Everyone says it is more contagious than other viruses but at what factor is it more contagious? As in like some people just have never gotten the flu (me) despite not taking any extra special precautions like we are taking now. I tend to believe you can be in the same room with positive people and not catch it. Your wife is very up close and personal with patients and is taking extra precautions and has not contracted it. Does this tell me that if you consciously try to not put your hands in your mouth or your eyes or be unlucky enough to have someone cough directly on you that you can actually get away with not contracting it similar to the other viruses? I'm genuinely curious because the media will tell you that it's an automatic if you're around a positive person.
OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part VI (NO RIOT/PROTEST DISCUSSION)
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Think its definitely related to the precautions. Healthcare workers are testing at a lower rate than the general population.
Fewer NY Healthcare Workers Are Being Infected With COVID-19 Compared To Public, Cuomo Says
To me, as we see other countries start to open back up and not see an explosion in cases, there are only two things that have really changed. The weather and the prevalence of people wearing protective gear and sanitizing. Since healthcare workers would have contracted it at the same rate as others during the first wave, that makes the weather less likely and I am lead to believe its just people taking the proper precautions.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review
Studies on the OG SARS-CoV-1 show that self-precautions are definitively effective while the effects of social distancing are inconclusive (simply, I would guess, because it's harder to track and/or replicate in the lab):
"Meta-analysis of six case-control studies suggests that physical measures are highly effective in preventing the spread of SARS: handwashing more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.57; number needed to treat=4, 95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.52); wearing masks (0.32, 0.25 to 0.40; NNT=6, 4.54 to 8.03); wearing N95 masks (0.09, 0.03 to 0.30; NNT=3, 2.37 to 4.06); wearing gloves (0.43, 0.29 to 0.65; NNT=5, 4.15 to 15.41); wearing gowns (0.23, 0.14 to 0.37; NNT=5, 3.37 to 7.12); and handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns combined (0.09, 0.02 to 0.35; NNT=3, 2.66 to 4.97). The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease the spread of respiratory disease remains uncertain. The lack of proper evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing prevent firm conclusions being drawn."
Synergy27
F-A-C-G-C-E
Can someone explain to me how the stock market just had its greatest month ever while the country is locked down and facing historic levels of unemployment?
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
The stock market, usually, is black magic and not really to be use as the main barometer of health for the economy.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
At this point, the stock market tells us little more than the extent to which the billionaire class is moving wealth from one pocket to the other.
Prices are super low "because virus" even though the same people setting those prices are doing fantastic.
It's all a bunch of string-pulling.
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,198
- 38,869
I would not be surprised if the Fed is buying up stock or doing some other kind of voodoo.
eco's bones
Registered User
I think there is a real disconnect between the economy of the investor class and the economy of the Main St. population.
We saw a lot of weird stuff in 2008 and it's the same kind of people then as now that are coming out roses.
Synergy27
F-A-C-G-C-E
I appreciate all the responses to my question. It was meant to be somewhat rhetorical though.
I suppose the Government is pumping money into the “economy”, but I think the stock market rebound is a pretty clear indicator as to what they think the “economy” is. It’s certainly not the average guy buying stuff at a local shop and therefore enabling that shop owner to keep his head above water. It’d be a less obvious scam if the stock market had simply just stopped free falling instead of skyrocketing right back up.
Gordon Bombay
HFNYR Head Coach
- Oct 13, 2006
- 2,917
- 3,810
The stimulus kept the price of bonds low. There's no reason for investors to move the stocks to bonds when they haven't gone up. Add in the fact that no one knows what exactly is going on day to day, it's basically been status quo.
Investors are also hedging that the worst is over with this so the market is beginning to rise back up.
It's bullshit but you have retirement accounts or whatever tied into it, it's not the worst thing in the world.
Investors are also hedging that the worst is over with this so the market is beginning to rise back up.
It's bullshit but you have retirement accounts or whatever tied into it, it's not the worst thing in the world.
And there are of course some logic behind the notion that the stock market is about a year infront if reality, if a price is worth x dollar in 12 months, it’s of course hard to turn it down for 80% if that.
But I don’t think that is all. However I think the big disconnect is surplus of money with many active investors making a buck of what in essence is is a pyramid play. Many institutional investors — pension funds etc — have investment policies they follow and buy shares, every month. Short term investors can start to drive up the prices before quarterly reports and what not, then pull out at the same time, make a buck, and start over again. Robot trading accelerates these trends.
@Machinehead
This is not a joke, you cannot run for office without promising higher taxes in Sweden.
The last time the right wing party won the election, they promised to match every proposed tax increase by the social democrats.
Seriously though, disaster often leads to something good, and I think largely that has saved Sweden's bacon. We lost half our country in 1809 after an delusional war started by a King with more or less absolute power. We were very lucky to not lose 2/3 of the country. That was a major trauma. It took a while, but they kicked out the king, brought in a French dude to be a marionette as new king and started to rebuild the country. The aristocrats needed support towards the monarchy and cooperated with the farmers and workers. The French revolution in 1789 seems like its such an extreme long time ago, but it really isn't. It was just 20 years before 1809, and for the first half of the 1800's it felt very fresh for many. Just like WWII did in the up untill the 90s at least since the cold war was connected to it. So when the communist revolutions spilled over in more or less all countries around the globe -- to different degrees, but still -- Swedes where gunshy and when things where at the boiling point, everyone came to their senses instead and reached agreements at the last second. That meant that Sweden missed WWI. When WWII started Sweden (the monarchy) had much stronger ties to Germany and the Nazis, but no army so we wheren't part of that either. And after WWII we could sell iron ore and provide services to countries ruined by WWII and became one of the top 5-10 richest countries in the world.
My point is just, its easy to distribute wealth when you have wealth to distribute. I don't think Sweden should be seen as a utopia or someone that has done things right while others haven't. Of course there is some logic to the notion that free school and healthcare and a security net 'pays for itself', education is an investment, and in that sense of course something that should be thrived towards. But at the same time -- its a costly reform to put in place if you don't have it.
Sweden is also a very rich country on natural resources. A river like every 40th mile or whatever that is perfect for power dams along 1/3 of the coast. A lot of iron ore etc. Sweden just have about 5% of the woods that are well suited for the forrest industry, but used to produce like 40% of the goods from that industry. Russia on the other hand has like 40-50% of the natural resources but just 5% of the gods. The reason for that is simple, you can't utilize your forrests effectively unless you have a ton of small roads and bridges over every effin little river. Sweden could build those roads and bridges cheap after WWII when Russia couldn't.
I think that article linked makes many good points, I don't think Sweden have done a very good job, it at least had very good conditions.
Tell us your opinion on the proposed 24 team playoff format.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
I just got back from going to the store physically for the first time in weeks
The guy standing behind me in line almost got into fist fight with some other couple because they accidentally cut him
And people are acting crazy generally
We are screwed
The guy standing behind me in line almost got into fist fight with some other couple because they accidentally cut him
And people are acting crazy generally
We are screwed
Weather haven’t changed all over the globe either.
The virus is tackling off at the same point more or less all over the globe and have from Day 1. Even in Stockholm with about 20% immunity, where assymptomatic persons even are instructed to work despite a positive corona test.
This guy explains why. He isn’t an epidemiologist, but nobody can answer the question he asks to explain the effects which must be answered to explain the effects we are seing everywhere.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
"He isn't an epidemiologist, but he has an opinion!"
Immunity at 20% is unheard of in medical history and goes against the entire notion of vaccination.
Immunity at 20% is unheard of in medical history and goes against the entire notion of vaccination.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
There are some points I agree with:
-Most people in hotspots were infected before we noticed it (if anything, I think this is the factor leading to the 20% threshold -- we all begin to take notice at a similar rate)
-Social distancing is probably not the biggest factor (this is based on data I've seen from previous outbreaks)
That said, to suggest that waves just end at 20% because that's some immunity threshold is dangerous and again, contrary to medical history.
I agree with @Fireonk that awareness is slowing this thing down. Distancing protocols vary by leadership but fear is universal.
-Most people in hotspots were infected before we noticed it (if anything, I think this is the factor leading to the 20% threshold -- we all begin to take notice at a similar rate)
-Social distancing is probably not the biggest factor (this is based on data I've seen from previous outbreaks)
That said, to suggest that waves just end at 20% because that's some immunity threshold is dangerous and again, contrary to medical history.
I agree with @Fireonk that awareness is slowing this thing down. Distancing protocols vary by leadership but fear is universal.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
HFsNumber1Heel
FKA Roo Returns...Still A Contrarian Apparently
Nah it isn’t really.
1. There is a big difference between what level of immunity threshold you need from vaccination of a randomly chosen sample size and immunization that comes from nature’s selection so to speak.
Nature will chose to infect those who are most susceptible, ie most at risk of getting infected, and hence there is a so called Coefficient of variation (CV) that must be used when establishing the immunity threshold from naturally induced immunity in relation to the threshold for vaccinations.
It’s discussed he for example by a large international group of epidemiologists.
Individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 lowers the herd immunity threshold
As the pandemic unfolds evidence will accumulate in support of low or high coefficients of variation, but soon it will be too late to impact public health strategies. We searched the literature for estimates of individual variation in propensity to acquire or transmit COVID-19 or other infectious diseases and overlaid the findings as vertical lines in Figure 3. Most CV estimates are comprised between 2 and 4, a range where naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.
This study by a group of experts on the spread of diseases applies existent knowledge of contacts between different generations and between people to show how the immunity threshold from naturally induced immunity at least can be no higher than 43 percent.
The disease-induced herd immunity level for Covid-19 is...
2. Remember that these herd immunity thresholds calculates what herd immunity will be if all restrictions are lifted and there are no social distancing, or even more precisely what it would be with the same R-zero value applied as in Wuhan and Northern Italy. Ie between 2-3. I think they use 2.8 and 2.5 respectively.
R-zero is the opposite of a fixed value. It’s a macro estimate. In reality all kinds of things can impact it. Just look at the flu that has a much greater reproduction rate during flu season. It is certainly the same for Covid-19 but we don’t know how much it will vary.
Before Covid-19 we could send our kids to where ever we send them day time with a bad cough or whatever as long as they didn’t have a fever. Anyone commuting are exposed to a symphony of coughing daily January to February. People went to work if they could be free from fever after a handful of aspirin. That is when you have a R0 of 2-3.
What would the R-value be if many restrictions are lifted — but the most effective are kept in place like ban of large gatherings, ban of night clubs and everyone are aware and wash their hands more and wears masks? I mean if R0 instead is 1.5, the herd immunity threshold — not even taking the CV into account — is 30%.
The R value in Sweden is just around 1 and have been for a month and we have practically very few restrictions in place, but a fairly high immunity rate.
3. All that matters is that you get as few cases as possible, right? Look, I think every mentioning of “herd immunity” triggers certain elements to become super defensive. Either because they put certain measures in place, or are swinging away at certain people for not putting harder measures into place. I read the Guardian and NY Times daily as well as watching CNN and BBC. There is a stark difference between how much is reported of the effects of immunity in the US compared to the UK. In the US it’s literary tabu to mention it. WSJ might be different.
But the immunity a place like NYC has acquired will certainly have a very big impact on the spread of Covid 19 from today and forward. Combine whatever number the effective immunity is due to the Coefficient of variation, lowered R value due to an enlightened public, protective gear, some restrictions like on large gatherings, better climate summer time etc etc etc — I definitely think the prognosis of NYC being able to push back the spread is really good. And immunity will play a big part in that. Places with 1-2 percent immune will have a harder time.
Last edited:
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
My guess is some upstate and western New York areas will be clear to start phase one (manufacturing and construction).
NYC and LI will stay on PAUSE for another two weeks.
- Status
