If you prefer: smelling someone sucking on a lozenge, the garlic they just had for breakfast, their perfume, or their gas (particularly since the latter may actually transmit the virus).
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
If you prefer: smelling someone sucking on a lozenge, the garlic they just had for breakfast, their perfume, or their gas (particularly since the latter may actually transmit the virus).
I was sitting next to group of four business people yesterday talking about their shots like they just got baptized. So proud of their accomplishments and even have dates when they got their first shot and when they get second. One guy was saying he has to go every 12 months for the rest of his life. My best pal got his 2nd and he was so relieved. He told me this is just like all the other flu shots and he will just get one every year. I tried to tell him this one is just a little different but he got super mad at me and then went low blow asking me when I will get mine. I told him for the 1,000,000 time that I'm against using body parts from aborted babies so old farts can live longer and not have any unexpected life challenges to come knocking on their door. I can;t wait for the sign that says, "No vaccine, no service." Cal State just told my boy he needs the shot or else. That sucks and puts pressure on young minds. Two years left to graduate and now being told you must take vaccine or no school for you pal.
If you read the paper, it only says that 6 feet is nearly equivalent to 60 feet. It never claims that 2 feet is equivalent to 6 feet. In fact, part of the paper gives a detailed explanation of why 2 feet is not equivalent to 60 feet- at least if the infected person is not masked. The paper does not address whether 3 feet is similar to 6 feet for masked people. A shame, because schools actually need that information.It’s been the factor they’ve been missing and the key explanation I think that explain dads “masks work” v real world results.
I’ve also been saying that the 6 ft thing was pseudoscience particularly when indoors
dads mind just blows a gasket that I always seem to get there before his experts. Just teasing with this last part
The paper also is firmly in the “masks work” camp:
“ We note that the use of face masks will have a marked effect on respiratory jets, with the fluxes of both exhaled pathogen and momentum being reduced substantially at their source. Indeed, Chen et al. (42) note that, when masks are worn, the primary respiratory flow may be described in terms of a rising thermal plume, which is of significantly less risk to neighbors. With a population of individuals wearing face masks, the risk posed by respiratory jets will thus be largely eliminated, while that of the well-mixed ambient will remain. “
In case you are wondering, the authors note that the unmasked respiratory jet risk is substantially larger than the ambient air risk. The ambient air risk only dominates if we all wear masks.
” There is thus a critical distance, A1/2m/(αtfd), beyond which the pathogen concentration in the jet is reduced to that of the ambient. This distance exceeds 10 m for fd in the aforementioned range and so is typically much greater than the characteristic room dimension. Thus, in the absence of masks, respiratory jets may pose a substantially greater risk than the well-mixed ambient.”
So, the authors are saying wear your mask, stay moderately distant, and limit your time indoors. Mask, distance, outdoors. Just like Grace has been saying.
Way to bend over to distinguish. I’ve said 2 things: the 6 ft thing is completely arbitrary and time reduces the effectiveness of masks. The paper and subsequent news quotes support that. And I’ve agreed all along distance/outdoors better (in the interview they actually pan masks+ outdoors...just outdoors would great)..where we disagree is trade offs we are willing to make and when (and I’m being generous here since you’ve ducked the offer to put your proposal with the benefit of hindsight on the table)If you read the paper, it only says that 6 feet is nearly equivalent to 60 feet. It never claims that 2 feet is equivalent to 6 feet. In fact, part of the paper gives a detailed explanation of why 2 feet is not equivalent to 60 feet- at least if the infected person is not masked. The paper does not address whether 3 feet is similar to 6 feet for masked people. A shame, because schools actually need that information.
The paper also is firmly in the “masks work” camp:
“ We note that the use of face masks will have a marked effect on respiratory jets, with the fluxes of both exhaled pathogen and momentum being reduced substantially at their source. Indeed, Chen et al. (42) note that, when masks are worn, the primary respiratory flow may be described in terms of a rising thermal plume, which is of significantly less risk to neighbors. With a population of individuals wearing face masks, the risk posed by respiratory jets will thus be largely eliminated, while that of the well-mixed ambient will remain. “
In case you are wondering, the authors note that the unmasked respiratory jet risk is substantially larger than the ambient air risk. The ambient air risk only dominates if we all wear masks.
” There is thus a critical distance, A1/2m/(αtfd), beyond which the pathogen concentration in the jet is reduced to that of the ambient. This distance exceeds 10 m for fd in the aforementioned range and so is typically much greater than the characteristic room dimension. Thus, in the absence of masks, respiratory jets may pose a substantially greater risk than the well-mixed ambient.”
So, the authors are saying wear your mask, stay moderately distant, and limit your time indoors. Mask, distance, outdoors. Just like Grace has been saying.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I got two doses of Pfizer. How long is this offer good for?
My wife got her second today. No line in the afternoon at the church where she got the vaccine although we were told there was a line in the morning. The timing of shutting down the J&J vaccine was a shame. It felt like to me we had some good traction based on the increasing number of vaccines per day. Not anymore.
Which paragraph in the paper do you believe says that "time reduces the effectiveness of masks"?
I can't find that claim anywhere in their published research. All I see is a numeric analysis that, the longer you spend indoors, the higher your aggregate exposure. (True with or without the mask)
Are you sure the research papers says what you think it says?
I agree with or without the mask. It’s the” with “part that interests me. It explains the discrepancy between your theoretical results and what’s happened in the real world. Up to now the argument has only been “without the mask”
I got mine vc both on Friday afternoons. The first time parking lot full and 3 waiting rooms to be released. This time only 1/2 of one waiting room, parking lot 1/3 full, maybe 1/4 of the people there were teens and 20 something.
Still waiting for you to tell us which paragraph says "time reduces the effectiveness of masks."
Is it in the MIT research paper? You said it was.
still waiting for You to actually understand the point. Up to now the arguments been masks work. This is the first time the analysis factors in time, which I agree says WITH or without masks the longer you spend indoors the higher your exposure risk. I know you aren’t that thick but you do have a remarkable ability to miss the forest through the trees.
daily numbers are out. Almost 1/3 of a drop Friday from peak daily vaccination, a week and a half ago.
Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
That's because there are morons out there that believe there are dead babies in the vaccine.
Meanwhile the news out of India is just bad. Other than the suspected case of Iran at the beginning of the pandemic, its the first country where the hospital system is actually in full blown collapse, oxygen shortages and emergency burial measures at funerals. Is there’s reason we can’t just donate to them our az stockpile if we aren’t going to use it?
You said the paper supports your claim that time makes masks less effective.
I just want to know which paragraph supports your claim.
It sure looks like you are saying something Grace believes, and pretending it has support from an article which says nothing of the sort.
India is big. If you want to have an impact on a country with a billion people, you'd have to send them all of our vaccine for the next half year or so. Then go back to "lockdowns" to get our own house in order.
Biden, accurately, believes the America First crowd would not look kindly on an attempt to save a million Indian lives at a cost of 6 more months of covid restrictions.
Quite a few of us couldn't endure the restrictions to help our countrymen. You think they'd be willing to go back to 6 months more restrictions to help out Mumbai?
[/QUOTE]
I think some hard core religious people might feel that way but
I'm just using your own words back at you. I'm not the one that has been saying masks are the miracle product that work indoors. As you yourself has said, with or without masks the longer indoors the greater the chance of exposure. My point is it explains the discrepancy between your theories and real world results
This has a lot of implications. Because the warning to people should have been "masks help, but if you spend too long indoors you still could catch it....being outdoors helps more". I suspect when all is said and done we will find out that people knew that, but just didn't want to say the quiet part out loud. There's a reason....it means all those flying is fine propaganda was bunk, it meant that we were telling essential workers such as in groceries and meat packing plants to go to work knowing the length of time of their shifts increased their risk (mask or no mask), and it means throwing all those migrants into detention overcrowded detention facilities probably also not a great idea.
I think some hard core religious people might feel that way but
I'm just using your own words back at you. I'm not the one that has been saying masks are the miracle product that work indoors. As you yourself has said, with or without masks the longer indoors the greater the chance of exposure. My point is it explains the discrepancy between your theories and real world results
This has a lot of implications. Because the warning to people should have been "masks help, but if you spend too long indoors you still could catch it....being outdoors helps more". I suspect when all is said and done we will find out that people knew that, but just didn't want to say the quiet part out loud. There's a reason....it means all those flying is fine propaganda was bunk, it meant that we were telling essential workers such as in groceries and meat packing plants to go to work knowing the length of time of their shifts increased their risk (mask or no mask), and it means throwing all those migrants into detention overcrowded detention facilities probably also not a great idea.
You are assuming we are actually going to use the AZ vaccine. We are nearing a glut without it.
j
I just know that 2M AZ vaccine doses won't go very far in a country with 1.4B people. If you want to help India, send 200M doses. Or more.
We could do it. We'd have to restore some restrictions and stretch out or vaccine distribution schedule while we send the rest to India.
I want to believe it would be popular. But I expect it would not.
I dunno. If my parents had a shot of being saved by the drop in the bucket, I'd welcome the help I agree it won't go far. But for those people it helps it would matter.