someone else can.

All the mask or no mask means at that point is if you "caught it" after 5 minutes, or 40 minutes. In an employment context where you're next to your co-worker for 8 to 12 hours out of the day(depending on the type of work shifts your company is doing), the mask doesn't really matter in the end. I'd expect that by the end of the first hour near to someone who contagious, you're likely going to have Covid19 regardless of your being masked. Much like the BBC example rightleft remembers seeing. (5 minutes vs 40 minutes is 12.5% and 5 minutes out of 60 is 8.3% for reference)

Now if the person who is contagious has a N95 on, and you're in a 65% effective mask, That 5% exposure takes about 20 times longer to get infected in theory(except it doesn't quite work that way). Your 65% mask makes it potentially take 1.5 times longer(except the particulates that cleared the N95 are likely to clear your N65, but we'll give you a chance to catch some anyway), so you'll need an exposure time 30 times larger(20 times 1.5)  than the group that went without the masks.

So if 15 minutes is the normal unmasked exposure limit, that gives you 450 minutes, or 7.5 hours. Sorry, but by the end of your workday, your co-worker has probably infected you anyway.

Although really, looking at those "napkin numbers" it is actually pretty amazing that more hospital workers didn't end up infected with Covid19.

edit to add: 15 minute exposure limit vs both parties in 65% masks gives 15 * 1.5 *1.5 = 33.75 minutes. So an hour long meeting with an infected person means likely infection absent measures beyond simple masking.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2021, 10:14:20 PM by TheDeamon »

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3790 on: November 30, 2021, 10:52:26 PM »
Omicron might actually be the best thing that could have happened. Reports are stating that it's highly transmissible, low symptom.

The Spanish Flu ended in a similar way, it mutated to something that spread easier but had less severe symptoms.

End of the day everything answers to Darwin. If you kill your victim before they can spread your love, you lose out. Roll enough dice and a highly transmissible, low fatality virus wins out. See : the common cold.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3791 on: November 30, 2021, 11:24:32 PM »
End of the day everything answers to Darwin. If you kill your victim before they can spread your love, you lose out. Roll enough dice and a highly transmissible, low fatality virus wins out. See : the common cold.

It is equally likely the "common cold" (which is actually a whole slate of different virii) simply killed off anyone who was highly vulnerable to its primary means of attack, and humanity moved on with its existence.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3792 on: December 01, 2021, 12:38:14 AM »
End of the day everything answers to Darwin. If you kill your victim before they can spread your love, you lose out. Roll enough dice and a highly transmissible, low fatality virus wins out. See : the common cold.

It is equally likely the "common cold" (which is actually a whole slate of different virii) simply killed off anyone who was highly vulnerable to its primary means of attack, and humanity moved on with its existence.

I'm comfortable with the idea that the antivax electorate is going to Darwin themselves out of relevance. The Herman Cain Award is literally people sitting back and laughing as people kill themselves.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3793 on: December 01, 2021, 12:47:24 AM »
End of the day everything answers to Darwin. If you kill your victim before they can spread your love, you lose out. Roll enough dice and a highly transmissible, low fatality virus wins out. See : the common cold.

It is equally likely the "common cold" (which is actually a whole slate of different virii) simply killed off anyone who was highly vulnerable to its primary means of attack, and humanity moved on with its existence.

And on this in particular, totally. 10-20k years ago the common cold killed a whole bunch of people, and us lucky people are the descendents of those who were resistant. The point is we'll resist (vaccines) and the virus will mutate to be less deadly and more transmissible and a hundred years from now it'll be "just" the flu.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3794 on: December 01, 2021, 01:52:47 AM »
And on this in particular, totally. 10-20k years ago the common cold killed a whole bunch of people, and us lucky people are the descendents of those who were resistant. The point is we'll resist (vaccines) and the virus will mutate to be less deadly and more transmissible and a hundred years from now it'll be "just" the flu.

I'd be highly surprised if it persists past 2024 as an issue in the borders of the US. In some respects, I think it'll be a mostly dead issue for much of the electorate in the US by November 2022. Even if people are still dying by the hundreds per week across the nation by that point. (For comparison on average, 694 people died from car accidents in the US during every week of 2019; at present we're doing good to have that as the 7 day running average for daily deaths) For that matter, we've had years where the flu outpaced deaths from car accidents, and the Flu itself has been practically absent in the US since the Covid restrictions were put in place. It isn't just that the testing rates have dropped, the positivity rates for those being tested is extremely low.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3795 on: December 01, 2021, 04:31:37 PM »
Another conservative Christian broadcaster, who was anti vax and anti mask has died.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-vaccine-christian-broadcaster-marcus-224434365.html

They keep praying for health but it looks like God's answer is NO.  Or his answer was the vaccine he gave humans the ability to develop.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3796 on: December 01, 2021, 05:29:39 PM »
They keep praying for health but it looks like God's answer is NO.  Or his answer was the vaccine he gave humans the ability to develop.

God helps those who help themselves.

Going to borrow this guy's remembrance of the joke that comes to mind.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fumbling-change/200905/two-boats-and-helicopter-thoughts-stress-management

Quote
A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.

"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."

"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."

Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.

"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."

Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."

After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.

"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."

Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.

And, predictably, he drowns.

A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"

God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3798 on: December 02, 2021, 07:45:26 PM »
Looks like we hit 75% over 5 with at least one shot today.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3799 on: December 02, 2021, 07:53:13 PM »
Well 47 days for another 60,000 dead.  We are now at 780,000.  I wonder how Omicron will affect the totals this winter?