Riobard

Pardon me. Olimpo never did re-open. Belo Horizonte in fact rolled back the lifting of measures and reinstated essential services model.

Olimpo in BHz is already open with similar conditions described. I’m not looking up any more. Perhaps a thread covering all the places in all the relevant cities is preferred by some.

I’m assuming tomcal began yet a new related topic with the intention of sharing opening notices, but that commentary about risk remain within previous threads. But I gather it is OK to add basic info, like other venues ... Lagoa in São Paulo, etc

The presence of antibodies is at a percentage in the Southeast not much greater compared to the infection case tally in Rio de Janeiro state. That doesn’t add up. It would be my first question posed to the investigators.

However, while 3.8% antibody-positive nationally, big differences regionally: North 8.0, Northeast 5.1, Southeast 1.1, Central West 0.9, South 0.4 Also, 90% of those tested reported having had at least one signature symptom at some point prior. Though May/June testing is within their flu season I wonder if there was a self-selection bias, wherein those who had been unwell were more likely to enter the antibody assessment cohort, having been missed earlier in antigen testing that would have indicated infection. This might affect the true exposure incidence because I thought there has been much speculation about asymptomatic cases loading into true incidence, yielding more than was found in the Brazil research.

Antibody study results recently released suggest a true SARS-CoV-2 incidence to date that is 5-6 times higher than reported figures. This would also suggest an alteration in fatality from about 6% to between 1% and 1.5%.

I had wondered where the ‘sour’ might fit in to the drinking game wheel of fortune. Classic fizzy shots spritzed on the rocks.

Yes, can clarify. I meant that something as innocuous as fellow tourist presence from same country could be calculated on minimum ‘N of 1’ basis of probability, assuming tourism data available, but it and countless other variables unrelated to disease would not be at all front of mind. In contrast, there are sufficient pandemic data to guide calculations of exposure for any number of people in any gathering. You took the CoV probability further in relation to our favourite venues, based on behavioural patterns that would inflate risk in comparison to airplane, gym, church, etc. And you are correct ... the transmission reproduction number would increase within that microcosm even if at the baseline date of reopening the case rate equaled the general population prevalence. After a time, even the exclusively voyeuristic at higher exposure risk than elsewhere. Add to that the expediency of transactions for economic survival and the greater cohabitation levels among age groups. Petri dish. You get it or you don’t impacts you get it or you don’t.

I think @Solooking mentioned the immunity theme as well.

99.86% of the horses world-wide remain stalled in the barn, for now. Sure, there may be equitable case rates comparing Brazil with USA, the epidemiological mirroring figures seeming to justify reciprocal or even unilateral transplantation. As well, folks from ‘downcurve’ places may pose less contagion risk. However, incoming visitors are among the least likely to follow local protocol because they are not cloistered in isolated monastery retreats. They simply add to the segment of the population that defies protective compliance or that cannot accommodate their country’s recommendations for mitigating spread. A foreign national tourist from a place with less disease prevalence is as bad as the non-adherent Brazilian that stimulates case incidence, wilfully or by default. Importing more of those is not a strategy to be found in the infection control handbook. Better to send hay there than make hay there.

The airlines in Latin America seem to be going Humpty Dumpty one by one, implications for flights in context of bankruptcy, rendering the prospect of reliable in-country air travel unstable even if you can get to a hub. And Aeromexico now in bankruptcy ... I am not sure if bankruptcy = absolutely grounded for any of these carriers, but that workaround option for entering/leaving Brazil from North America may close. Bus travel arrangements for shorter distance, or just-in-time booking for longer domestic hauls once there, may be realistic if one is determined to be in Brazil.

I think this media article breaks down and critiques fairly well the incipient research on natural (viz exposure) immunity viability and durability mentioned by @Latbear4blk here or in another thread. Sobering. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/asymptomatic-covid-19-1.5629172

Not! Squad gone mad!

Since I would be fairly hazmat-grade on a current big-head directed medium-distance flight, staying window-seated and isolated, I am a poor candidate for success in a small-head directed trade venue where the risks are comparable.

Correction: People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% when weighing risk or ignore percentages close to 100% for non-risk. This human trait applies to both loss and gain.

I used the word ‘minimal’ to refer to at least one infected passenger because, other than residual presence of virus on surfaces, a minimum of one contagious passenger on any flight is the primary reason for full cleaning as well as all in-flight precautions. Based on current Brazil infection rates, the probability of at least one passenger on a departing flight with 200 passengers is 99.53%, almost guaranteed. This is predicated on ‘under the radar’ boarding, that is, undetected on fever-screening (because true estimates are proportional to asymptomatic / non-febrile presentation), as well as circumvention of nasal-pharyngeal testing or recent confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 negative status. The bottom line: if you travel to Brazil you will be returning on a flight housing a likely contagious passenger. In contrast, a flight containing an equal number of passengers out of Montreal, based on epidemiology 2 weeks ago, posed a risk of 67.5% that minimally one flyer has this coronavirus, but that is now less due to a steady decline in local prevalence. I prefer this approach in calculating probability because absolute community infection percentages of total populations are very low. People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% or 100% when weighing risk because a difference between .1% and .01% or a difference between 99.9% and 99.99% is considered negligible. A gradient of 0-100, albeit impossible to reach either extreme, is more realistic and is responsive to seemingly small overall population changes that actually yield bigger differences on that gradient in terms of a minimum of one hazardous event. Similarly, occupants in a brothel don’t really need to factor the probability of crossing paths with at least one fellow national (even if they have data about relevant tourism patterns). However, walking through a cloud of infected human aerosol particulates may impel one to seek awareness of the likelihood any of that phenomenon at all exists. I provided those probabilities earlier.

Addendum: Rio de Janeiro state is trending twice as high as the national figures, at 17.2% new case tallies with a population share of about 8.1%. Therefore, my calculations above are very conservative. If anybody wants to give me a number of state-representative people in a gathering (and any multiple of presumed prevalence different from my estimate: 10-fold the official count), I can likely do a new risk calculation.

How innovative! I raise you the typical glory-hole 2 to yield 5: giving head, nipple stim receipt, getting sucked while fucked, and erotic feet tickle. (Pass ... won’t feel a thing is bang on, inn’t?)

LOL. I didn’t say higher or lower. I thought the reserved tone in my qualifying ‘but ...’ conveyed the realization that coronavirus loves these venues as preferential breeding grounds. See my recent sobering calculations for Rio.

Brazil today: Number of people in a random grouping to reach 50% likelihood of 1 undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 contagious infection: 26; to reach 90% likelihood of same: 85 ... the calculation includes an exponent, the probability of no infections [to the power of the number of events], so deviates from linear proportionality. You cannot achieve 100% probability of 1 infection based on this equation. You can approach it, say 99.9%, and round up. If you are less risk averse (eg, you think it’s pussy-minded at less than a theoretically guaranteed minimum of one case in your “bubble”) and want to know, for example, the group number for that level of chance of infection present, it is 258 people. I have not broken out state or metro RJ, but I assume a lesser number of individuals is needed to reach the three arbitrary probability thresholds I have selected, assuming regional trends surpass national. Obviously this also holds true for the near future based on national tallies increasing. These calculations can extend to many scenarios, including a flight out of Brazil where the exponent N events is the number of passengers as opposed to the quantity of bodies in a brothel. On the plane, the imputed risk of minimal viral hosting/shedding posing transmission vectoring among 200 occupants is 99.53%. Naturally you may want to adjust for the differential in environmental enclosed space, risk of “pinch points”, and air filtration and replacement, etc, etc, blah, blah.

Tempted to fly off to Zürich and/or Barcelona but I don’t count on Paragonya and Thermas, both operational, to be representative of community prevalence and transmission risk.

Given the UK trend, considering the decision is not based on cumulative damage, take Belgium for example (though I realize it is within the EU collective that screens nations), but the selection examines recent prevalence, I’d have half-expected the green light for Brits. It is dropping close to the threshold and has a higher testing record than the majority of continental Europe. As some continental nations do not meet the defined criteria (eg, Portugal), we can anticipate a degree of discretionary exceptionalism for inclusion.

It’s already sloppy and mystifying at the get-go. Two of the 14 countries are well above the 1.16 rolling weekly average-per-day threshold based on 16 ‘allowable’ cases per 100,000 on a 14-day duration, not taking into account higher estimates based on asymptomatic / presymptomatic status or on testing uptake rates. Two countries show an uptick just short of the threshold. I wonder how much context is taken into account. Were the Balkan ones based on an assumption of epicentre isolation? Will Canada stay on the list at review time because a recent increase is attributable to migrant produce workers in a circumscribed region?

Suggestion: move the EU travel to Europe sub forum? I’m gonna try.

I have Allianz. You need to review a few factors: your coverage end date (defined, versus annual rollover as characteristic with a credit card), whether the policy has exclusion options based on events that occur during the policy cycle (most have invoked this with the pandemic), the guidance that insurers utilize to justify exclusions (some policies will backpedal or adjust exclusions if your nation formally lifts a pandemic travel advisory), and any ongoing trip that commenced prior to the exclusion date (without returning to home base and subject to the terms of single trip duration parameters) versus a trip that departs following the defined exclusion. I have a 30-day plan that allows unlimited consecutive trip coverage but I must have returned home each time to reset the period. The latest I could have had the one-month coverage in pandemic context would have been 30 days from March 12th. Departing on March 13th would have left me out in the cold because it would have been up to me to follow the news media or double-check for myself, given that the insurer did not send a notification. Also consider this: Let’s say you agree to risk travelling and acquiring SARS-CoV-2, without pandemic coverage, banking on asymptomatic or mild symptomatology that does not necessitate incurring medical expenses, but your infection and/or contagion status warrants quarantine or excludes the prerogative of returning home on your set date. If your rebooked return date surpasses the duration of insurance (eg, one month) you are uncovered for all non-Covid medical emergencies for which you have insurance in the first place. In this case it is advisable to supplement your plan with a trip-specific policy that extends somewhat beyond return date.