SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[11101]

TL: DR: Are the general public using PPE to avoid extreme cases which they may find themselves in or are we actually using it because these cases occur quite frequently?

I don't fully understand your comment that masks don't prevent you from catching the disease. Respirators stop both inhalation and exhalation of particles/droplets. Surgical masks prevent exhalation of droplets and yes, they would prevent an infectious people from spreading the disease. I think what you are saying is that if everyone in the general public wore surgical masks, there is no need for respirators because there wouldn't be any droplets in the air to breathe in anyway, which I do agree with. I wasn't trying to dismiss this point in my earlier post and I am sorry if it came across that way.

The first point I tried to make was more about just how necessary is it for the entire general public to wear masks? There is already a wealth of research which shows how droplets disperse and evapourate. It isn't clear to me though why surgical masks are truly necessary in the first place. This is because I do not understand how often conditions occur where the droplets exhaled from an infected person (who is not wearing a mask) remain both suspended in the air and do not evaporate quickly. To avoid this scenario requires the need for a mask, but the effectiveness of the masks worn by the general public then really depends on how often this scenario occurs. If the scenario hardly ever occurs, then one could argue the masks aren't really that effective at all in terms of limiting the overall spread.

As I said above, I do understand the need to err on the side of caution but we shouldn't stop studying or understanding the science.

The second main point I made was that so much emphasis is made on masks and we don't really know if they are significantly better for the general public than wearing gloves, or if it is preferable for the general public to wear both or maybe it is better for the general public to wear just gloves. It broadly follows the same argument as above. In essence are we just using PPE to avoid extreme cases or are we actually using it because these cases occur quite frequently? The science isn't clear to me here. My personal feeling is that the cases tend towards the extreme rather than the norm but its just an opinion.

I don't buy into this argument that just because Asian countries wear masks they have been significantly better off or they "better understand" them. I don't doubt it has helped, but again, there are several factors such as using apps to trace people and forced isolation. My personal opinion is that the significant reasons these countries have been better off is a lot to do with previous experience with dealing with virus outbreaks, the app which tracks users and the lockdown measures. I think in the case of the app and lockdown it has been enforced more strictly than what would probably be allowed in western cultures, I may be wrong though.

When i refer to masks i mean surgical masks. Respirators are something we should keep aside for the people who actually need them.

Asian countries understand masks in that they know how to use them properly and what they are good for. In the West everybody is still arguing over whether they help and if we should use them at all. We have already seen how sensitive the R0 is with this virus so every little bit extra to reduce it will help.

 

[Atze-Peng]

Could you summarize what he is saying?

tl;dw is that no zync was used and no random samples counter-balanced with placebos. Also that it was more often than not used as a late hellmary rather than early on. Then the same UVA who conducted this study - does all these things when it comes to remdisivir.

Essentially the study (and others he goes into detail in previous videos) are just horrible from a medical and scientific PoV. And he implies a potential conflict of interest - either political or because Hydroxychloroquine is a lot cheaper than remdisivir.

 

[Drifter]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[0le]

Asian countries understand masks in that they know how to use them properly and what they are good for. In the West everybody is still arguing over whether they help and if we should use them at all.

With respect we will have to agree to disagree.

The general public in countries in Asia may know how to wear masks properly, but maybe they do not. We had someone living in one of the Asian countries post earlier in the thread that a lot of people don't wear them properly there either. I do agree partally here though, it seems likely people are more knowledgable to wear them properly because it is the norm there. But this is not the point I am making.

I don't think the general public in Asia really knows in what situations it is necessary to wear them. I think they just wear them because they are told to and also because it has become part of normal life there. It seems there is an assumption that it is necessary in all situations when going outside but the debate is whether this is supported by any science.

Assuming people wear, handle and dispose of masks correctly, what then needs to be known is:
1) What conditions are necessary for droplets to remain both suspended and fail to evaporate.
2) How often do those conditions occur.

If we can understand these questions, we can quickly determine which situations masks are necessary and begin to better understand how effective they are when worn by the general public. We can then say with more confidence they do help or alternatively they do not.

I haven't seen any recent news or interviews which really addresses these points specifically in any meaningful detail. I am surprised you also do not seem to want to discuss this part, yet I think it is crucial to actually understanding what situations are necessary to wear masks. It is crucial in my opinion because what if in most situations when people go outside, droplets either settle quickly or evaporate quickly - then what purpose does the mask serve in that case? Virtually no purpose at all.

You also didn't address anything about my concerns about not wearing gloves, which has similar issues. Why go to all the effort to wear masks and completely neglect any discussion on gloves? It just seems counter-intuitive to me.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I’ve just seen on the BBC that Sweden have announced a much bigger increase in cases than normal and also withdrew speculation about how many people have got the disease after admitting they made mistakes with the science

It’s going to be so depressing if things really go south in Sweden. Not surprising, if I’m honest, but they were a great test case to see if lighter touch social isolation might be able to keep a lid on things. Will fecking suck if/when it’s proven not to be a workable strategy. Also huge implications for other countries thinking about trying to ease off.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

tl;dw is that no zync was used and no random samples counter-balanced with placebos. Also that it was more often than not used as a late hellmary rather than early on. Then the same UVA who conducted this study - does all these things when it comes to remdisivir.

Essentially the study (and others he goes into detail in previous videos) are just horrible from a medical and scientific PoV. And he implies a potential conflict of interest - either political or because Hydroxychloroquine is a lot cheaper than remdisivir.

Seems to bring up remdisivir a lot. I wonder if he has any conflicts from working with/for Gilead?

 

[Revan]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

@Suedesi
@Revan

So my “kills 1 in 100” comment might be on the money. Small numbers (768) but proper random household sampling. Which is the gold standard in studies like this.

I was expecting 2-3% too, with heavy hit areas around 10%.

Still think that the mortality rate would be around 0.5%. 1% looks too much when you consider small states with a lot of testing a.

 

[jymufc20]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Edit: The official totals are messed up.

Yesterday, 18,100
Today, 18,738 but +616 should make 18,716.

Not sure if this happened before and they just add in some other deaths from nurses or is Patel doing the adding up today?

They are missing out Northern Ireland's numbers.

 

[sun_tzu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Having been to cheltenham in the past its pretty small and those postcodes would also be the most populated ones of the built up areas so cases per capita would be better as at the moment that pretty much shows population density of cheltenham and gloucester and that the countryside around those areas with half decent road links is a bit more densely populated than the countryside that is less accessible

Not to say that holding cheltenham wasnt a monumentally stupid idea - just that that graph showing total cases rather than cases per capita does not prove it

 

[balaks]

They are missing out Northern Ireland's numbers.

NI has been doing quite a bit better so far than other parts of the UK thankfully.

 

[sammsky1]

Not sure. Currently everyone is taken to a hotel for a 14 day quarantine under police guard - paid for by the government. Until very reliable testing for live infections and antibodies are available I doubt we will move to certification. Quarantine could become self funded in due course.

I’m guessing that would have to be norm for allowing non-resident or foreign visitors

 

[RK]

Having been to cheltenham in the past its pretty small and those postcodes would also be the most populated ones of the built up areas so cases per capita would be better as at the moment that pretty much shows population density of cheltenham and gloucester and that the countryside around those areas with half decent road links is a bit more densely populated than the countryside that is less accessible

Not to say that holding cheltenham wasnt a monumentally stupid idea - just that that graph showing total cases rather than cases per capita does not prove it

A newly-discovered symptom of COVID-19 is decent journalists turning into crap data analysts. It's starting to wind me up a bit.
I'm not ruling out that the festival caused a spike in cases, but those charts are a long way from proving anything interesting.
As a wider point, the potential consequences of misinformation at the moment are worrying.

 

[BootsyCollins]

Andrew Coumo just accounted for a antibody test.
3000 test in the state of new York, 13.9% positive for antibodys.
in the city of new York it was 21.2%.

it translate to a death rate to 0.5%.

no link sorry, just saw it in my local newsfeed.
Here is the newsfeed in Swedish :
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3Jgxj9/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Atze-Peng]

Seems to bring up remdisivir a lot. I wonder if he has any conflicts from working with/for Gilead?

He mentioned it like 2 or 3 times? Plus he didn't say it was a bad drug or useless. So dunno how you come to this conclusion. His analysis of the study and previous ones were spot on.

 

[cyberman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Great news. Maybe the world should look at our diet for a hidden cure, the starch in spuds being its antidote might be it

 

[Rajma]

U.S. numbers approaching 1 Million cases, it’s crazy considering that their test per head rate is nothing special compred to some other countries. Just shows how highly contagious this virus is.

 

[Verminator]

TL: DR: Are the general public using PPE to avoid extreme cases which they may find themselves in or are we actually using it because these cases occur quite frequently?

I don't fully understand your comment that masks don't prevent you from catching the disease. Respirators stop both inhalation and exhalation of particles/droplets. Surgical masks prevent exhalation of droplets and yes, they would prevent an infectious people from spreading the disease. I think what you are saying is that if everyone in the general public wore surgical masks, there is no need for respirators because there wouldn't be any droplets in the air to breathe in anyway, which I do agree with. I wasn't trying to dismiss this point in my earlier post and I am sorry if it came across that way.

The first point I tried to make was more about just how necessary is it for the entire general public to wear masks? There is already a wealth of research which shows how droplets disperse and evapourate. It isn't clear to me though why surgical masks are truly necessary in the first place. This is because I do not understand how often conditions occur where the droplets exhaled from an infected person (who is not wearing a mask) remain both suspended in the air and do not evaporate quickly. To avoid this scenario requires the need for a mask, but the effectiveness of the masks worn by the general public then really depends on how often this scenario occurs. If the scenario hardly ever occurs, then one could argue the masks aren't really that effective at all in terms of limiting the overall spread.

As I said above, I do understand the need to err on the side of caution but we shouldn't stop studying or understanding the science.

The second main point I made was that so much emphasis is made on masks and we don't really know if they are significantly better for the general public than wearing gloves, or if it is preferable for the general public to wear both or maybe it is better for the general public to wear just gloves. It broadly follows the same argument as above. In essence are we just using PPE to avoid extreme cases or are we actually using it because these cases occur quite frequently? The science isn't clear to me here. My personal feeling is that the cases tend towards the extreme rather than the norm but its just an opinion.

I don't buy into this argument that just because Asian countries wear masks they have been significantly better off or they "better understand" them. I don't doubt it has helped, but again, there are several factors such as using apps to trace people and forced isolation. My personal opinion is that the significant reasons these countries have been better off is a lot to do with previous experience with dealing with virus outbreaks, the app which tracks users and the lockdown measures. I think in the case of the app and lockdown it has been enforced more strictly than what would probably be allowed in western cultures, I may be wrong though.

Please watch this.

 

[massi83]

Andrew Coumo just accounted for a antibody test.
3000 test in the state of new York, 13.9% positive for antibodys.
in the city of new York it was 21.2%.

it translate to a death rate to 0.5%.

no link sorry, just saw it in my local newsfeed.
Here is the newsfeed in Swedish :
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3Jgxj9/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset

He also said that currently they are undercounting the deaths, which means death rate would be more than 0,5%. But he didn't state when the antibody sample was collected and I don't know how long it takes to develop antibodies on average, anyone have that data?

 

[Revan]

It doesn't sound reasonable given the whole world has less than 3 million confirmed cases.

If the 0.5% mortality rate turns out to be true (and there is plenty to suggest that), we are actually talking for 30-40m real infections in the world.

For sure, but do we think the UK have only caught 4.5 % of their cases?

Very likely. The UK has done a poor job on testing, only 583k cases in total (Italy has 3 times as many, Germany 4 times as many, the US has 7 times as many).

 

[JPRouve]

Great news. Maybe the world should look at our diet for a hidden cure, the starch in spuds being its antidote might be it

It's at 0.6 in France, both countries like thier potatoes. Coincidence?

 

[Rajma]

Putting $100 on the under

Show me them money!

 

[Hugh Jass]

tl;dw is that no zync was used and no random samples counter-balanced with placebos. Also that it was more often than not used as a late hellmary rather than early on. Then the same UVA who conducted this study - does all these things when it comes to remdisivir.

Essentially the study (and others he goes into detail in previous videos) are just horrible from a medical and scientific PoV. And he implies a potential conflict of interest - either political or because Hydroxychloroquine is a lot cheaper than remdisivir.

Ok thanks.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Andrew Coumo just accounted for a antibody test.
3000 test in the state of new York, 13.9% positive for antibodys.
in the city of new York it was 21.2%.

it translate to a death rate to 0.5%.

no link sorry, just saw it in my local newsfeed.
Here is the newsfeed in Swedish :
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3Jgxj9/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset

Wow. A German virologist put it at 0.37%.

At 0.5% it is still five times worse than seasonal flu.

 

[BootsyCollins]

He also said that currently they are undercounting the deaths, which means death rate would be more than 0,5%. But he didn't state when the antibody sample was collected and I don't know how long it takes to develop antibodies on average, anyone have that data?

Missed that, thanks. So between 0.5-1 then probably.

 

[Revan]

They already have higher per capita numbers than all other Scandinavian countries. Was only a matter of time until this would come out.

Around 4 times as many deaths as Denmark and Norway combined (while having the same population). And likely getting worse.

 

[Balljy]

It's at 0.6 in France, both countries like thier potatoes. Coincidence?

I'm going to place my bets on red wine & Guinness. Will let you know the results.

 

[Revan]

Andrew Coumo just accounted for a antibody test.
3000 test in the state of new York, 13.9% positive for antibodys.
in the city of new York it was 21.2%.

it translate to a death rate to 0.5%.

no link sorry, just saw it in my local newsfeed.
Here is the newsfeed in Swedish :
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3Jgxj9/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset

This is really good, if true.

 

[adexkola]

Show me them money!

fecking hell

Who do I pay?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He mentioned it like 2 or 3 times? Plus he didn't say it was a bad drug or useless. So dunno how you come to this conclusion. His analysis of the study and previous ones were spot on.

I didn’t watch the video. Just read the summary. I didn’t come to any conclusion either, just asked a question.

His analysis may well be spot on. From what I’ve seen the data on hydroxychloroquine in covid is generally lacking/a bit crap, so if that’s his conclusion I would agree with it. The data on remdisivir is also lacking/a bit crap, in my opinion.

 

[0le]

Please watch this.

I have already watched that video and it has several issues:
The experiment they carried out was pretty basic, but interesting and a good start nonetheless. They took images using a laser. They do not appear to carry out any diagnostics to quantify anything meaningful other than how far the droplets reached. The paramaters they need to quantify are droplet size and velocity, surrounding gas velocity, and droplet concentration. Whilst it is very difficult to do these things simultaneously, Particle Image Velocimetry is a well established technique and can be done at different times (i.e. measure the gas conditions and then measure droplet velocity). You can use, amongst others, Phase Doppler or other techniques to measure the size of the droplets too. Phase Doppler also has a limited capacity to measure droplet concentration at a point in space. Not reporting the size or velocity makes the study interesting and a good start, but certainly not conclusive. Similar studies have been carried out for droplets in engineering for decades. The novelty of their work appears to be releasing the droplets specifically from someone sneezing. In engineering it would likely be some spray system, pipe flow etc but the fundamental physics are the same. One condition missing from their experimental study is that the background air is quiescient but in outdoors, you will often have a light breeze at minimum, so you effectively have turbulent motion. Turbulence (or any meaningful laminar flow) is what is really complicating the picture here, not necessarily quiescient conditions.

At 1:30 in the video they say "you can see a large droplet about 1mm in diameter". Well I would disagree. What you see there is just a photo - at best you can say it is a liquid ligament. You can see some droplets, I don't think you can measure accurately the size. You can't say you see droplets of 1mm there unless you've actually measured them. Measuring droplet size with photos is possible with certain conditions, but when you get to microdroplet size and when you also have a large field of view, typically you need to use laser diagnostics such as Phase Doppler or something more sophisticated because the droplets size can't be imaged well due to the diffraction limit. This is an optics issue, something I don't really understand at all, but it is very real and there is I believe something called the Rayleigh criterion to determine it. Maybe some budding photographers will know more about this.

At 1:40 I don't know what they mean by a high sensitivity camera, but okay, it seems to give some useful image data.

2:06/5:53 I've said it several times, water droplets in air are not "light". This is just factually wrong. They are "heavy". "Light" droplets would refer to when the droplet density is smaller than air and I don't believe the droplets here have a lighter density than air because they are "droplets", i.e. liquid. I've already said before, the dynamics of light droplets in air and heavy droplets in air are completely different. I could be wrong, maybe their density is indeed lighter but I doubt it.

2:16 They've previously mentioned that some droplets were 1mm in size, and now they are saying they are just "microdroplets". Which is it? The distinction is important because how the droplets disperse both in still and moving air depends strongly on size. What they really should say is you have a polydispersed cloud of droplets, which means you have a range of different droplet sizes.

3:49 Simulations in multiphase flows are bereft with issues. Without any details given, you should take every simulation with a pinch of salt. For example, does this simulation account for heat transfer processes, e.g. evaporation. Does this simulation use Lagrangian or Eulerian tracking of the droplets (ie. how does it try to "track" the droplets)? What simiplification of the equation of motion of the droplets did they use? Did they study coupling effects/ collisions? Did they use RANS, LES or DNS for the single phase flow? Just a whole lot of questions. Take everything about the simulation with a pinch of salt.

5:03-5:14 Again a factual error and complete nonsense. Even without surrounding air motion, droplets will move due to gravity. Droplets less than 20 micron will also move somewhat due to Brownian motion, and this becomes more pronounced at sizes <1 micron. The reason they remain suspended is because Brownian motion acts in several directions and their terminal velocity (caused by gravity) is extremely small - in other words they fall to the ground very slowly. I know what they are trying to say. They are trying to say that droplets remain suspended within a small confined space for some time, but it could and should be clearer than what they have said. They've also not considered that the droplets may simply evaporate.

5:27 "Opening windows and having air circulation". Just wishy washy words to say that the motion of small droplets becomes correlated with background air motion. This is not new and has been known for decades. Infact, it is exploited by Particle Image Velocimetry to measure gas flow velocity, which I mentioned above. Very high velocity air motion will probably enhance evaporation too.

So to conclude they seemed to ignore or neglect to discuss turbulent motion, which is everywhere when you go outside. They've completely ignored anything to do with evaporation. They've ignored social distancing measures of 2m and the terminology they use is misleading at times. All this video does is create fear amongst people who won't understand the physics which is the vast majority of people. The experiment is a good start, but ideally we need to continue that with more sophisticated experimental conditions and also better laser diagnostics (or other diagnostic) measures. So I don't think that video explains anything to be honest.

 

[Darkhorsez]

Please watch this.

Interesting info - thanks for sharing. One interesting aspect is that the time of the outbreak being in colder season also meant closed windows etc. Could also mean that we better weather coming some of the spread may be impacted.

 

[0le]

Interesting info - thanks for sharing. One interesting aspect is that the time of the outbreak being in colder season also meant closed windows etc. Could also mean that we better weather coming some of the spread may be impacted.

A lot of the video is rubbish.

Indoors, you still have air motion due to people constantly walking, air conditioning systems, opening/closing doors, extraction systems etc. You can also generate air motion through temperature gradients (natural convection) and I think density gradients as well.

 

[Darkhorsez]

A lot of the video is rubbish.

Indoors, you still have air motion due to people constantly walking, air conditioning systems, opening/closing doors, extraction systems etc. You can also generate air motion through temperature gradients (natural convection) and I think density gradients as well.

Couldn’t disagree with your take but with better weather at the very least people are less likely to massing indoors. Surely this will be good. Anyway trying to find some positivity.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I have already watched that video and it has several issues:
The experiment they carried out was pretty basic, but interesting and a good start nonetheless. They took images using a laser. They do not appear to carry out any diagnostics to quantify anything meaningful other than how far the droplets reached. The paramaters they need to quantify are droplet size and velocity, surrounding gas velocity, and droplet concentration. Whilst it is very difficult to do these things simultaneously, Particle Image Velocimetry is a well established technique and can be done at different times (i.e. measure the gas conditions and then measure droplet velocity). You can use, amongst others, Phase Doppler or other techniques to measure the size of the droplets too. Phase Doppler also has a limited capacity to measure droplet concentration at a point in space. Not reporting the size or velocity makes the study interesting and a good start, but certainly not conclusive. Similar studies have been carried out for droplets in engineering for decades. The novelty of their work appears to be releasing the droplets specifically from someone sneezing. In engineering it would likely be some spray system, pipe flow etc but the fundamental physics are the same. One condition missing from their experimental study is that the background air is quiescient but in outdoors, you will often have a light breeze at minimum, so you effectively have turbulent motion. Turbulence (or any meaningful laminar flow) is what is really complicating the picture here, not necessarily quiescient conditions.

At 1:30 in the video they say "you can see a large droplet about 1mm in diameter". Well I would disagree. What you see there is just a photo - at best you can say it is a liquid ligament. You can see some droplets, I don't think you can measure accurately the size. You can't say you see droplets of 1mm there unless you've actually measured them. Measuring droplet size with photos is possible with certain conditions, but when you get to microdroplet size and when you also have a large field of view, typically you need to use laser diagnostics such as Phase Doppler or something more sophisticated because the droplets size can't be imaged well due to the diffraction limit. This is an optics issue, something I don't really understand at all, but it is very real and there is I believe something called the Rayleigh criterion to determine it. Maybe some budding photographers will know more about this.

At 1:40 I don't know what they mean by a high sensitivity camera, but okay, it seems to give some useful image data.

2:06/5:53 I've said it several times, water droplets in air are not "light". This is just factually wrong. They are "heavy". "Light" droplets would refer to when the droplet density is smaller than air and I don't believe the droplets here have a lighter density than air because they are "droplets", i.e. liquid. I've already said before, the dynamics of light droplets in air and heavy droplets in air are completely different. I could be wrong, maybe their density is indeed lighter but I doubt it.

2:16 They've previously mentioned that some droplets were 1mm in size, and now they are saying they are just "microdroplets". Which is it? The distinction is important because how the droplets disperse both in still and moving air depends strongly on size. What they really should say is you have a polydispersed cloud of droplets, which means you have a range of different droplet sizes.

3:49 Simulations in multiphase flows are bereft with issues. Without any details given, you should take every simulation with a pinch of salt. For example, does this simulation account for heat transfer processes, e.g. evaporation. Does this simulation use Lagrangian or Eulerian tracking of the droplets (ie. how does it try to "track" the droplets)? What simiplification of the equation of motion of the droplets did they use? Did they study coupling effects/ collisions? Did they use RANS, LES or DNS for the single phase flow? Just a whole lot of questions. Take everything about the simulation with a pinch of salt.

5:03-5:14 Again a factual error and complete nonsense. Even without surrounding air motion, droplets will move due to gravity. Droplets less than 20 micron will also move somewhat due to Brownian motion, and this becomes more pronounced at sizes <1 micron. The reason they remain suspended is because Brownian motion acts in several directions and their terminal velocity (caused by gravity) is extremely small - in other words they fall to the ground very slowly. I know what they are trying to say. They are trying to say that droplets remain suspended within a small confined space for some time, but it could and should be clearer than what they have said. They've also not considered that the droplets may simply evaporate.

5:27 "Opening windows and having air circulation". Just wishy washy words to say that the motion of small droplets becomes correlated with background air motion. This is not new and has been known for decades. Infact, it is exploited by Particle Image Velocimetry to measure gas flow velocity, which I mentioned above. Very high velocity air motion will probably enhance evaporation too.

So to conclude they seemed to ignore or neglect to discuss turbulent motion, which is everywhere when you go outside. They've completely ignored anything to do with evaporation. They've ignored social distancing measures of 2m and the terminology they use is misleading at times. All this video does is create fear amongst people who won't understand the physics which is the vast majority of people. The experiment is a good start, but ideally we need to continue that with more sophisticated experimental conditions and also better laser diagnostics (or other diagnostic) measures. So I don't think that video explains anything to be honest.

Oof. Quite the takedown!

This place is great. The range of expertise on here never ceases to amaze.

Now can one of ye please invent a vaccine?!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Couldn’t disagree with your take but with better weather at the very least people are less likely to massing indoors. Surely this will be good. Anyway trying to find some positivity.

You’re basically correct. Better weather should reduce spread. That’s one of the theories about why so many viruses are seasonal. We spend more time out and about, less time indoors close to other people. Other theories are about UV light and warmer air temperature breaking down viruses quicker outside the body. And schools being closed.

 

[Eriku]

Oof. Quite the takedown!

This place is great. The range of expertise on here never ceases to amaze.

Now can one of ye please invent a vaccine?!

Seconded. I love the range of informed opinions I can find on the Caf.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Im red2]

I'd like to have a look. Can you state which verses, or the entire chapter?

Sure, it is from Revelation 6. The rider of the white horse with the crown(Corona) and the bow the ancient Greek word (Toxon) can also mean a biological agent, or a virus. The opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic games in London actually contains many clues to what is going on. There is a plan behind all of this. Go to youtube and search for "olympic games opening ceremony 2012" and take your pick from the results.

 

[Hugh Jass]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/opinions/bergen-osterholm-interview-two-opinion/index.html

Grim but honest read from Michael Osterholm. This guy made a lot of predictions that have since materialized.

Makes a good point that washing your hands will not suffice. If you share the same space as an infected person you increase your chances of getting it.

He also predicts 800,000 dead in America. And even if we find a drug to treat it, that wont stop transmissions.