โApr-05-2020 01:28 PM
โApr-06-2020 06:28 PM
โApr-06-2020 08:55 AM
Guy Roan wrote:Fortunately your rate of infection spread is pure fantasy. At your rate of infection everyone on the planet, some nine billion people, would have been infected in less than three weeks from the time of the very first case in China. You theorize that cases expand weekly by a factor of 10,000. So your 10,000 cases at the end of week one will have grown to 100 million at the end of week two. In the third week the planet is 100% infected before Wednesday. As you correctly pointed out, it is simple math.Crowe wrote:
Remember, it only takes one person to infect 4,000 in a week.
Show the data. Curious.
It is simple math Crow:
-One infected person contacts 10 people who contract it.
-those 10 people each give it to 10 people = 100
-those 100 people each give it to 10 people = 1000
-those 1000 people each give it to 10 people = 10,000
that is not even a week and that is what has happened in NY
Guy
โApr-06-2020 08:24 AM
free radical wrote:Don't be so sure of that.
That wouldnt hapen if everyone wore protective mask
Like most Asians do
https://youtu.be/gAk7aX5hksU
Quote:
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
(Authors: Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago.
Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.)
Some excerpts:
โฆIn response to the stream of misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature and role of masks and respirators as source control or personal protective equipment (PPE), we critically review the topic to inform ongoing COVID-19 decision-making that relies on science-based data and professional expertiseโฆ.
โฆSweeping mask recommendationsโas many have proposedโwill not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year.
โฆOur review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPEโฆ
โฆSurgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in householdsโฆ
โฆWe do not know whether respirators are an effective intervention as source control for the public. A non-fit-tested respirator may not offer any better protection than a surgical mask. Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor. In a time when respirator supplies are limited, we should be saving them for frontline workers to prevent infection and remain in their jobsโฆ
โฆThese recommendations are based on a review of available literature and informed by professional expertise and consultation. We outline our review criteria, summarize the literature that best addresses these criteria, and describe some activities the public can do to help โflatten the curveโ and to protect frontline workers and the general publicโฆ
โฆWe realize that the public yearns to help protect medical professionals by contributing homemade masks, but there are better ways to helpโฆ
Conclusions
While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings.
Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations.
โApr-06-2020 05:54 AM
โApr-05-2020 07:55 PM
2oldman wrote:ScottG wrote:And it's probably one of the safest activities there is.
Who knows if there will be any camping season at all.
This just bites.
โApr-05-2020 07:51 PM
Guy Roan wrote:Crowe wrote:
Remember, it only takes one person to infect 4,000 in a week.
Show the data. Curious.
It is simple math Crow:
-One infected person contacts 10 people who contract it.
-those 10 people each give it to 10 people = 100
-those 100 people each give it to 10 people = 1000
-those 1000 people each give it to 10 people = 10,000
that is not even a week and that is what has happened in NY
Guy
โApr-05-2020 04:41 PM
Crowe wrote:
Remember, it only takes one person to infect 4,000 in a week.
Show the data. Curious.
โApr-05-2020 04:29 PM
ScottG wrote:
We just cancelled and long awaited, first trip to Key West and I would not be surprised if our Aug trip to Montana is lost as well. Who knows if there will be any camping season at all.
This just bites.
โApr-05-2020 04:23 PM
gbopp wrote:
It's pretty simple.
Time flies when you're having fun.
Time slows down when you're not having fun.
โApr-05-2020 04:01 PM
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be
Douglas AdamsโApr-05-2020 03:59 PM
โApr-05-2020 03:24 PM
2oldman wrote:ScottG wrote:And it's probably one of the safest activities there is.
Who knows if there will be any camping season at all.
This just bites.
โApr-05-2020 03:23 PM
โApr-05-2020 02:29 PM
โApr-05-2020 02:05 PM
ScottG wrote:And it's probably one of the safest activities there is.
Who knows if there will be any camping season at all.
This just bites.