Author Topic: Coronavirus Concerns  (Read 252942 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5160 on: August 06, 2020, 03:11:37 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7894
  • Tommy Points: 1035
Sigh...the selfishness of some people.


What's sad is that she recorded that herself - she obviously thinks it makes her seemed wronged in some way.

"The cops are gonna come here. You don't want that [stuff] again" - The boyfriend @ 1:37

So not only that, but this apparently is not the first time she's pulled this stunt. Nice.
I'm bitter.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5161 on: August 06, 2020, 03:19:13 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26513
  • Tommy Points: 1268
  • What a Pub Should Be
Sigh...the selfishness of some people.


What's sad is that she recorded that herself - she obviously thinks it makes her seemed wronged in some way.

"The cops are gonna come here. You don't want that [stuff] again" - The boyfriend @ 1:37

So not only that, but this apparently is not the first time she's pulled this stunt. Nice.

Yeah, she definitely went in there with the intention of creating a scene.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5162 on: August 06, 2020, 05:47:58 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Tacko Fall
  • Posts: 725
  • Tommy Points: 115
Sweden 7 days moving averages for reported cases and deaths are fast approaching 0.

And in fact they’ve been getting mortality progressively lower since early May. The increase in Crude Mortality Rate (Deaths per million population) for each 14-day period since 5/13 has been 81, 49, 36, 23, 16, 8. The last one is July 22nd to August 4th.

Even with that they’re still 6th worst in the world.

It looks like they are achieving herd immunity. Courageous and strong people 💪

They've had less than 8 cases per 1000 population.  That's less than 1%.   Even in the most extreme estimates of 'undetected' propagation, there is no way they are near the exposure thresholds needed for 'herd immunity’.

Herd Immunity for Covid-19 is probably in the region of 60-70%, so 0.8% is a long way off. The most recent estimate that I’ve seen for the propagation rate of this virus is about 2.79 (known as the R-naught). If that number is lower (estimates back in April were more like 2), then the Herd Immunity number would also be lower. If it were 2, then the Herd Immunity figure would be about 50%, and if it were 10, the Herd Immunity figure would be 90%.

Sweden’s strategy was NOT, as it has been erroneously described, a Herd Immunity strategy. They aimed to isolate the vulnerable groups; but this was managed poorly.


Smaller nations have the advantage of being able to more tightly control travel and apply propagation mitigations (social distancing, masks, etc.) in a more consistent manner (because fewer subgroups being stupid).   New Zealand, notably, has reduced their cases to almost nothing for a while now.   

But that is not immunity.  That's just mitigating the spread.

A lot to be said for mitigation, though. We are now attempting to open schools in communities where the spread has not been mitigated - predictably, there will be a long string of horror stories this fall, and another failure to bend the curve back down where we could actually contain the virus.

This was all so avoidable.

Isn't there general uncertainty in the medical community about immunity?

What do you mean by this? What aspect of immunity? Are you referring to Covid-19 specifically (in which case, yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about immunity to it)?


In staying open and going in a different direction than most countries, Sweden incurred more than 5700 deaths which is more reported deaths (by far) than any similarly populated country with the exception of Belgium.

If Sweden is essentially done with Covid while the rest of the world has many months or a couple of years to go, then it sounds really good for Sweden.   But is that really the case or are you making an assumption about "herd immunity"?  I couldn't find any source that supports this.

Isn't there general uncertainty in the medical community about immunity?
Well I think there are different shades of immunity. As long as it’s (Covid-19) effect is mitigated that’s herd immunity.

Not sure what you’re saying here. ‘Herd Immunity’ has a specific meaning.

I don’t think you can completely destroy the virus just like you can’t eradicate the common cold. As long as people aren’t dying and they live normal without wearing masks that was the end game right?

We’re mostly still operating under the assumption that survivors will have immunity to second infections, and that they return to normal after having been infected. We’re very uncertain about the first; but there’s been a fair amount of evidence that the second assumption is unwarranted.

Others in this thread have pointed to studies that show lung scarring in survivors (including in asymptomatic cases); the propensity of the virus to cause massive blood clotting results in strokes - which in the dead may be mis-diagnosed as something other than Covid-19; the clotting in survivors likely leaves them with long-term risk factors for strokes, coronary artery disease, kidney failure, pulmonary embolism, etc.

Now there is new evidence of direct viral infection in heart cells:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2763845

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768915

Sweden’s assumption that the survivors would be as healthy as before infection, though younger and less likely to die from the infection directly, does not seem to be entirely justified.

I’m hearing people in Sweden (and Scandinavia) don’t wear masks and never cared about wearing them.

Very true. There are other ways to avoid being infected, though. Scandinavians have always tended to isolate and socially distance as a matter of culture, for example (my grandmother was Swedish, and I’ve spent some time over there, fwiw).

Also important to point out that the five Nordic countries have high levels of social cohesion, cooperation, responsibility, and solidarity, so their contact tracing efforts are highly effective. In fact Sweden switched a couple of weeks ago to a recommended protocol for contact tracing that infected people should do themselves - if this works it will be interesting to discuss in what respects Sweden is a Social Democratic state and in what respects a Libertarian state!

We can only dream of this in America.

It would be something if we could have a Federal government initiative to do that; but our test positivity rates are so high in most of the country that contact tracing is either extremely difficult or impossible. Sweden’s test positivity is currently under 2%, so they are well-positioned to isolate localized outbreaks and prevent community spread.

Sweden has top-12 marks in case fatality % and top-8 in deaths per 100k population. I don’t know that this is some big win like you’re painting it out to be.

Around 5x as many deaths than similarly sized Portugal, with only 1.6x as many cases. Around 12.4x more deaths than similarly sized Azerbaijan, with only 2.5x more cases (fatality % difference of about 5.4%). Could go on and on with how much Sweden has outstripped it’s similarly sized counterparts in fatality rates and deaths per capita. Not some gleaming example of success

You’re right that it’s eighth in deaths per 100k population (I prefer to use deaths per million, which gives you nice two- or three-digit numbers; currently Sweden has 571 deaths per million, and the US has 490) - but I think that we ought to take out San Marino and Andorra. Among nations with a population greater than 100,000, Sweden is sixth-worst in the world.

On the other hand, as NKY pointed out in starting this discussion, Sweden, like the other EU countries, has largely contained the spread of the virus at this point. On July 28th, Peru passed Sweden for CMR (deaths per million); at current rates Chile will pass Sweden in about 10 days, and the US will in about 30 days - though likely Brazil will pass both the US and Sweden before the US does.

The rapid growth in the pandemic has shifted to the Americas, and as bad as it is here in the US right now, the most rapid growth is in Latin America.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2020, 06:40:20 PM by Hoopvortex »
"The initial response to the outbreak of a pandemic has always been denial. National and local governments have always been late to respond and have distorted facts and manipulated figures to deny the existence of the outbreak.”

Orhan Pamuk

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5163 on: August 07, 2020, 09:09:57 AM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Kemba Walker
  • Posts: 923
  • Tommy Points: 68
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5164 on: August 07, 2020, 11:31:09 AM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15410
  • Tommy Points: 1444
  • On To Banner 18!
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Yeah this is all true. September will be the month to monitor as that's when schools/colleges open up and I believe that's the month we'll see more offices opening up or increasing capacity a bit more. If things start to really rise quickly, I think they will immediately have to shut down a lot of things again, OR basically move back to Phase 2 (meaning gyms, theaters, etc. close again and I think also schools stay online entirely).

I think we're still good for now. Positive test rate has been ranging between 1.7% and 2.4% mostly, and we're testing about 10,000 a day. Deaths are mostly down too. Sure, it could be better, but until a vaccine or medicine comes out this is probably the realistic best case scenario. Also because more people are going on vacations + returning and/or MA is getting tourists into places like Cape Cod which is contributing a little to that.
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5165 on: August 09, 2020, 09:49:17 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Kemba Walker
  • Posts: 923
  • Tommy Points: 68
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Yeah this is all true. September will be the month to monitor as that's when schools/colleges open up and I believe that's the month we'll see more offices opening up or increasing capacity a bit more. If things start to really rise quickly, I think they will immediately have to shut down a lot of things again, OR basically move back to Phase 2 (meaning gyms, theaters, etc. close again and I think also schools stay online entirely).

I think we're still good for now. Positive test rate has been ranging between 1.7% and 2.4% mostly, and we're testing about 10,000 a day. Deaths are mostly down too. Sure, it could be better, but until a vaccine or medicine comes out this is probably the realistic best case scenario. Also because more people are going on vacations + returning and/or MA is getting tourists into places like Cape Cod which is contributing a little to that.

And also international travel can be concerning.

Who knows what other strain of Cov19 people might bring back.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5166 on: August 09, 2020, 09:51:25 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20352
  • Tommy Points: 835
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Yeah this is all true. September will be the month to monitor as that's when schools/colleges open up and I believe that's the month we'll see more offices opening up or increasing capacity a bit more. If things start to really rise quickly, I think they will immediately have to shut down a lot of things again, OR basically move back to Phase 2 (meaning gyms, theaters, etc. close again and I think also schools stay online entirely).

I think we're still good for now. Positive test rate has been ranging between 1.7% and 2.4% mostly, and we're testing about 10,000 a day. Deaths are mostly down too. Sure, it could be better, but until a vaccine or medicine comes out this is probably the realistic best case scenario. Also because more people are going on vacations + returning and/or MA is getting tourists into places like Cape Cod which is contributing a little to that.

And also international travel can be concerning.

Who knows what other strain of Cov19 people might bring back.

But don't worry, its all going to disappear very soon , its going to go away ;D

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5167 on: August 10, 2020, 02:49:54 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
  • Tommy Points: 831
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Yeah this is all true. September will be the month to monitor as that's when schools/colleges open up and I believe that's the month we'll see more offices opening up or increasing capacity a bit more. If things start to really rise quickly, I think they will immediately have to shut down a lot of things again, OR basically move back to Phase 2 (meaning gyms, theaters, etc. close again and I think also schools stay online entirely).

I think we're still good for now. Positive test rate has been ranging between 1.7% and 2.4% mostly, and we're testing about 10,000 a day. Deaths are mostly down too. Sure, it could be better, but until a vaccine or medicine comes out this is probably the realistic best case scenario. Also because more people are going on vacations + returning and/or MA is getting tourists into places like Cape Cod which is contributing a little to that.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/10/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html
Quote
(CNN)Just as thousands more students return to classrooms this week, another study shows how easily children can get coronavirus.

More than 97,000 children in the US tested positive for coronavirus in the last two weeks of July, according to a new report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association.

Oh, Florida ...

Quote
Last month, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said officials in counties where the test positivity rate is higher than 5% might consider keeping classrooms closed to students.
Yet out of those 12 counties where schools will reopen this week, at least nine had test positivity rates higher than 5% as of Saturday, according to the Florida Department of Health.

And then this:

Quote
North Paulding High School in Georgia made headlines after a student posted a photo of a packed hallway, with virtually no one appearing to wear a mask.

Just a week after the school reopened, North Paulding is moving to online-only classes for at least Monday and Tuesday.

At least "six students and three staff members who were in school for at least some time last week ... have since reported to us that they have tested positive," Principal Gabe Carmona wrote in a letter to parents.

The teen who shot the photo of the packed hallway, Hannah Watters, said she's received threats for posting the image online. But the sophomore said she's not deterred and just wants everyone to know how risky the situation is.
"We could have just delayed opening like many other schools," she said. "They kind of sent us to school and used us as guinea pigs to see what would happen later on."

Right now, our local school (in central MA) is planning on restarting in a few weeks with a 'cohort' model where half the kids are on-site and half the kids are remote on any given day, so the school density will be halved.   If there is an outbreak, they will fall back to fully remote as was done in the spring.  They are also offering a 100% remote option, but if you choose that up-front (before the school year starts) that is contracted out to a remote learning provider so would mean the child is not using the same teachers and they would continue to be separate even if the rest of the school later has to go full remote.  We still have very few details on it.

This is really tough.  One of my kids in particular is in desperate need of more social modeling so we have a strong desire to get him back to 'normal' interactions with his peers.  So choosing the 100% remote option is extremely unappealing.   But we are also very concerned about the safety issues involved with returning to live attendance at the school.

We are very stressed about this.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5168 on: August 10, 2020, 03:55:00 PM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1614
  • Tommy Points: 177
For some reason I can't use the quote button but this is the response to the above poster. I think since Massachusetts is in a better position than many of the states around the country, I think it's nice that there's some flexibility on the way to approach it. Where I live just north of Boston, we had some high spikes so I am glad that our school is taking a phase approach with the first couple of months being remote with some option for some students to go to a lab and still the classes online with a person available to help.

Then, in a few months, they'll take on from what they learned from the schools that are opening and doing a hybrid version. I think that is a good cautious approach to all this. If a student lives in Western Mass or one of those small towns with few cases, I don't think it's a big deal to let kids return and just keep them on check while maintaining the precautions.

What I think it's important is that there are flexibility to this whole thing and parents/educators/community members understanding that there won't be any winners and losers in this situation. There simply cannot be so the best we can do is an approach that is best for the students while minimizing the impact on the families and educators.
Baby Jesus!

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5169 on: August 10, 2020, 05:00:53 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42249
  • Tommy Points: -27097
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Odd:  neck gaiters (which also cover the face) are actually more likely to spread the virus.

Quote
The most secure mask, an N95, led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1 percent. But handmade cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material, also proved effective, with droplet transmission ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent. One mask, which was knitted, released a higher number of droplets, from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent. But none of the masks compared with the neck fleece, which had 110 percent droplet transmission (10 percent higher than not wearing a mask)

Researchers tested 14 commonly worn masks to see which are most effective. Both neck fleeces and bandanas proved ineffective.

The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5170 on: August 10, 2020, 05:09:30 PM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1614
  • Tommy Points: 177
Quote
Odd:  neck gaiters (which also cover the face) are actually more likely to spread the virus.

Quote
The most secure mask, an N95, led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1 percent. But handmade cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material, also proved effective, with droplet transmission ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent. One mask, which was knitted, released a higher number of droplets, from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent. But none of the masks compared with the neck fleece, which had 110 percent droplet transmission (10 percent higher than not wearing a mask)

Researchers tested 14 commonly worn masks to see which are most effective. Both neck fleeces and bandanas proved ineffective.

The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add.

I bought one of those from a company catered towards my work (they make organization apparels) and I was very uncomfortable wearing those. It was extremely thin and didn't feel like it would do much. I got it as an emergency wear for my staff and now I have 10 of those sitting in my desk.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Baby Jesus!

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5171 on: August 10, 2020, 07:30:21 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Kemba Walker
  • Posts: 823
  • Tommy Points: 220
Quote
Odd:  neck gaiters (which also cover the face) are actually more likely to spread the virus.

Quote
The most secure mask, an N95, led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1 percent. But handmade cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material, also proved effective, with droplet transmission ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent. One mask, which was knitted, released a higher number of droplets, from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent. But none of the masks compared with the neck fleece, which had 110 percent droplet transmission (10 percent higher than not wearing a mask)

Researchers tested 14 commonly worn masks to see which are most effective. Both neck fleeces and bandanas proved ineffective.

The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add.

I bought one of those from a company catered towards my work (they make organization apparels) and I was very uncomfortable wearing those. It was extremely thin and didn't feel like it would do much. I got it as an emergency wear for my staff and now I have 10 of those sitting in my desk.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing.

My workplace has said that if you can blow out a candle with your mask on then that mask is ineffective. Good test, but I have no source to back it up.

Fleece mask info a is downer For my hopes of going skiing this winter....

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5172 on: August 10, 2020, 08:42:44 PM »

Offline libermaniac

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
  • Tommy Points: 206
Quote
Odd:  neck gaiters (which also cover the face) are actually more likely to spread the virus.

Quote
The most secure mask, an N95, led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1 percent. But handmade cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material, also proved effective, with droplet transmission ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent. One mask, which was knitted, released a higher number of droplets, from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent. But none of the masks compared with the neck fleece, which had 110 percent droplet transmission (10 percent higher than not wearing a mask)

Researchers tested 14 commonly worn masks to see which are most effective. Both neck fleeces and bandanas proved ineffective.

The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add.

I bought one of those from a company catered towards my work (they make organization apparels) and I was very uncomfortable wearing those. It was extremely thin and didn't feel like it would do much. I got it as an emergency wear for my staff and now I have 10 of those sitting in my desk.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing.

My workplace has said that if you can blow out a candle with your mask on then that mask is ineffective. Good test, but I have no source to back it up.

Fleece mask info a is downer For my hopes of going skiing this winter....
Other than sitting on a chairlift, and hanging in the lodge, aren’t you almost always 6 feet from someone else when skiing? I’m sure they can adjust the lift lines to not allow merging, etc where you might get a bit closer. And they can set up rules to not have strangers on the same chair. The risk would be more from touching stuff, imo. I’m no expert but my uninformed opinion thinks skiing itself could be done safely. It’s the lodges and hot tubs where it would spread.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5173 on: August 11, 2020, 06:55:10 AM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7894
  • Tommy Points: 1035
Quote
Odd:  neck gaiters (which also cover the face) are actually more likely to spread the virus.

Quote
The most secure mask, an N95, led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1 percent. But handmade cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material, also proved effective, with droplet transmission ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent. One mask, which was knitted, released a higher number of droplets, from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent. But none of the masks compared with the neck fleece, which had 110 percent droplet transmission (10 percent higher than not wearing a mask)

Researchers tested 14 commonly worn masks to see which are most effective. Both neck fleeces and bandanas proved ineffective.

The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add.

I bought one of those from a company catered towards my work (they make organization apparels) and I was very uncomfortable wearing those. It was extremely thin and didn't feel like it would do much. I got it as an emergency wear for my staff and now I have 10 of those sitting in my desk.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing.

My workplace has said that if you can blow out a candle with your mask on then that mask is ineffective. Good test, but I have no source to back it up.

Fleece mask info a is downer For my hopes of going skiing this winter....
Other than sitting on a chairlift, and hanging in the lodge, aren’t you almost always 6 feet from someone else when skiing? I’m sure they can adjust the lift lines to not allow merging, etc where you might get a bit closer. And they can set up rules to not have strangers on the same chair. The risk would be more from touching stuff, imo. I’m no expert but my uninformed opinion thinks skiing itself could be done safely. It’s the lodges and hot tubs where it would spread.

Mountains with gondolas/any other enclosed lifts would presumably be the biggest issue, but really any chair lift line could be a big problem. 6 feet of spacing would already make the lines take up way more space, add in lower throughput on the lifts (from not combining groups/singles) and it could be an issue.

It seems like reducing the number of lift tickets on popular days will be necessary, and that means higher prices. I'll probably use some of the vacation days I didn't use this summer to avoid the crowds and get in some mid-week riding
I'm bitter.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #5174 on: August 11, 2020, 01:42:53 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Kemba Walker
  • Posts: 923
  • Tommy Points: 68
I agree that Massachusetts things are returning to normal a bit. It's definitely far from pre-Covid but there's shortage of food, many places are open, restaurants are serving people, people are playing in the playground and so forth. I have also noticed that many of the clusters moved away from the Metro Boston area and into more concentrated places (lifeguard party in Falmouth, servers in Chatham, football practice in Weymouth).

It is definitely not the same as before but my wife and I are slowly doing some of the things we hadn't done for a while (brought the kids to Target, went shopping at Assembly, going to more popular bike paths).

It's this new normal level of activity that has caused a spike in daily cases.

We're roughly 350 daily cases since 7/23/20.

We were ~150-200 daily cases.

With schools opening up soon we will probably see even more cases.

Yeah this is all true. September will be the month to monitor as that's when schools/colleges open up and I believe that's the month we'll see more offices opening up or increasing capacity a bit more. If things start to really rise quickly, I think they will immediately have to shut down a lot of things again, OR basically move back to Phase 2 (meaning gyms, theaters, etc. close again and I think also schools stay online entirely).

I think we're still good for now. Positive test rate has been ranging between 1.7% and 2.4% mostly, and we're testing about 10,000 a day. Deaths are mostly down too. Sure, it could be better, but until a vaccine or medicine comes out this is probably the realistic best case scenario. Also because more people are going on vacations + returning and/or MA is getting tourists into places like Cape Cod which is contributing a little to that.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/10/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html
Quote
(CNN)Just as thousands more students return to classrooms this week, another study shows how easily children can get coronavirus.

More than 97,000 children in the US tested positive for coronavirus in the last two weeks of July, according to a new report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association.

Oh, Florida ...

Quote
Last month, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said officials in counties where the test positivity rate is higher than 5% might consider keeping classrooms closed to students.
Yet out of those 12 counties where schools will reopen this week, at least nine had test positivity rates higher than 5% as of Saturday, according to the Florida Department of Health.

And then this:

Quote
North Paulding High School in Georgia made headlines after a student posted a photo of a packed hallway, with virtually no one appearing to wear a mask.

Just a week after the school reopened, North Paulding is moving to online-only classes for at least Monday and Tuesday.

At least "six students and three staff members who were in school for at least some time last week ... have since reported to us that they have tested positive," Principal Gabe Carmona wrote in a letter to parents.

The teen who shot the photo of the packed hallway, Hannah Watters, said she's received threats for posting the image online. But the sophomore said she's not deterred and just wants everyone to know how risky the situation is.
"We could have just delayed opening like many other schools," she said. "They kind of sent us to school and used us as guinea pigs to see what would happen later on."

Right now, our local school (in central MA) is planning on restarting in a few weeks with a 'cohort' model where half the kids are on-site and half the kids are remote on any given day, so the school density will be halved.   If there is an outbreak, they will fall back to fully remote as was done in the spring.  They are also offering a 100% remote option, but if you choose that up-front (before the school year starts) that is contracted out to a remote learning provider so would mean the child is not using the same teachers and they would continue to be separate even if the rest of the school later has to go full remote.  We still have very few details on it.

This is really tough.  One of my kids in particular is in desperate need of more social modeling so we have a strong desire to get him back to 'normal' interactions with his peers.  So choosing the 100% remote option is extremely unappealing.   But we are also very concerned about the safety issues involved with returning to live attendance at the school.

We are very stressed about this.

To think that your kids will go back to any semblance of “normal” social interaction is way too overly optimistic.

If mask wearing is mandated and strict social distancing and pods are created the “school” will feel way more like a “prison-hospital” than a traditional school.

Older kids may be able to understand and adjust better but younger kids will think they’re sick and in need of help.