Riobard

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.

Or here’s a brief summary on timing of test. Perhaps one concern among officials is that if you are transparent about testing flaws very few people will endure the hassle. Or you will just get more protests about one additional thing because the ruckus about CDC’s notoriously poor early test version will continue. After all, nobody has really found a viable testing solution since. As for Trump’s talking points, he should have been saying much testing yields false negatives rather than saying the only reason incidence rises is due to increased testing. But then the reality implied would be that true prevalence is even greater. That is poor optics for him. What an asshole. Not that I need any less restraint to put my fist through the TV screen when Fauci or Birx come on.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7045805/coronavirus-test-false-negative-study/

The spectre of false negative, probability of 20% or greater error in this direction, depending on the day-to-day course of infection, is well known, even if by 2 virus tests Milano meant to convey she had each of the two versions. It is timing, integrity of sample, and imperfect assay. The only way to mitigate error is to test every day. Even then, no 100% accuracy. Getting in queue once for testing, without symptoms or without a suspected exposure event, at an arbitrary point in time over the past 6 months was essentially as beneficial as one dart toss. Not having symptoms and getting a negative test result while not presenting symptoms amount to the same thing. Possible false security. You may be infected at any time and should behave accordingly. Similarly, her timing of antibody screening would have been key. The article was poorly written and aimed at hype. That you can be sick and test negative does not underscore the reality of test error, as if it amplifies the problem. If you have signature symptoms you don’t really need test confirmation unless a more invasive Covid-19 specific treatment is warranted. The actual dilemma is that testing information related to error in results is poorly disseminated. [Attachments to follow]

I thought that there were many antibody tests in the pipeline that vary in their viral infection targets (eg, nucleocapsid, spike) and the types of antibodies detected (eg, IgG, IgM, Pan-Ig, various combinations), so I am not sure how you would match up an antibody test designed to detect true natural infection with the specific antibody production generated by a unique RNA vaccine that I think differs by virtue of not being a live attenuated virus or recombinant vaccine version or any number of the other more conventional non-RNA options being investigated. I don’t have the expertise to answer but I assume that these trials can perhaps thwart the unblinding of your randomized arm assignment simply by virtue of the unavailability of antibody assays that have the sensitivity and specificity required to assess the immunization signature of the particular vaccine administered. If one major factor in your decision is the assumption that you can ‘gumshoe’ your assignment status, it may be worthwhile to look into this further. You could always apply to enrol. You might not be selected and the decision would be taken out of your hands. Or you could change your mind at the screening/consent stage, no harm no foul, you won’t be the only one. In any case, there is some lead time to explore a few other candidates currently or imminently entering final phase research.

It appears that Spot has survived. Perhaps it will do better if it can split its 6 hours of permissible opening duration and add a dinner service.

You will notice the new hours: 16:00 - 22:00, as the city now allows any consecutive 6 hours per day up to the 22:00 evening deadline, extended beyond the original 17:00 deadline, for bars and restaurants. In fact, the open hours might not need to be consecutive but must be 6 max per day ... I believe it can be split into lunch and dinner service, but that is irrelevant for Espaço Lagoa.

DJT: “There’s .05% more of me to go around per capita since before Kung Flu, and increasing bigly. Take that, Very Slow Sleepy.” ... “OK, OK, less persons men and women, but more TVs and cameras per capita.”

I think the bottom 2 photos may be the same school. At least they are outdoors, for what it is worth.

Georgia on my mind. [Moving this theme out of the Quebec topic]. Three 1st day examples for the state. The superintendent of the school with the crowded hallway photo wrote that kinks need to be ironed out and that masks cannot be enforced. He quoted that the public health guidelines stipulated that close contact of a 15-minute duration was required for transmission, so he concluded that brief breaches of distancing should be of little consequence at point of transfer pinch-points.

Coronavirus all excited back-to-school hard-on be gettin’ those hard-won lowered reproduction numbers against it jacked back up above 1.

In Paulding Co, GA, 65-88% probability of one currently infected person in any random group of 100 people. The low and high ends of the range represent, respectively, a 5-fold and 10-fold ascertainment bias adjustment accounting for non-diagnosed incidence. Betcha by golly now at least one kid in the school hallway photo has unwittingly already transmitted CoV. Superspreading inflated by uncovered faces is what can go wrong.

But with a blue/red distinction ...

If all American and Canadian states, provinces, and territories were to be considered nations unto themselves, raising total global country count to about 275, the province of Quebec’s population-adjusted mortality rate to date is in the top 10 globally, behind a number of USA states, Belgium, and on par with UK. Quebec’s deaths are disproportionately weighted in the Montreal area. The pandemic massacred much of the aged population in long term care facilities, mostly privately run, with apparently deplorable conditions. The Canadian military was deployed to try to help get things under control in those facilities. Harsh lesson.

American tourism in Thailand represents .5% GDP. By contrast, Chinese tourism there represents 10% GDP. Thailand has its head screwed on tight and right and won’t recklessly trade off overall stability for the one-fifth of GDP that is travel/tourism. It is not The Maldives. It is also thinking outside of the box, contemplating reciprocal tourism agreements with select nations as well as designating cloistered dedicated tourist zones. There is a correlation between visitors accepting of that level of management and the origin countries that represent the majority share of visitation to Thailand. More “Western” tourists will not be very accepting of the segregation model and will consider it an affront to privilege and autonomy, but why should Thailand care? It did the proper heavy lifting for its citizens and has honey badger status.

I thought the widespread trend was that most coronavirus-related content was released pro bono. I wonder if print media is backpedaling on that concession.

American Whites, given population share and vaccination attitudes, are the most likely subgroup to compromise widespread immunity through a prospective effective vaccination program. Hispanics and Asians are better allies if you want to bank on reaching the threshold that fizzles out CoV2 incidence. If natural immunity through infection is durable (jury not out on that verdict), then incidence to date also tips the balance in favour of herd protection. Disproportionate incidence for African Americans, if exposure is as protective as vaccination, may offset vaccination disinclination in terms of minimal broad community immunity threshold. It is a tragic paradox.