Riobard

Karma, SC, just karma ..

How very sweet. Infelizmente it is not currently in the cards to play the role of Daddy.

Air Canada resumes Toronto - São Paulo in a few weeks. Only Canadians can fly back but have an equal chance with the general population to contract CoV while visiting, maybe even greater if proportionately less community precautions compared to the average local. The probability of at least one contagious passenger when leaving Canada is 16.4%; when returning is 99.3% ... it is a very large aircraft, 268 + 30. I corrected the Canadian prevalence by a factor of X4.0 and the Brazilian prevalence by a factor of X5.33, according to research on true estimates. The respective passenger risk estimates for USA and Brazil are obviously more similar to each other although USA is trending down in new incidence while Brazil continues to trend up, so one can expect Brazil:USA probability ratio to increase. All of this of course assumes passengers are representative of national case prevalence. At this point the 2-week quarantine for returning Canadians remains obligatory. I do not know if Americans can transit through Pearson International remaining airside. I think it is possible. You would have to check with Canada Border Services. You can drive to Alaska as long as you not dawdle. I am not aware if Air Canada is ‘red-listing’ by passport; I doubt it. Anyway, this is just a word to the wise; I am not looking into it. Canada’s tourism GDP is 6%. The travel and tourist sectors are having a hell of a time getting the government to budge and try reciprocity even with countries whose infection management measures are showing better effectiveness.

Sally was correct, Charlie Brown. Already staff and student cases.

At least two island nations that opened a few weeks ago may have experienced a failed experiment.

If HIV testing were as notoriously inaccurate as SARS-CoV-2 testing and its indicator results influenced behaviour to the same questionable degree as testing does in the pandemic it would likely be completely abandoned for screening/prevention purposes and utilized exclusively for diagnosis and disease intervention.

It is difficult to evaluate whether VL predicts hospitalization, a good marker for illness severity, because it is not yet as a rule measured for treatment decision purposes and is virtually never measured for the non-hospitalized. It is quantified logarithmically like HIV. Symptoms dictate care plans at point of diagnosis. A study reported this week in The Lancet suggests that VL may to some degree be an independent predictor of mortality among hospitalized patients, about a 10-fold increase (1 base10 log) without holding other variables constant, and about a 7% increased probability per 1 log VL increase when controlling for age and comorbidity. What was striking was the range of quantified VL, in the hundreds (per ml) to in the billions (in absolute terms, not log-converted), and the enormous mortality rate overall that did not discriminate much in terms of viral burden. Overall, this suggests to me that among the most ill of those CoV-infected, viral load is of little consequence. Anybody less ill than reaching the threshold necessitating hospitalization is likely to recover irrespective of position on the lesser disease severity gradient that exists outside of being admitted. Logically, then, outside of knowledge concerning the viral load range for the non-hospitalized, I am not convinced of its relevance. VL and contagion is another matter, a different slide.

There is a new report of a health care worker in Brazil with presumed reinfection, similar to the Boston case of an elderly male. However, the reinfection debate is not gaining much momentum favouring the bad news side. The reports are extremely rare among many millions of cases globally and, thus far, the virus samples cannot be grown in vitro. That refutes the idea of viable new infection but supports the notion of prolonged single infection, which of course presents a different but sobering spectre of disease possibility in cases where symptoms persist. This is all not to say that natural immunity following infection will not have an inevitable endpoint.

Gif did not open.

I’m not sure you grasp the concept. The guys by your own classification are more in the herd than anyone and spur the requirements for eventual herd immunity, which is a large enough population percentage of exposure to reduce transmission due to dwindling numbers of susceptible hosts. They are also more likely to get infection ‘done and dusted’ in the earlier stages of the pandemic and may even be safer candidates for play than the average joe long before herd immunity is achieved. The playbook at this point, for those determined to chance a visit, is to interact with a minimal quantity of trade in 1:1 bubbles max 1 bubblebutt at a go. The odds of you intersecting with 1 guy’s contagion over the course of 8 months of pandemic is about 6%, assuming he acquires infection within that time frame. Personally I would avoid even that risk in a foreign country, erm, like the plague. But playing house with the same person with a relative degree of confinement and autonomous meal prep, etc, along with standard protection measures out and about will be a lot more secure For each new guy in sequence add 6%. It is high volume slutting that may get you in hot water when you will be more in need of cold compresses, or worse. These calculations are also not using the same algorithm as for probability of 1 infection among a series of guys you interact with. That algorithm would need to be adjusted for CoV prevalence inflated among a higher risk subgroup such as trade , which brings us full circle back to one of the main points.

Sorry it is now paywalled, but still seems accessible in Google search when I tried a minute later. Perhaps do not try to open the link here in case it subsequently blocks you from Google access. Coronavirus vaccine tracker New York Times

This Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker is updated all the time. Other options for Phase III are progressively expanding. I believe they are ordered according to development stage. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Isn’t that Boys Date?

Wasn’t that Boys’ Taint?

I hate to be the meanie needling anti-immunization proponents, and I did not know this, but apparently it is within the realm of possibility to create a transmissible vaccine through genetic engineering. In other words, the components of a vaccine can theoretically be passed from a vaccinated person to a non-vaccinated person in the same way as a true pathogen being contagious, who then stands to receive the same immunization status as the vaccinated person, though the transmissibility potential is likely lower than natural viral transmission. If there is a correlation between beliefs anchored in pseudoscience and acceptance of protective measures, better wear them masks if you don’t want your rights trampled on.

This is coming Fri Aug 7th and is apparently very good.

What else was this kid supposed to do?

The sophomore student that posted the hallway photo was suspended ... what a dick move.

Sniffers not without problematic limitations ... https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/covid-19-sniffing-dogs.html

Interesting chemical structure ... I may volunteer for the randomized clinical trial in the hopes of being assigned to the anal beads control arm.

Move over hydroxychloroquine. Bleach, you are so last week.

Nobody appreciates his cute quirks and distorted but beautiful mind ... the cock, the thing you bang with, lands bang in the middle between the thighs. This is how he ‘members things like geography by wacky association. And the shapely Gambodia next to it ties it all together because the object is to Phuket.

Welsh Cor-ona-gies, etc ... I like it. Better than a swine and a horseshoe bat crossing paths at the wrong time and place. And of course I don’t mean Peppa, Wilbur (or the Count). I mean the guy that needs to be vetted out. Set those sniffers on Hamburg, whatever it takes while getting to German Shepherd immunity. But since most infected droplets containing the pathogen drop down with gravity, I am curious about how canines differentiate among ground zero presence, shoe soles, and nasal-pharyngeal hosting. I’ll have to read more about it later. It is not the same as olfactory monitoring for malignancies or prohibited substances.

A lot of places are doing rapid result SARS-CoV-2 tests. The problem of turnaround time was not identified in the Milano piece because the method of testing is often not the issue. These new tests such as Nudge in UK are no better in accuracy. They are better for expediency in results where a positive test flag would expedite control measures. However, the high rate of false negatives among test recipients is a problem if other screening measures are sidelined, such as evaluating conditions that elevated exposure risk in the previous few weeks. Again, for example, if prevalence ascertainment bias is 5-fold official reported incidence of 2% of population over one year year, and there is a 50% accuracy rate over the 7-day window of pretty much any test sensitivity whatsoever, the chances per test of hitting the right day for seropositivity is: .1 incidence/pointprevalence X .5 accuracy X .019 week/yr = .00096, or 1 in 1,041 ... how would that be for blood glucose threshold detection performance? More non-transparentjournalism. If the public knew vast amounts of money was being printed to fund such flimsy bandaid endeavours it might have a thing or two to say about it. It’s a blitz; do the isolation thing that is opposite of tube shelter but know the facts. Testing evolution is coming along but getting beyond mediocre remains a long ways off. Currently better to assume infection and to temper risk according to known prevalence. If mortality rate is 5% and transmission R is 1.0, you need 20,000 tests to potentially prevent one death by having isolated a seropositive. You get a lot more deaths through the flaw of false negatives being conflated with non-infection. I would prefer a ramping up costly life-saving equipment and resources. Wartime blitz bubbles, my bitches, blitz bubbles.

I forgot to add to my rant that, in case you have not put it together, molecular or antigen versions of viral infection screening for entering aircraft or for essentially as ‘medical entry visas’ to destinations requesting this is a joke. Due to the high rates of false negative results, particularly for those infected but asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or paucisymptomatic (mild enough to be undetected via other screening methods such as body temperature). If you wish to be cautious in flying choices, I would suggest ignoring the false security of rigorous screening and that you focus on the prevalence rates where the airport exists driving the statistical likelihood of infected passengers, adjusting for variations in trip origin of those on board. Technically, the best way to ensure on-board clinical safety for all is a mandatory 2-week quarantine prior to embarking. That can never happen, certainly not for a return vacation flight.