Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OK, the Corona Virus Isn't Going Away. Now What?


Recommended Posts

The conclusions from the scientists continue to change as they learn more and many continue to disagree. All you have to do is choose the one who disagrees with your political opponent to be THE ONE who is obviously right and anybody who considers what a different scientist says is a science denier, because it"s easier to just cut the legs out from under them than to actually have to consider data that contradicts what you believe.

Dan

 

Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The conclusions from the scientists continue to change as they learn more and many continue to disagree.]

 

Which is why this thread is still relevant. Of course, there's no consensus; there are too many new pieces of data flowing in that may change previous perceptions and models. It doesn't bother me that "experts" disagree. I would expect them to, because they're being exposed to different data sets. Again, let me emphasize that although my default response is "I don't know," I do pay attention to what experts are saying, because there are some subjects where there is consensus - like if you know you have it, don't cough on people.

 

(On another note, "sleuthing the virus" is a perfect example of why machine learning holds such promise. A supercomputer could absorb vastly larger amounts of data than any human, and perform billions of calculations as it looks for dots that connect.)

 

All you have to do is choose the one who disagrees with your political opponent to be THE ONE who is obviously right and anybody who considers what a different scientist says is a science denier, because it"s easier to just cut the legs out from under them than to actually have to consider data that contradicts what you believe.

 

Hence the reason why I like the "I don't know" answer so much. My only qualification for a science denier is someone who thinks wishful thinking is more credible than data.

 

And we also have to consider the law of unintended consequences. When the issue of global warming first came up, the gloom and doom contingent said, with certainty, that hurricanes would be more often and more intense because of warmer ocean waters. But there were fewer hurricanes, because one of the unintended consequences was that the jet stream dropped down further than anticipated, which sheared off the top of the hurricanes so they couldn't develop. Now destructive hurricanes are ramping up again. Oceans warming past a tipping point? The sun? Jet stream changes caused by other factors? The new James Bond movie not coming out until October? AT&T still in existence? You tell me.

 

The whole virus thing is incredibly complex. It's the novel corona virus, not the been there, done that corona virus. Most of what we try to extrapolate from the past doesn't fit all that well.

 

A lot of people are pinning their hopes on a vaccine which even if it was available today, couldn't be delivered in sufficient quantity to take care of everybody. Just think what that would do!!! "Vaccine sold to the highest bidder! The rest of you, tough luck." I'm pinning my hopes on the people who are researching why the same virus hits some people so hard while leaving others alone, notwithstanding underlying conditions. If we could just figure out what causes that difference, getting society back to normal would be so much easier.

 

I'm also pinning my hopes, as mentioned previously, on research showing that eating bacon and drinking are what keep people from getting a severe case. But that doesn't make me a science denier, because I have proof!! I had bacon yesterday for brunch, and three glasses of wine with dinner. I don't have the virus. Therefore, my hypothesis is obviously correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want back on topic, here's back on topic.

 

La Gare is a jazz club in Paris that was once a railway station. Now, it has transformed again, from a raucous social scene to an intimate venue of concerts for one.

 

Like all nightclubs, La Gare closed to the public when France"s lockdown began, but it reopened once social distancing rules eased â to only a couple of patrons at a time. Customers can enter the club alone or with one other person with whom they live. Once inside, solo musicians play a brief mini-concert directly to the attendees. It"s a highly intimate experience that even the performers themselves have had to get used to. 'You"re being closely watched and that can be a bit nerve-racking for the first 30 seconds,' one bass player told the Guardian.

 

Each performance lasts only a few minutes, allowing the club to serve a large number of patrons â in just a few weeks, it has hosted over 3,000 mini-concerts. 'Even before the coronavirus we would ask people not to talk during the concerts and never turn their back on the musicians,' said the owner. 'In most places, they say the customer is king. Well, at La Gare they"re not. The music is king. And we want people to give it their full attention.'

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusions from the scientists continue to change as they learn more and many continue to disagree.]

 

Which is why this thread is still relevant. Of course, there's no consensus; there are too many new pieces of data flowing in that may change previous perceptions and models. It doesn't bother me that "experts" disagree. I would expect them to, because they're being exposed to different data sets. Again, let me emphasize that although my default response is "I don't know," I do pay attention to what experts are saying, because there are some subjects where there is consensus - like if you know you have it, don't cough on people.

 

Well, my considered opinion is that, when the experts don't have a solution, it's clearly time to call in the amateurs!

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my considered opinion is that, when the experts don't have a solution, it's clearly time to call in the amateurs!

Agreed. Do people even realize that the fact that the earth is flat makes it much easier for the virus to spread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was because ice cream has no bones...

 

A bit more promising news. The financial guru's I follow have been talking today about the outlook for a vaccine. Today Pfizer released the first data from their vaccine trial. Of course it's preliminary but Pfizer is a huge company and they're working with another company in Germany. The early trials are pretty successful but it's only 45 people right now. Here's a blurb about it:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/65d0b33a-f12a-4878-ac87-da4835683949

 

Also there are four other big trials making the news by Moderna, Astra Zenica, Glaxo Smith-Kline and Johnson and Johnson. This article mentions 17 trials going on around the world and I'm surprised when Pfizer said they could have 100 million doses available by the end of the year and billions in 2021. There's apparently a whole new way to produce a vaccine now that is much faster.

 

I'm not jumping up and down just yet but man, if this works out that fast...

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Bob, that ft.com link didn't work because I'm not a subscriber.

 

However, I keep this page bookmarked, it's a running tracker for vaccines, and it had a section about the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that's the one I believe you're talking about. It's interesting to watch what they're doing out there. Lots of different approaches with a lot of possibilities and more than just the 17 you say that article mentions. Here's to hoping. :thu:

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to find out what's considered the norm for number of people dying per day in the US, because I had no idea whether the corona virus was adding a significant amount or not.

 

These stats are readily available and although the number varies (fewer in summer, more in winter), the average is between 7,000 and 8,000 people per day. Since the end of February, COVID-19 has added an average of 1,000 dead people per day. (It went down for a while, but lately, it's going back up. Increases in deaths this week over last week is +35%.)

 

Bottom line is COVID-19 isn't doubling the number of deaths or anything like that, but it is clearly is a significant number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Bob, that ft.com link didn't work because I'm not a subscriber.

 

hey Joe, I created a gift link for you. Link can only be opened 3 times, however. If you can't open it text me. :cool:

 

 

https://on.ft.com/2D0jIsB

Grazie, Dave! :thu: Hopefully the next phase of trials goes well. Sometimes the wider phases of drug trials completely flop after a promising phase 1.

I wanted to find out what's considered the norm for number of people dying per day in the US, because I had no idea whether the corona virus was adding a significant amount or not.

 

These stats are readily available and although the number varies (fewer in summer, more in winter), the average is between 7,000 and 8,000 people per day. Since the end of February, COVID-19 has added an average of 1,000 dead people per day. (It went down for a while, but lately, it's going back up. Increases in deaths this week over last week is +35%.)

 

Bottom line is COVID-19 isn't doubling the number of deaths or anything like that, but it is clearly is a significant number.

This is from one of my favorite sites about research and data in general.

 

A pandemic primer on excess mortality statistics and their comparability across countries

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vaccine by the end of the year? A hopeful and extremely interesting interview with Dr. Fauci's boss.

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/anthony-faucis-boss-on-why-things-could-be-much-better-soon.html

 

edited to add more hopeful news- the malaria drug may be effective, after all. The difference between this and other studies, is that patients were given the drug earlier in their illness.

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was some discussion about what's happening in Texas in this thread. In the sense of completeness and fairness, TX Governor Abbott issued a statewide mask order. :o I wish he had done some of these steps sooner, but I'm glad he did them. Hopefully soon Texas will stop being named as one of the states with record new cases, etc.

 

The order requires 'all Texans to wear a face covering over the nose and mouth in public spaces in counties with 20 or more positive COVID-19 cases, with few exceptions."

 

The order does not apply to Texas counties that have fewer than 20 coronavirus cases or to children under 10 or anyone out exercising.

 

Masks will not be required at voting booths or religious gatherings, though they are encouraged, according to the order.

 

Also on Thursday, Abbott restored the ability of mayors and county judges to restrict some outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people and mandated that most people gathered in groups larger than that maintain at least 6 feet between them.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Do people even realize that the fact that the earth is flat makes it much easier for the virus to spread?

 

 

Last night, on a different forum, I discovered what it must have felt like for Nicolaus Copernicus when he blasphemed the church with his theory that the Earth is not the center of the universe when I stated the simple medical fact that covid-19 is not an airborne disease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Do people even realize that the fact that the earth is flat makes it much easier for the virus to spread?

 

 

Last night, on a different forum, I discovered what it must have felt like for Nicolaus Copernicus when he blasphemed the church with his theory that the Earth is not the center of the universe when I stated the simple medical fact that covid-19 is not an airborne disease!

 

Maybe folks in general don't know the technical definition of "airborne" in the medical context. From the all-knowing wiki behind the curtain:

 

Airborne transmission is distinct from transmission by respiratory droplets. Respiratory droplets are large enough to fall to the ground rapidly after being produced (usually greater than 5 μm), as opposed to the smaller particles that carry airborne pathogens. Also, while respiratory droplets consist mostly of water, airborne particles are relatively dry, which damages many pathogens so that their ability to transmit infection is lessened or eliminated. Thus the number of pathogens that can be transmitted through an airborne route is limited.

 

Hence the six feet distancing protocol - the nasty respiratory droplets should not be able to reach you across that much distance. Unless it's King Kong sneezing. But if King Kong would just wear a mask, even he would not present a problem. So....you go tell him he has to wear a mask...

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a study during the early days of re-opening when tables in restaurants were 6 feet apart.

 

They studied infection rates in dozens of restaurants and found that the people sitting in front of the air conditioner return vents had many times the infection rate of any other table in those restaurants. It was published in a peer reviewed,respected, medical journal, although like so many articles I've read, I've lost the link (sorry there are just too many to save).

 

That tells me COVID IS an airborne disease despite what the pundits on propaganda posed as news channels may say.

 

So I must respectfully disagree with anyone who says anything to the contrary.

 

Thanks Craig for doing the math. A thousand deaths a day IMO is way too many. That's >30,000 per month and 365,000 per year. And that's not considering the even greater number of survivors who end up with lung, brain, heart, kidney or other major organ damage.

 

I think the economy is going to tank whether we re-open or not. It's been shown that fear is keeping people in re-opened states from spending. Restaurants around here that are supposed to be allowing 50% capacity, are still running at about 5% and the owners are crying the blues. When I go to the normally crowded grocery stores, they are sparsely populated. I needed something for my home, went to the Home Depot store and it was like a ghost town. When I got to the checkout register at both stores there were plenty of cashiers with nobody in there already.

 

Lockdown does the same thing to the economy, probably quicker but with fewer deaths. Either way the economy loses, and I predict after the false hopes of the economy coming back because we are opening up (IMO too soon), the stock market is going to take a dive. I hope I'm wrong.

 

It looks to me that it's a lose-lose situation and the politicians we elect will decide which way we are going to lose.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They studied infection rates in dozens of restaurants and found that the people sitting in front of the air conditioner return vents had many times the infection rate of any other table in those restaurants. It was published in a peer reviewed,respected, medical journal, although like so many articles I've read, I've lost the link (sorry there are just too many to save).

 

That tells me COVID IS an airborne disease despite what the pundits on propaganda posed as news channels may say.

 

No, it means that those nasty little droplets can be propagated via the air. I would imagine that the moisture involved in air conditioning might also be a contributing factor.

 

It's a fine point, but when this whole thing hit, there was a lot of concern that it could be airborne, but studies eventually showed that wasn't the case. Ebola is the same way, no airborne transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Do people even realize that the fact that the earth is flat makes it much easier for the virus to spread?

 

 

Last night, on a different forum...

 

I'm sorry, but we cannot guarantee your psychic safety in other environments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another article saying the total number of cases is probably 10 times (or more) the reported numbers.

 

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/coronavirus-case-counts-us/

 

I've been saying this since March on various forums. Many health experts were saying this was likely but but the news outlets simply ignored it. Good news and bad news with this. The good news is we're that much closer to herd immunity and the hospitalization and death rates are much lower overall. The bad news of course is we're that much more at risk when we go out for any reason. Here's a study that I referenced a few times published April 1 based on three weeks of interesting statistical research in March. This study is saying the actual number of cases was at least 28 million and that was the end of March, who knows what it is now. This was when the published death rates were really high and were scaring the crap out of people and I was saying woah, yes this is serious but not a 3-5% death rate serious. Personally, and it's just a somewhat logical guess, I think the total number of infections both counted and uncounted since February is 40-50 million. People talk about antibody testing shows less than that but then you'll read about how unreliable different types of those tests are. Yes, this is an example of me flip flopping back and forth. It's terrible, we're not getting back to normal for years then I'll say something that implies it may not be that bad. What can I say?

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20050542v1.full.pdf

 

Concerning gigs and having fun I just talked to my friend on Catalina Island. The boats are running and they are packed, the island is booming but the bars are closed and no live music. I was thinking that because of the spike in cases the governor might shut the boats down again but no. This plays into my theory that even though he talks a big game about people not complying and shutting down the state again, it's just talk. The state needs the economy to pick up because they're going broke. I'm told the lines at the terminal to board the boats are about three blocks long to accommodate social distancing. The boats have very limited outside seating so it's basically 350 people with a ton of luggage, crammed into an enclosed 97 foot catamaran cabin for an hour and fifteen minutes crossing the channel. Just to park your luggage it's shoulder to shoulder. To me, that's crazy and I'm not doing it any time soon.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That tells me COVID IS an airborne disease despite what the pundits on propaganda posed as news channels may say.

 

So I must respectfully disagree with anyone who says anything to the contrary.

 

I don't WATCH the news. I only read the news. That said, I have been reading about the COVID-19 since January, and not once have I ever seen anyone even question or suggest that it wasn't primarily transmitted airborne. Very strange.

 

I don't know what "news" infotainment agency is saying that, but I would stop watching them immediately.

 

Quite frankly, I would suggest that we all stop WATCHING the news regardless unless there is a rare instance in which it is somehow imperative to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They studied infection rates in dozens of restaurants and found that the people sitting in front of the air conditioner return vents had many times the infection rate of any other table in those restaurants. It was published in a peer reviewed,respected, medical journal, although like so many articles I've read, I've lost the link (sorry there are just too many to save).

 

That tells me COVID IS an airborne disease despite what the pundits on propaganda posed as news channels may say.

 

No, it means that those nasty little droplets can be propagated via the air. I would imagine that the moisture involved in air conditioning might also be a contributing factor.

 

It's a fine point, but when this whole thing hit, there was a lot of concern that it could be airborne, but studies eventually showed that wasn't the case. Ebola is the same way, no airborne transmission.

 

Please explain. We may be just talking semantics here or there might be some concept that I'm unaware of.

 

From WIKI under the heading Airborne disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_disease

 

...Airborne diseases include any that are caused via transmission through the air. Many airborne diseases are of great medical importance. The pathogens transmitted may be any kind of microbe, and they may be spread in aerosols, dust or liquids

...

Many common infections can spread by airborne transmission at least in some cases, including but not limited to: measles morbillivirus, chickenpox virus;[5] Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenza virus, enterovirus, norovirus and less commonly coronavirus, adenovirus, and possibly respiratory syncytial virus.[6] Because the drying process often damages the pathogens, the number of diseases that can be spread through an airborne route is limited.[5]

 

Note: the bold type is my addition.

 

Of course WIKI isn't a medical reference, but it does mention liquids and coronavirus.

 

It seems to me if the droplets are airborne, than the disease is an airborne transmitted disease.

 

From https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857 which I found in a search for Airborne Transmission

 

We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19.

...

Our analysis indicates that face covering reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and by over 66,000 in NYC from April 17 to May 9.

 

I don't understand why it is not. But I'm willing to learn something new.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That tells me COVID IS an airborne disease despite what the pundits on propaganda posed as news channels may say.

 

So I must respectfully disagree with anyone who says anything to the contrary.

 

I don't WATCH the news. I only read the news. That said, I have been reading about the COVID-19 since January, and not once have I ever seen anyone even question or suggest that it wasn't primarily transmitted airborne. Very strange.

 

I don't know what "news" infotainment agency is saying that, but I would stop watching them immediately.

 

Quite frankly, I would suggest that we all stop WATCHING the news regardless unless there is a rare instance in which it is somehow imperative to do so.

 

I also read the news far more than I watch it, but I do find the PBS NewsHour to be more watchable than other news shows. The PBS NewsHour isn't full of confrontation, histrionics, and shaming like so many other newscasts are. YMMV.

 

That said, I don't trust any news source completely. For example, almost every single source I both read and saw reversed their advice on wearing masks. Both can't be right.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

My Blue Someday appears on Apple Music | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read, this is a scientific distinction, not a common usage of the term "airborne".

 

Airborne, as used in many epidemiological discussions, means tiny, dry pathogens that can be propelled and carried through the air, rather like dust or pollen. The medium - air - actually "carries" the material on its way. The air "bears" the stuff.

 

Respiratory droplets are different - because they are wet, larger, and heavier, the air is actually a hindrance to their "flight" from someone's mouth or nose, and they fall to the ground at a relatively short distance compared to "airborne" items.

 

Like the difference between an air balloon and a water balloon.

 

Like with so many technical scientific or legal terms, the technical definition varies from the common definition.

 

And I don't think there is 100% consistency in all the literature regarding this usage, either. But the distinction is an important one, especially when it comes to defining how the current virus is actually transmitted. It's what's behind the idea of the 6' rule.

 

I can only wish things like pollen normally couldn't travel through the air more than six feet, let me tell ya. But I'm glad the Covid-19 virus will pretty much divebomb in that distance.

 

It seems a lot of people have been using the phrase "Covid-19 is not airborne" to defend a refusal to wear a mask. By the time scientific terms get thrown around by the general public, it's Babel, which I've been told meant "confusion" in the ancient Babylonian or Sumerian or whatever it was. Historicity aside, it's an apt metaphor for the current state of public "discussion" on this topic.

 

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the confusion on the definition and usages of "airborne", I'm copying below (and providing a link) from the CDC website. So however the various wikis or public discussions or this expert or that amateur use the term, at least this explains what the CDC means by it. It's a somewhat complex matter, and the classifications are somewhat general, not hard lines in all situation - hope this helps -

 

from Principles of Epidemiology In Public Health Practice Third Edition

 

Modes of transmission

An infectious agent may be transmitted from its natural reservoir to a susceptible host in different ways. There are different classifications for modes of transmission. Here is one classification:

 

Direct

Direct contact

Droplet spread

 

Indirect

Airborne

Vehicleborne

Vectorborne (mechanical or biologic)

 

In direct transmission, an infectious agent is transferred from a reservoir to a susceptible host by direct contact or droplet spread.

 

Direct contact occurs through skin-to-skin contact, kissing, and sexual intercourse. Direct contact also refers to contact with soil or vegetation harboring infectious organisms. Thus, infectious mononucleosis ('kissing disease') and gonorrhea are spread from person to person by direct contact. Hookworm is spread by direct contact with contaminated soil.

 

Droplet spread refers to spray with relatively large, short-range aerosols produced by sneezing, coughing, or even talking. Droplet spread is classified as direct because transmission is by direct spray over a few feet, before the droplets fall to the ground. Pertussis and meningococcal infection are examples of diseases transmitted from an infectious patient to a susceptible host by droplet spread.

 

Indirect transmission refers to the transfer of an infectious agent from a reservoir to a host by suspended air particles, inanimate objects (vehicles), or animate intermediaries (vectors).

 

Airborne transmission occurs when infectious agents are carried by dust or droplet nuclei suspended in air. Airborne dust includes material that has settled on surfaces and become resuspended by air currents as well as infectious particles blown from the soil by the wind. Droplet nuclei are dried residue of less than 5 microns in size. In contrast to droplets that fall to the ground within a few feet, droplet nuclei may remain suspended in the air for long periods of time and may be blown over great distances. Measles, for example, has occurred in children who came into a physician"s office after a child with measles had left, because the measles virus remained suspended in the air.(46)

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I made my point about the people who accuse others of being science deniers who refuse to acknowledge science. I'll let you all duke it out as to who is whom in my reference. Couldn't get toilet paper but I got plenty of popcorn. Carry on.

Dan

 

Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read, this is a scientific distinction, not a common usage of the term "airborne".

 

Exactly. Look, they get to decide the definitions. We get to decide what XLR means, they get to decide what "airborne" means. It's their gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are way too narrow minded when it comes to news sources ihmo. The most biased news source ever can and has simply reported on a medical study with no spin and provided a link. For fun I like reading the article first then check out the link. It doesn't matter if it's Brietbart or the Huffington Post they usually get those stories right because well, the link to the original source is right there. If you see a headline that says something like the CDC says, or the Mayo Clinic released...just click on it guys regardless of who the website is. Then take the few minutes to read the article first checking for what you think could be biases then click on the original source. I think some of you would be quite surprised. Now I'm not talking about a headline that says The governor of Texas did, blah, blah. Yeah, that's likely spin city on both sides. But a medical reference with the link? They all usually play that straight.

 

Back to Catalina. My buddy called me back a few hours ago when I was shopping to tell me the Avalon Hospital announced they have an active case of COVID probably from someone who came over on the boat in the last day or two. The mayor immediately called city council (about 4 people because Avalon is tiny) and closed all the restaurants. Sounds like Hizzoner didn't think this through when the decision was made to open Avalon for the 4th. Only an idiot would think there wouldn't be at least a few cases show up at the small hospital out of thousands coming over for the holiday. This sounds like a major overreaction to me. On the Friday before the 4th of July with all the hotels full. At least the new Von's Market should be well stocked and they have a decent deli. When I'm over there I'll grab a baked chicken and some potato salad and eat in the room. Bet they're sold out of those chickens now.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I don't trust any news source completely. For example, almost every single source I both read and saw reversed their advice on wearing masks. Both can't be right.

I know this is a weird source for this, but I think it really exemplifies what's going here.

 

The Wirecutter: Why We've Taken Down Outdated Coronavirus Mask Coverage

 

US officials recommend that you wear a mask to try to protect othersâand possibly yourselfâfrom the coronavirus. But that hasn"t always been their advice. Because of these changes, some of our reporting from earlier this year has become so outdated that we"ve unpublished it from our site. Let us explain why.

 

Official guidance for wearing face masks during the coronavirus pandemic has changed drastically over the past few months.

 

In February, when we first published a post on surgical masks, N95 respirator masks, and protection against the coronavirus, the CDC, the US Surgeon General, and two non-agency-affiliated epidemiologists we interviewed insisted there was no need for members of the general public to wear face masks unless they were sick or caring for someone who was. In that moment, there were vanishingly few known cases of COVID-19 in the US, and the national conversation was centered on which masks could best protect you from catching the new coronavirus should it emerge more robustly in the US. We had previously reported, in a YouTube video, that although N95 respirators offer some protection against viruses, a surgical mask is primarily meant to keep the wearer from infecting others rather than protecting the wearer from getting sick. (We have removed the video to avoid any potential confusion about the purpose of widespread mask wearing among the general public.)

 

Our reporting in February reflected this: We advised readers that they didn"t need a mask to protect themselves from the coronavirus. That was what we saw as the best advice from experts at the time. But that advice is obviously no longer true. Everyone should wear a mask for the sake of people"s collective health.

 

The CDC"s official guidance for the general public has changed over time. In a second post, published in April, we explained how the agency had begun recommending that people who didn"t know they were sick should wear face coverings in public. Some epidemiologists had suggested masks were useful in that they could help keep you from touching your face. Other epidemiologists, including those we had spoken to in March, had disagreed, citing worries about auto-contamination. In both posts, we reported on the CDC"s guidance at those times. Since mid-April the CDC guidance has changed yet again, and there is now growing evidence that wearing non-medical masks can greatly help reduce transmission of the coronavirus.

 

This is why we"ve taken down our outdated advice and replaced it with this: You should wear a mask to try to protect othersâand possibly yourselfâfrom the coronavirus.

 

This makes complete sense to me. At first, wearing masks was about protecting ourselves, and they really didn't do that so there was little point in wearing one. Now that we know that masks are mostly about protecting others, we should be doing that.

 

The way I see it is that science is usually deliberative and thus slow. It takes time to collect and analyze data, then they report it, and it gets peer-reviewed. OTOH, we've had like six months with this stupid virus and we all want answers now. That's not our fault, we actually need the info as soon as we can get it so we can try to mitigate the effects of it as much as we can. Scientists put out what they know as their best answers at the time. Politicians juggle⦠what they juggle. The media reports on what they get, but depending on the medium, the details get lost sometimes. We get upset when things are wrong, but in a normal circumstance it's, "are eggs bad for me or not???" It doesn't screw up the economy, upend our lives, and be a matter of life and death (not nearly immediately, anyway). Now, it is.

 

Have there been outright screw ups? Yes. But I don't see the point in bashing people with good intent as long as they learn from it and move on. News sources have their issues, but what doesn't? We are all humans and all imperfect.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<...snip...>

 

Airborne transmission occurs when infectious agents are carried by dust or droplet nuclei suspended in air. [/b]<...>

 

So COVID is capable of Airborne transmission even though it's classification is Droplet.

 

The way I think I understand it is we are talking about two different things, Airborne Transmission and an Airborne Disease.

 

Airborne Transmission includes both Airborne Diseases and Droplet Diseases (with small droplets). The difference seems to be the range.

 

Correct? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

So when someone says, "I'm not wearing a mask because COVID-19 is not an airborne disease." a person could counter with, "You are technically correct but it is still capable of airborne transmission"

 

Either way, wear your mask to protect yourself, and more importantly, to protect others. After all in a civilized society you have a responsibility not to inadvertently harm others.

 

Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...