Riobard

That seems to be a good location-duration visit calendar since you have Rio previously under your belt but can tweak it with Salvador Bahia. I would personally pick a similar itinerary if visiting were in the cards sooner than later. It will be interesting to have a take on how uniform the alterations are across settings in the pandemic context.

A little off track, but BTW the recently published JAMA study on CoV and Vitamin D in Illinois is considerably methodologically flawed. There is much misleading research that gets published in supposedly respectable periodicals and the spurious findings get subsequently imported into media releases and poured into gullible trusting brains.

Oh you only need a reasonably cross-sectional representative sample, not mass testing, to infer antibody-verified exposure/immunity estimated within a tight enough confidence interval to be statistically valid. A quarter of a percent of the population should do it, 15,000,000? Statisticians can compute sample sizes needed to extrapolate to the overall population. Anyway a lot of this has been done already and I am not inclined to dig into or look for what I have already read. Try searching ‘USA covid true prevalence’ or ‘USA Covid antibody prevalence’ or ‘USA Covid immunity estimate’

Louisiana, at reported 3.3%, is the highest state tally with a potential range of exposure up to 33%. Isolated on its own might be considered to be approaching 50% of the exposure prevalence needed to categorize as a reasonable threshold of herd immunity. But there is just the one partial flimsy wall west of it and it does not barricade state lines.

Reported infection USA to date has reached 1.9% population. Ascertainment adjustment puts it at 9.5 - 19%. I doubt that any of the up to 80% remaining population is spared susceptibility, but presentation can be presymptomatic, asymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, or symptomatic on a severity gradient.

Canada has had a reasonably high dose of CoV, large abatement but new recent upticking, and now the curve trend puts us at 100th out of 198 globally. The evidence is convincingly accurate that the exposure to date here is in the range of .7% to 1.1%. This represents an ascertainment adjustment of 3- to 4- fold the reported case tallies, both to date and in terms of rolling average of new case incidence. The event risk algorithm models in USA estimate ascertainment bias as greater than Canada and propose true case report tallies should be subject to adjustment metrics ranging from 5 times to 10 times the actual detected cases.

Anecdotally means a small number of testimonials or observations, not a solid study finding. The bit of research in Asia and Europe on either susceptibility to getting CoV or severity of Covid-19 disease, across variable blood alleles, is methodologically flawed. I have read the few related papers and have not been concerned about blood type as a relevant predictor. Besides, there are factors that do legitimately contribute to variance in catchable and morbidity, and that can be regulated far more easily than altering blood type (which is impossible outside of Transylvania). Susceptibility to infection vs acquiring immunity, by the way, are not the same thing. Blood type does not confer immunity at the binary level: immunity yes/no.

When you say antigen I think you mean antibody, @tassojunior Or maybe you mean a positive antigen test result predicts immunity, so for the sake of argument equals prospective immunity? In contrast, antibody tests are a better marker of possible immunity as antibodies wrt CoV are detected longer. Detectable antigen has a short shelf life, high chance false negative, and not the ideal strategy for exposure surveillance relevant to magnitude of community immunity. I’ll try to review the NEJM article shortly.

It sometimes helps to enjoy flirting and complex propositioning. I have blurred out this example but it was labour-intensive, a gogo who volunteered his number but I had to do the translating both directions as he claimed to not be familiar with a translation app. My time is well-spent and eroticized for me but more of his time was squandered just sealing the deal than was spent doing the agreed deal.

It seems apparent that the local punters like to be able to go to their hire’s home. Why else would the ...comlocal be one of the central sites that attract among the most ads? It means ‘with a place’ to play. That may have appeal for locals for privacy and for not spending money on a hotel, and it may be that the lion’s share of tricking for brasileiros occurs with the escort hosting, as opposed to the club settings or love hotels. Just a hypothesis. However, if there is going to be tricky manipulation the foreign national is the most likely candidate targeted by a dodgy provider. The locals and providers likely have a culturally anchored mutual contractual understanding that up-sells are not to be solicited or given in to. A tourist needs time to be able to cultivate the finesse that is often required to navigate a bit of wallet-paring game thrown at him, or an assertion by an escort that various sexual behaviours are offered on a per-cost á la carte basis above and beyond one listed pricetag. Just my opinion, in case it seems ambiguous, I would dissuade a new-ish visitor from going blind to an unknown provider’s stated residence (I did not mean for the context exception to be applied to this option), as well as recommend vetting a provider extensively in person prior to hosting. A 100% record of good uneventful experiences for many here is not transferable or predictive for everybody. It does not mean necessarily that the former group is reckless and cavalier, but advice given to strangers should always be framed according to the principle that the advice solicitor and possible vulnerabilities are largely unknown. If you are seriously mitigating CoV risk exposure you may not want the higher volume of contacts mingling in a club with hireable locals, and you will likely be unable to micromanage having distance from guys you ultimately feel no attraction for. This reality, if you are in inclined to disease exposure caution, lessens the applicability of what is usually a strong recommendation for novices to source hook-ups in the clubs. This standard jumping off point may essentially replace private residence hook-up risk with pandemic-related illness risk. It is not the most opportune time for the average inexperienced visitor to gain traction in sucking all the best marrow from all the best bone.

I think many of us want to project expertise and that is much the MO of a message board, but that @SolaceSoul is as interested in inoculating the naïve with respect to exposure to dodgy situations. A few of us are getting a bit frustrated with the failure to integrate the range of personal anecdotal experiential accounts with common sense risk prevention. Sometimes I want to yell and bitchslap individual takes on the question. If you do not take the time to read thoroughly here on the topic, your shortcutting approach may leave you making choices in a way similar to the manner in which rampant pseudoscience is misinforming some folks and widespread collateral damage results in other domains. Forensics principles suggest a bad trade provider won’t kill you in his home because it is easier to deal with leaving your corpse where you live. However, his home may not be his place, and a volatile situation often overrides strategies of evidence attenuation. Getting threatened, harmed, spooked does not favour either domicile so much. If you are asking about security guards, Airbnb, etc, read all the posts here. There is no single correct answer ... it depends depends depends depends depends depends depends ... You may as well watch paint dry as pay attention to one of my personal examples: I tend to make social connections with people in general a few metres from where I stay in any given place. They may be open-minded but should they not raise their eyebrows and be a bit judge-y about the dynamics of sexual tourism, its implicit exploitive potential underscored if parading a cadre of hot young locals to one’s bed? lol Over 5 years I have used the love hotel playbook option. I have had about 5% of my total encounters hosting where I stay but these have been exclusively fellows I know extremely well from 2 Rio clubs and 1 Sampa venue where providers roam on the homo range. Caveat emptor. The prices are so low it is worth the effort to invest financially in some degree of environmental risk mitigation. ———- Not to mention that, in the first place currently wrt Brazil, pandemic pseudoscience may be partly instrumental in influencing judgement about the risks/benefits of visiting and hiring intimacy trade in the near future.

A fist-bump from some will run you more than a fisting from others.

Yeah, is he all for rent or at all for sale, or both, and how? I used to be all for rent and it was prioritized in my budget, then owned my house as I had been all for the sale and leaving rent out of the equation. Now I am all for rent, looking for the rent that is for sale. I may eventually make a sale and revert to rent ... in fact, I am overdue for rent by about six months, the rent that is for sale, that is, but if I backtrack to rent, maintaining episodic rent situations for sale by the hour, I may be able to rent more due to the sale proceeds. I see what you mean. ————- Two lips and low hanging full bulbs on tulips, however bright, are all that is required for whorticultural success.

I believe line 11 in the study Results should read ‘antibody testing’ as they unintentionally missed bridging between viral and immunity signifiers. I do not think the researchers’ intent was to come across as obnoxious or insinuate a degree of superiority over who they might perceive to be lesser life forms.

I read the study itself. What do you mean by ‘the studies’ plural? Do you mean ‘there is SK research ...’? This study was National Children’s Hospital, DC and I believe GWUni. Naturally a caveat for ‘possible’ equates to ‘not clear‘, more research needed, etc. Are you so rigid that a bit of post heading hyperbole is forbidden? The article was linked and the limitations are delineated clearly, as you quoted. If you think the authors overstretched their bounds and that it is incontrovertible that residual viral particles are inactive, submit a critique to the journal. Does not the long-ish duration of CoV seropositivity combined with the characteristic lagging and often (less characteristically) poor development of neutralizing antibodies suggest at all at all at all a unique variation for this age group that contradicts the notion of equivalent transmission vector potential status compared to older hosts? —— Your issue, though, accompanied by shaming filibustering-grade tone may be more related to me. Let it go. Such a snore, such a good-mood flaccidizer.

If there are questions, please DM me a notification and I will log in prior to early October. Starting Monday Sept 7th I am busy for a few weeks.

At higher volumes, the larger the collective group at one point In time the progressively greater reduction in probability that at least one infected person is contained in it. But at higher levels of community disease prevalence the greater the probability there may be more than one person. More complex algorithms are required for, say, probability of at least two; it is not additive but is usually not much higher than for one. In many contexts, such as a flight, the original model should be sufficient. In a large venue space even with many people you are less likely to enter the viral aerobic space of a contagious participant, depending on mingling patterns.

Event exposure risk Republica Dominicana per N persons together or sequentially: 5 1.3% 10 2.6% 20 5.1% 30 7.5% 40 9.9% 50 12.2% 267 for coin-toss odds 50.0% 884 for high risk 90.0% As you can see, a prevalence that is about 25% that of Brazil’s will considerably impact on degree of risk associated with contact volume. —— Here is a screenshot below repeating the Brazilian data.

Correction: topic (not optic), though there’s the odd optic here and there.

I see what you did there Same basic chapter & verse. Similar page even, though behaviour crosses national boundaries. Perhaps the vast population difference explains why more Canucks are tossing Yanks out of Dawson City, etc, than vice versa Canucks run out of Dodge. Community response not much drawn out of my playbook of subtlety in terms of the vitriol about it up here. But yes, the road to death is paved with bad intentions and unfortunately in the new survival eugenics innocents are dragged along for the collateral damage ride.

Colombia is on par with Brazil. Dominican Republic prevalence has considerably abated. Imma do the various N-based risk algorithm figures for it later today.

You are in luck. Maybe. I had success visiting Brazil several times based on a bit of personal research 18 months prior to discovering this message board. By then it was nice to find sympatico and occasionally entertaining but not very value-added information-wise. If you prefer a lot of info gathered by others that you cannot access independently, there are hours of reading under this heading. EVERY possible optic and angle is covered. If you discover a genuine gap we should pony up and finance your first trick if and when safe. So put on your readers and get scrolling and scanning! I cannot rule out that you are a bot, though, the other bot not a bott. It is a little odd that you asked a question as if it had not been already substantially answered repeatedly here. LOL

Without prejudice: I think I would find Hospital Copa Star near Point as satisfactory as any in Montreal, depending on utilization factor given changing acute care demographics and resources in coronavirus context. There is also the geographical convenience of proximity between where you get the virus and where you get treated. The open air currents could literally transfer the same particles from 202 a block or two over as the viral material that you essentially walk over or get wheeled over with, the spiky hospital admission criterion lodged in your mucous membranes and circulatory systems.

So I have the state populations but it would be daunting to do all 5,000-plus cities/ municipalities per capita. For risk differential by region, Canada and USA have them by province /territory / state. You could can drill down by location and I just estimated exposure risk for people I know in Ubatuba (SP) and Barra (SalBahia). The smaller the land mass the more valid the risk estimate for an entire state, etc, or even nation, as shorter-distance inter-municipality mobility levels out the differences to a degree smong urban, suburban and rural zones.

Good find, that. However it is regional total and new tallies with clues as to trend in absolute numbers. It would be somewhat useful if you lived or visited one place and can see the relative changes across time. Not much change would occur over a short time. However the metric does not contain population volume denominators that are required for at-a-glance comparisons between regions in terms of per capita proportions of people infected. You could DIY based on knowledge of population numbers, an additional step that has not been imported into these data. Few places are doing the deeper calculations, even if person volume is known, or are estimating numbers based on presumed prevalence against documented prevalence. I do them manually on request, here where I live as well as for a number of friends throughout Brazil and elsewhere. There is no app coding that can achieve output for the algorithm because the theoretically anchored formula has a few infinitesimal variables. The risk algorithm narrows exposure (implicitly transmission) risk according to population-adjusted point prevalence of cases with a few other variables relevant to estimating prevalence accurately. The BRZ data do assist in tallying mortality probability over time. You can predict burial plots and death certificate inventory. Similarly, the new case incidence trends may help predict resource allocation needs within specific areas. Great for front-line management on the ground there. I will try to drill down and see if I missed something. There is a numbers explosion going on and I have been spending considerable time assessing what guts of the piñata are actually useful. The central missing piece is that you can easily calculate exposure risk on a 0-100 scale but there is absolutely no consensus on a specific number or range on that scale that is acceptable in the realm of tolerance / aversion. If one were arbitrarily selected, you could maintain constancy of that metric by simply adjusting N persons and this could salvage a lot of businesses, reducing capacity versus shuttering at the whim of the shit show that lives at the intersection of science and government. —— But what do I know, except fire Fauci ... I am not being ironic. He is fine clinically at the basic but not able to think at a creative gestalt level marrying science, statistics and human factors, even if not muzzled politically.