CV and mad panic behaviour

[flyboy77]

Another Covid Myth Dies the Death

https://www.aier.org/article/another-cov...the-death/

On April 5, however, the CDC page was replaced by a much-simplified set of instructions, which includes now this discreet note: “In most situations, the risk of infection from touching a surface is low.” Oh is that so?

The link goes to the following:

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) studies have been conducted to understand and characterize the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 fomite transmission and evaluate the need for and effectiveness of prevention measures to reduce risk. Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection.

In reality? Zero.

[quote]Fortunately the New York Times did some accurate reporting on the CDC update, quoting all kinds of experts who claim to have known this all along.

“Finally,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne viruses at Virginia Tech. “We’ve known this for a long time and yet people are still focusing so much on surface cleaning.” She added, “There’s really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface.”[quote]

Won't see that in the MSM.

Next for the asymptomatic take down.....

[LP]

The methods of transmission are additive, not exclusive. R[sub]0[/sub] is measured and not altered by or calculated from the transmission model, the transmission model has to fit the observed R[sub]0[/sub]. Proving one pathway is less infectious, just means some other mechanism has to make up for the shortfall, R[sub]0[/sub] won't change. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Experts on transmission have said right from the start infection risks from surfaces or ingestion are very low, very early on I recall posting a comment that a virology expert claimed to catch SARS-CoV-2 from ingestion you would basically have to drink a 300mL of concentrated virus.

The main problem seems to be that spreading SARS-CoV-2 via surfaces increases the public exposure risk, it's the same functional argument as calling for the use of masks to protect others by using them correctly, as in disposing of single use masks after a single use.

The more people get exposed through contact the more likely someone becomes unlucky number 1:10000, for example from a mass transit system, who can then they can spread it locally via exhalation at a much higher rate! Of course on the mass transit system the chance remains much higher that you've inhaled COVID than collected it off a surface, but the R[sub]0[/sub] doesn't change.

Of course all this social media argy bargy goes on as Michigan locks down with thousands of new cases everyday! Michigan was pretty much 50/50 in the election, will Trump offer half the population his $30K/person treatment?

[Thryleon]

Governments might be reluctant to enforce policies that are seen as limiting free will, but corporations certainly are not reluctant at all!

Lots of services are being added almost daily to the list of services and employment that depend on having a vaccine passport, it will be interesting to see where this goes. Airlines, Cruise lines, Interstate Trains, Hospitality, Health Care, etc., etc.. The list grows by the day!

I realise this is all about liability, but the left won't see it that way and they will rally against it, but will they refuse to catch that bus or train?

The current legal truth is that corporations can refuse service to whoever they like.

I don't know how a vaccine passport is going to work with current health information laws and freedom of information laws.

You wouldn't want this tested in court as its a medico legal minefield.

[flyboy77]

The methods of transmission are additive, not exclusive. R[sub]0[/sub] is measured and not altered by or calculated from the transmission model, the transmission model has to fit the observed R[sub]0[/sub]. Proving one pathway is less infectious, just means some other mechanism has to make up for the shortfall, R[sub]0[/sub] won't change. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Experts on transmission have said right from the start infection risks from surfaces or ingestion are very low, very early on I recall posting a comment that a virology expert claimed to catch SARS-CoV-2 from ingestion you would basically have to drink a 300mL of concentrated virus.

The main problem seems to be that spreading SARS-CoV-2 via surfaces increases the public exposure risk, it's the same functional argument as calling for the use of masks to protect others by using them correctly, as in disposing of single use masks after a single use.

The more people get exposed through contact the more likely someone becomes unlucky number 1:10000, for example from a mass transit system, who can then they can spread it locally via exhalation at a much higher rate! Of course on the mass transit system the chance remains much higher that you've inhaled COVID than collected it off a surface, but the R[sub]0[/sub] doesn't change.

Of course all this social media argy bargy goes on as Michigan locks down with thousands of new cases everyday! Michigan was pretty much 50/50 in the election, will Trump offer half the population his $30K/person treatment?

You can't be serious?

The models - just like the climate models - have been shown to be so wildly wrong I'm surprised the modellers (that Ferguson idiot in the case of the Imperial College modelling) haven't been laughed out of the country and exiled.

His track record is as bad as Tim 'Flim Flam' Flannery in the climate change space.

And yeah, I know you're a true believer and nothing - not even damning empirical evidence - will change your mind.

I've kind of figured you're on the gravy train....

[LP]

You can't be serious?

The models -

You've confused a debate about models of transmission methods (How) with general purpose epidemiological / statistical models (How Many).

R[sub]0[/sub] is not a model, it's simply calculated / derived from the case numbers. R[sub]0[/sub] doesn't change if the mix of How changes, R[sub]0[/sub] prediction might be affected by the early How Many models, but once you have tens of millions of cases and millions of deaths the How Many is no longer a model and R[sub]0[/sub] becomes a hard count figure.

The researchers claiming the How is no longer so much about spread via surfaces has no bearing on the How Many which is in the past, it just means you need a better explanation of How so that the How model matches the established How Many count.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are after, the argument you make supports more lock downs by implying the How is less likely to be a surface and more likely to be air, a far riskier proposition. If you want restrictions eased combined with simple prophylaxis you should be barracking for spread via surfaces as it's dead easy to manage.

[madbluboy]

48 year old NSW woman died from blood clots a week after the vaccine.

[ElwoodBlues1]

48 year old NSW woman died from blood clots a week after the vaccine.

https://au.yahoo.com/news/nsw-woman-dies...13267.html
AstraZ been scrapped in Denmark, the whole program is a mess now, when you fast track vaccines you just cant test
thoroughly enough in such a short time period.
They want to let people back into  Aus based on this vaccination program being successful, how is that possible now?
Guaranteed we will have Covid back if we allow Andrews and crew to let people into Victoria given how poor we are at managing quarantine procedures..

[capcom]

Totally agree ....

[Gointocarlton]

https://au.yahoo.com/news/nsw-woman-dies...13267.html
AstraZ been scrapped in Denmark, the whole program is a mess now, when you fast track vaccines you just cant test
thoroughly enough in such a short time period.
They want to let people back into  Aus based on this vaccination program being successful, how is that possible now?
Guaranteed we will have Covid back if we allow Andrews and crew to let people into Victoria given how poor we are at managing quarantine procedures..

5 new cases in Hotel Quarantine today.
Re the AZ vaccine, whilst there may well be a link between clots and the vaccine, it can still be effective at preventing Covid can it not?.

[ElwoodBlues1]

5 new cases in Hotel Quarantine today.
Re the AZ vaccine, whilst there may well be a link between clots and the vaccine, it can still be effective at preventing Covid can it not?.

I'm not a vaccine expert but I guess the theory is some protection is better than no protection. My concern would be the variants like the South African and any other that are newer and how the vaccines hold up and how well they have been tested vs the newer CoVid strains. The blood clot issue numbers are small vs the overall number of vaccinations taking place I am happy to admit but as that 48 year womans family can tell you now you could be the one who gets that random bullet in the chamber and you become that member of the herd who has to fall as part of the herd immunity where there are no guarantees.
No one wants to be the unlucky sucker who happens to have a underlying issue thats not apparent  and gets clots in weird places..
Its like buying a new car model, you dont want the initial model, you want the 3rd version onwards with all the bugs fixed to feel safer....