myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
prove me wrong.... coronavirus is not airborne
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 50, 51, 52  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12551
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is an interesting study.

Note that most if not all of these are high contact positions, ie they touch things that others have touched in general. and most are in areas with lots of air volume (example grounds maintenance workers, not near people what so ever) and we can assume most are high mask wearing occupations.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobs-with-the-highest-risk-of-death-in-the-pandemic-193906412.html


Here are the jobs with the largest increase in deaths in the pandemic

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12551
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well well some interesting data... 3 foot and 6 foot does not make a difference, if it was truly airbone it certainly would.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab230/6167856

Quote:

Effectiveness of three versus six feet of physical distancing for controlling spread of COVID-19 among primary and secondary students and staff: A retrospective, state-wide cohort study• Increasing physical distancing requirements in schools from ≥3 feet to ≥6 feet was not associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 cases among students or staff if other mitigation measures were implemented, based on a retrospective cohort study of students (n=537,336) and staff (n=99,390) among 251 school districts with any in-person learning in Massachusetts during the Fall 2020 academic period. 96% of school districts implemented a ≥3 feet distancing policy, 64% of districts reported limiting on-campus enrollment, and all districts adopted universal masking for both students in grade 2 and above and for school staff. After adjusting for race/ethnicity and socio-economic status, there was no difference in the incidence rates between schools with a ≥3 feet vs ≥6 feet distancing policy among students (aIRR=0.761) and staff (aIRR=0.902). Incidence rates in both students and staff were strongly correlated with community incidence and positive cases in schools, particularly among school staff.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12551
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

how do these scientists not connect the dots...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30985-3/fulltext

Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study

Discussion
Quote:
In our study, we found that increasing viral load values in nasopharyngeal swabs of patients with COVID-19 were associated with the greater risk of transmission, measured by SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity among contacts, and with a higher risk of transmission in a household environment compared with that in other indoor situations. Additionally, we found that higher viral loads in swabs of asymptomatic contacts were associated with higher risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19, and that these contacts had shorter incubation periods than those with a lower viral load. Relationships between viral load and infectivity have been described for other respiratory viruses, and our study shows that the same is true for SARS-CoV-2.
To our knowledge, this is the largest study that evaluated the relationship of viral load in patients with COVID-19 and risk of transmission. In our cohort, a high proportion (192 [68%] of 282) of index cases did not cause secondary infections. However, we identified 90 (32%) clusters with transmission events, and the multivariate analysis revealed that clusters centred on index cases with high viral load were significantly more likely to result in transmission. In line with previous analyses of case-contact clusters,9, 12, 14 we also found that household exposure to an index case was associated with a higher risk of transmission than other types of contact, presumably reflecting duration and proximity of exposure. Increasing age of the contact was also identified in our multivariate analysis as a significant–albeit modest–determinant of transmission risk. This factor has shown uneven influence across results reported elsewhere but seems to play a secondary role among adults.13, 14 Finally, unlike previous analyses that reported a relationship between coughing and transmission,13 we did not find any association. This finding suggests that the absence of cough does not preclude significant onward transmission, particularly if the viral load is high. Taken together, our results indicate that the viral load, rather than symptoms, might be the predominant driver of transmission.

Importantly, we report that high viral load shortly after exposure in asymptomatic contacts was strongly associated with the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 disease. We found an approximately 40% risk of developing symptomatic disease among individuals with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL compared with a risk higher than 66% among individuals with a viral load of 1 × 11010 copies per mL or higher. These data might provide rationale for risk stratification for developing illness. Moreover, the initial viral load significantly shifted the incubation time, which ranged from 5 days in participants with a high viral load to 7 days in participants with a low viral load. To our knowledge, our study was the first analysis of prospective data that investigated the association between initial viral load and incubation time.

The study has several limitations. First, asymptomatic people were not enrolled as index cases, affecting our ability to fully characterise all types of transmission chain. Second, we did not find any evidence of decreased risk of transmission in individuals who reported mask use. Although this finding collides with the evidence reported elsewhere,8 we did not have fine-grained data on type of mask (surgical vs FFP2) or use of other measures of personal protective equipment (PPE) or other infection control practices, thus limiting our ability to make clear inferences about the effect of PPE on transmission risk. Mask use is probably correlated with type of exposure, which might further confound associations, but we did not note any association between mask use and risk either in our unadjusted analysis (table 3) or in a multivariable model excluding type of exposure (data not shown). Third, we used time to symptom onset (with later confirmation of infection) rather than time to positive PCR test based on serial testing. Nonetheless, accurate calculation of the incubation period was feasible because of the prospective nature of the study, accurate identification of exposure by face-to-face interview, and intensive active and passive monitoring of exposed contacts. We followed up participants over 14-day periods, thus incubation periods longer than 14 days might not have been detected. Within each cluster, we cannot be completely certain about the directionality of transmission, but our inclusion criteria including the absence of COVID-19-like symptoms in the 2 weeks preceding enrolment is consistent with transmission from a case to a contact. We also cannot exclude that some individuals might have been infected by individuals outside of study clusters but, as per national guidelines, all contacts were quarantined after exposure to index cases, reducing the chance of transmission from elsewhere. Samples were available from index cases a median of 4 days after symptom onset, and the initial sample in contacts was taken on average 5 days after exposure, which might limit our ability to detect associations with peak viral load. Despite this, we still showed clear dose effects in relation to both risk of transmission and time to symptom onset. Finally, our study population is reflective of the trial from which the study sample was drawn and is, therefore, biased towards female participants and participants with few comorbidities and predominantly mild to moderate infection; additional data are needed on the risk of transmission in other populations.

In summary, our results provide evidence regarding the determinants of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, particularly on the role of the viral load. The higher risk of transmission among individuals with higher viral loads adds to existing evidence and encourages the assessment of the viral load in patients with a large number of close contacts. When a patient with high viral load is identified, the implementation of reinforced contact tracing measures and quarantines might be crucial to reduce onward transmission. Similarly, our results regarding the risk and expected time to developing symptomatic COVID-19 encourage risk stratification of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections on the basis of initial viral load.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2487

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just an update Dean on our thinking over here, based on the science we now accept as being correct.

We are running a world leading (Israel also) vaccination course which our government is relying on to irreversibly lead us out of any future lockdowns. Many authorities now accept that catching (breathing in) a significant viral load while outdoors in the open air, provided not close face to face, is almost negligible.

As per your thread and conjecture, the main problem when outdoors is handling contaminated objects which can harbour a virus load, and then transferring this to the face. You would claim that a mask protects against this, but I prefer to be aware of the danger and act accordingly. (A psychological anger at feeling to be giving in to events, rather than challenging them.)

As for the vaccination program, I was surprised that I had no reaction whatever to mine (January, 83 year old in priority group) and che3cked with the medics. Either my vigourous exercise life style had given the necessary boost to the immune system already, or I had received a lighter viral load earlier on (from contaminated objects before we knew not to handle things) and had avoided illness and built the necessary defence.

Now, I no longer worry. This pandemic has concentrated the mind as to what really matters in life, especially to us oldies. Hiding under the bed does not apply. Having joy in the soul does. As an example, I was out late last night on an M.T.B. ride up on the moors (Glorious crescent moon and stars) and came belting back down through a forest, (nearly hit a big badger which ran across my wheels) , before bursting out on a minor road, right in front of where a stationary police patrol car was standing. I had to burst out laughing at their reaction (what the hell - lunatic-escaped convict- whatever. The police always think the worst.) But a brief chat and all was well, and that is the kind of joy that makes life a privilege, and really worth the effort. Roll on summer!

Take care Dean. All the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4036

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT. It is wonderful that you are able to get out for your daily rides safely (at least from CV). Those sorts of activities are what really matters for many of us. It is great to get an update on how things are going.

I, too, was vaccinated. Just a week ago now. I had a minor reaction to it (single dose Jand J)(chills headache aches). As far as I know, I hadn’t had COVID. My brother, who had a moderate case of CV, also was vaccinated and the vaccination flattened him for a couple days. My mom at 86 was down for a week from the second dose and didn’t even notice the first of the Moderna.

These Corona Viruses are a tricky business as we all react a bit differently. The word on the street is that CV is here to stay and we need to figure out how to live with it. Vaccines may become a regular thing.

What continues to amaze me is the numbers of folks that I know that are NOT going to get the vaccine. They just won’t believe the science or they are OK with letting the rest of us be responsible. It is disheartening when one considers that the potential variants could send us back to square one.

In the meantime, my wife and I are planning a month of kitesurfing (and windsurfing if the wind and waves cooperate) in Texas in a month. Our little clique of beach friends will all be vaccinated. It will be great to see faces again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8572
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB...herd immunity can be achieved at 75%...so, there is room for those of us who are not excited about injecting some toxic brew into our bloodstream.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4036

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
CB...herd immunity can be achieved at 75%...so, there is room for those of us who are not excited about injecting some toxic brew into our bloodstream.


Great for you! Not so great if everyone thought the same way!

Look. I'm not so hot on having the vaccine myself. But, I want kids to go back to school. I want the guys on my projects to get paychecks. I want to visit my 86 year old mother without killing her.

I feel responsible, as a member of the world community, to do what I can do to make us all safer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8572
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agree with everything, and I think it happens with herd immunity, however we achieve it. Office buildings, schools, the workplace will operate knowing the ceiling will be 60-75%...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4036

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
Agree with everything, and I think it happens with herd immunity, however we achieve it. Office buildings, schools, the workplace will operate knowing the ceiling will be 60-75%...


What other, proven, methods besides vaccines will provide herd immunity?

And, please back up your claim that vaccines are a "toxic brew".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8572
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Agree with everything, and I think it happens with herd immunity, however we achieve it. Office buildings, schools, the workplace will operate knowing the ceiling will be 60-75%...


What other, proven, methods besides vaccines will provide herd immunity?

And, please back up your claim that vaccines are a "toxic brew".

Exposure to the virus(probably 15% currently-10% tested positive, 5% asymptomatic positives: many teenagers). As with all vaccines, a toxic preservative is required to maintain the properties of the formula. I'm not sure I want that in my body, what's the shelf life? What are the long term risks? Most vaccines take 5-8 years to develop...why? because it takes time to study longer term effects. We didn't have that time , for obvious reasons, that presents real risk ..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 50, 51, 52  Next
Page 33 of 52

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group