Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,921
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Jun Zz
    Newest Member
    Jun Zz
    Joined

Met Summer Banter


 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

I said it's less likely, not that vaccinated people never spread it. 

Nursing homes — once the epicenter of the pandemic in New Jersey — reported infection levels began to decline quickly last winter, once vaccines were widely available to residents and staff. That trend continued through this spring, mirroring the virus’s impact on the community at large. In May state regulators allowed family and friends to visit residents again, albeit with masking and other protocols, particularly when the individuals involved are not immunized.

But the expanding presence of the delta variant — which spreads twice as effectively as the original form of the virus — recently changed the trajectory of the disease in long-term care facilities. National nursing-home data indicates a low point for new cases among residents and staff in mid- to late June, but diagnoses have escalated quickly since then. By the week ending July 18, the most recent for which figures are available, cases among residents had grown 124% and staff cases increased 184% over three weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There it is, the Fauci bashing....

Dr. Fauci is one of the most brilliant scientists of the generation.   I’ve been following his work for 40 years.  However, as a fellow son of a pharmacist I was appalled at his first ball in DC fiasco at the game last year.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weathafella said:

There it is, the Fauci bashing....

Dr. Fauci is one of the most brilliant scientists of the generation.   I’ve been following his work for 40 years.  However, as a fellow son of a pharmacist I was appalled at his first ball in DC fiasco at the game last year.

Lol that was a terrible pitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Iceland has had a very modest pandemic from the beginning. I have seen their last wave...but its really small in the grand scheme and has only featured a single death I believe. I would assume hospitalizations are also very low. 

Just checked the JHU site, which pegged Iceland's total cases at 8,900, about 2.7% of the population, and 30 deaths, or about 1 in 297 cases.  Could not find the recent infection numbers there - maybe just didn't look hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, natedizel said:

He said and I quote "masks are really not effective "

Can you provide that link?  If you’re talking March 2020 that’s silly to bring up.   Data influences decisions.   It’s not old KA never changing a forecast....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, weathafella said:

There it is, the Fauci bashing....

Dr. Fauci is one of the most brilliant scientists of the generation.   I’ve been following his work for 40 years.  However, as a fellow son of a pharmacist I was appalled at his first ball in DC fiasco at the game last year.

I find him "Meh". And ya the forcast changes but tell us your forcast at the moment. Dont have it leak out a year later.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Can you provide that link?  If you’re talking March 2020 that’s silly to bring up.   Data influences decisions.   It’s not old KA never changing a forecast....

The guy told us one thing last feb and march but actually thought something else. No denying it.

  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, natedizel said:

He said and I quote "masks are really not effective "

More than a year ago I saw (and did not save the link) a test comparing exhale distance for the common cloth mask, a bandanna with and no restriction.  Nearly all of the exhale thru the mask stopped in less than one foot while unrestricted had considerable out to 3-4 feet and the bandana was a bit closer to unrestricted than to the mask.  The test showed no data for shouted (or panting) exhale, which likely would've shown greater distances for each practice.  It would seem that the mask has limited effect when folks are cheek to jowl, especially indoors, but with at least some social distancing, that (now anecdotal, since I don't have the link) data would mean the mask would be useful in limiting spread.  (Even if it's doing less in protecting the wearer)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Masks supposedly didn’t work until the guidance changed in late March 2020.  Some of us knew otherwise and masked up but supplies were thin.

The virus was not widely thought to be airborne until much later.  Now I think it's taken for granted that it is.  N95 type respirators might be quite effective but if indeed most people are getting it via aerosols the majority of the fabric masks you see aren't going to help very much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Things have really changed with the Delta variant. Much more easy for vaccinated people to catch and spread the Delta Variant. Other countries that actually count the breakthrough cases are reporting large numbers of breakthrough cases with the Delta variant. Iceland has 93% of its above 16 years old population vaccinated, yet they're seeing a major Delta surge. I posted an article where the chief epidemiologist of Iceland talks about how vaccinated people are easily catching and spreading the Delta variant. And who knows how much worse it will be with future variants. Hopefully vaccines won't become less and less effective with each variant.

testing positive is not the same as being infected.

  • Like 3
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, radarman said:

The virus was not widely thought to be airborne until much later.  Now I think it's taken for granted that it is.  N95 type respirators might be quite effective but if indeed most people are getting it via aerosols the majority of the fabric masks you see aren't going to help very much.

Ya pretty sure the NIH CDC and WHO knew it was airborne weeks after first lockdowns in China. If not we have some pretty bad people running the show. Plus terrible intelligence community.

  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a June 2021 study:

' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full 

"Abstract
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tunafish said:

Here's a June 2021 study:

' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full 

"Abstract
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing."

Yes. It’s worked so well in other countries that are very mask compliant. 
:lol:

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tunafish said:

Here's a June 2021 study:

' Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission'
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439.full 

"Abstract
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing."

Thanks.  Below is the link to an observational study referenced in that paper which did not share the same conclusion.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

Important to note that while this study was done with social distancing, it was not done in conjunction with mask mandates.  So it informs mainly the self-protective side of the equation rather than the protection of others.  In a situation where masks were ubiquitous it may well be better protection, however it's hard to conduct a large scale observational study using an unmasked control group in the presence of mask mandates.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...