Jump to content

FlorbFnarb

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    5,812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

FlorbFnarb last won the day on September 28 2019

FlorbFnarb had the most liked content!

About FlorbFnarb

  • Rank
    Hacked by Glorious Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sitting on a throne built from anime-fag skulls
  • Server
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,007 profile views
  1. https://www.businessinsider.com/risk-of-coronavirus-transmission-lower-outdoors-evidence-2020-5 Being outdoors isn't a silver bullet; I wouldn't want to go to an outdoor concert and stand shoulder to shoulder with people. But it seriously reduces the odds compared to being cooped up in a confined space. As for regional variations, they seem largely to come from overall lifestyle. 1/3 or so of cases in the US are in NYC, while another third are in a ring around NYC in SE NY, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc.; the rest of the country comprises the remaning third. This is to be expected given the closer living in those areas and the greater use of cramped public transport. Also, nursing homes account for a drastically high percentage of deaths from the virus: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/#5ac33e8e74cd I mean, the flu always hits older people harder than it does younger people, but not this bad, from what I've read. I think we'd have done much better not to have shut down businesses for the most part, but quarantine anybody confirmed to be infected, leave everybody else alone, and take extra precautions with older folks, especially those in nursing homes. Rules requiring masks be worn indoors in crowded businesses are a wise rule. Instead what we've done is we have cities like Chicago where the mayor gets on TV and threatens to have people arrested if they leave home without permission, we've shut down tons of businesses, driving unemployment through the roof and causing businesses to fail, but we've put known infected old people back into nursing homes, with the result: And now we have a situation where masks have become politicized. Some refuse to wear them at all because they've lost trust in expert advice waffling on the issue and governors using ham-fisted methods, while other people (Karens) shout at people not wearing them outdoors taking a walk and not near anybody else. Everybody's too willing to listen to conspiracy theories, from the people saying the virus is a hoax, to the people saying that people are intentionally trying to infect people in black communities in order to reduce their numbers. A more restrained, intelligent set of measures would have gone a long way to preventing this overheated situation, and the iron fist used in some areas didn't even protect the most vulnerable. Insanity.
  2. We're going to see that until the government passes a law - or a court makes a strong ruling - that DUH a business cannot be held responsible for your contracting an airborne virus from other patrons.
  3. Yeah, you guys are kinda sorta close to ground zero for the whole thing. Recently I saw a map that showed that NYC has about a third of the US cases, while another third is in a small ring around NYC - NJ, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc. The remaining third is the rest of the goddamn country. And apparently, NY's infections generally came from Europe, not from the west coast of the U.S., according to genetic studies of the virus. It entered the US in NYC via Europe, then mostly spread to the rest of the country; most of the US's cases come China->Europe->NYC-rest of the country, not China->US West Coast->rest of the country. Also, apparently the statistics are showing that some 60%-70% of the fatalities are in nursing homes. Given recent findings that open-air transmission odds are extremely low, it seems we've gone about this all wrong. We've imposed draconian and economically catastrophic rules on society at large, while failing utterly to protect our most vulnerable people.
  4. Looks like there might be some methodology issues (I just skimmed it) but if the cases are undercounted by more than the deaths, that could be a good thing; it would reduce the mortality rate. Of course, the real question is, does infection and recovery grant full immunity, partial, or none?
  5. Sorry to hear it’s dragging out so long for you. What is the doctor telling you to do for treatment? Just stay home and rest?
  6. No, that's unlikely. Planning is only going to blunt a pandemic, not prevent it.
  7. Yeah, I heard something almost a month ago that high temperatures might tend to kill it. I don't know if that's the case, but hopefully so; haven't heard much about it recently. Apparently we're not even quite sure why flu season ends as temperatures rise; one hypothesis is apparently that the air tends to be dryer in the winter, allowing influenza viruses to float in the air longer, making transmission by breathing easier. On another note, I learned today that some colds are caused by strains of coronavirus. I had thought that all of them were caused by rhinoviruses, but apparently only like 85% of colds are caused by rhinoviruses; the rest are caused by coronaviruses and other viruses.
  8. It's a fair enough question whether herd immunity is responsible for why California seems to be getting very different results than New York. I'm sure lower physical proximity and car culture are aspects, but yeah, California would have been in a bad state weeks ago if they were gonna be in a bad state; nothing quite explains (to me, that is, and I'm no doctor) why California is doing *this* much better than the NYC megalopolis. Then again, I've heard that genetic studies of the virus say that NYC got their virus initially from Europe, not the western states, so perhaps the virus itself is performing differently depending upon the strain.
  9. I forget what state you said you're in. NJ? PA?
  10. I suppose I'm dumb, because I just had somebody kinda explain why a mask will keep you from breathing the virus out but not in. And I really should have seen the logic in it to begin with. When you breathe out, especially with a cough or sneeze, the particles of moisture are a lot larger, and a mask will stop them, even just a plain cloth mask. If you aren't, and you sneeze, but somebody else in the room is masked, by the time those particles of moisture reach them, they're much smaller and can pass through a cloth mask - but not an N95. Or at least that's how I understood what they were saying. However, I'm hearing that the thinking is that it's more common to catch even respiratory viruses by touching surfaces carrying the virus and then touching your face, specifically your eyes, nose, or mouth, rather than actually breathing them in. Which if that's true, it seems like handwashing would be even more critical.
  11. Who knows? I wonder if it's even possible to find out at this point. Maybe test people known to have had the flu then but who are considered unlikely to have already been exposed to the coronavirus, and see if they test positive for antibodies? Are we heading towards getting enough tests though? I keep hearing we're developing faster tests that will return results in minutes.
  12. Yeah. I guess I'm hoping there's a lot more people infected already than we know about, and they're just asymptomatic, or have symptoms mild enough they aren't actually bothering to get tested because they think it's a bad cold or the seasonal flu? Then again, that won't do us any good if there's no lasting immunity.
×
×
  • Create New...