Double up buttercup or how to get rid of your side gap

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, Rjfanjet said:

Because 2 condoms are better than one........

One is to save you from her germs and the other is her from your germs!

[Hank]

46 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

One is to save you from her germs and the other is her from your germs!

Just remember, when you catch a 3-bagger, where does the third bag go? 

[N201MKTurbo]

23 minutes ago, Hank said:

Just remember, when you catch a 3-bagger, where does the third bag go? 

Just be creative....

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I just need someone to explain to my why the covid only got worse since we mandated everyone wear masks.  No science is addressing this. 

And then, why stop at 2? 3 is demonstrably better (I read the study) so why not 4 or 5?

Actually this has been addressed a number of times, and it has roughly followed a similar trajectory to the 1918 flu.  I suspect this will all get studied pretty closely and we'll learn a lot more about transmission and mitigation afterwards.   The virus doesn't care about the mandate, and apparently neither did a fair fraction of the populace.   Since there are other means to spread the virus (e.g., touch), and there have been a number of events (other than natural, like the weather) that affect behavior, e.g., the holiday seasons, etc., etc., where people typically gather without masks,  the ramp up was not unexpected.   The more mask use, the lower the spread rate.   Since mask use hasn't been 100%, and it isn't the only means for spread, it is not surprising how things have gone.   

[ragedracer1977]

5 hours ago, EricJ said:

Actually this has been addressed a number of times, and it has roughly followed a similar trajectory to the 1918 flu.  I suspect this will all get studied pretty closely and we'll learn a lot more about transmission and mitigation afterwards.   The virus doesn't care about the mandate, and apparently neither did a fair fraction of the populace.   Since there are other means to spread the virus (e.g., touch), and there have been a number of events (other than natural, like the weather) that affect behavior, e.g., the holiday seasons, etc., etc., where people typically gather without masks,  the ramp up was not unexpected.   The more mask use, the lower the spread rate.   Since mask use hasn't been 100%, and it isn't the only means for spread, it is not surprising how things have gone.   

It would be interesting to see the demographics.  I know it's anecdotal, but every person I've heard of recently that got it says "I wore my mask religiously, I followed every rule".  Where also anecdotally, no one I know that eschews the mask mandate has gotten it.  Which makes me wonder if people wearing masks engage in riskier behavior thinking "I have a mask, I'm safe" or are they getting it because they're reusing masks, touching their face more, etc?

It would be interesting to see where/how people are getting it.  They don't seem to be releasing much data on that.  Are all the cases coming from gyms? Dine in restaurants? Grocery stores?  Where is the bulk of transmission happening and is it where masks typically are worn or not.  That's the kind of science I mean. 

Right now, there's really no way to quantify whether the masks helped or not, from a layman's perspective.  You can look around the country at places that mandated masks early vs those that didn't, and the data makes no sense to me.  Reference this study in Kansas.

"By the week of the governor’s executive order requiring masks (July 3–9), COVID-19 incidence had increased 467% to 17 per 100,000 in mandated counties and 50% to six per 100,000 among nonmandated counties. By August 17–23, 2020, the 7-day rolling average COVID-19 incidence had decreased by 6% to 16 cases per 100,000 among mandated counties and increased by 100% to 12 per 100,000 among nonmandated counties."

Even though they say cases decreased in mask mandate areas and went up in non mandate areas, it was still safer to be in a non mandate area.  16 cases/100,000 in the areas requiring a mask vs 12 cases per 100,000 in areas not requiring one. 

It's hard for me to wrap my head around that.

I also wonder how much is trying to prevent the spread has allowed the mutations to occur.  The virus has been prevented from naturally circulating in the population and burning out, thus giving it a chance to mutate.  I'm not saying people dying is a good thing, but it's just something I'm curious about.  

Edited February 12, 2021 by ragedracer1977

[Yetti]

To date there has been no studies of comorbidity or risk factors for severe SARS-2 encounters.    Being very overweight is a very noticeable risk factor for having a severe encounter.   if y'all would quit picking your nose that would do more to stop the spread than wearing a box of masks.

[N9405V]

Wade’s rules for being safe in the pandemic:

1. Wash your grubby paws
2. Don’t lick door knobs
3. If you’re sick, stay at home
4. If you see someone that looks sick, stay away from them
5. Don’t pick your nose
6. Wash your grubby paws
7. Drink good booze


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark89114]

11 hours ago, Hank said:

Just remember, when you catch a 3-bagger, where does the third bag go? 

One for her, one for you and one for the dog.    I have never gone to bed with a 1, but have woken up next to a 1.

[KLRDMD]

This just in from NYU Langone Hospital this morning:

A Message from Environmental Health and Safety and Infection Prevention and Control About New CDC Guidance on Masks

The CDC has come out with a new recommendation for members of the public that wearing a tightly fitting cloth mask over a surgical mask provides additional protection from Covid-19. Here’s what you need to know: It’s important to remember that masks and respirators are not the same. The CDC research supports our current guidance to not cover N95 respirators with a face mask. N95s respirators are designed to provide a tight fit, if donned properly. Wearing a face mask over an N95 has the potential to interfere with the seal of the respirator and make the wearer less safe. Bottom line: Do not wear another mask over your N95.  Our policies remain consistent. We currently require staff to wear NYU Langone–issued surgical masks in all clinical, basic science, and clinical research locations (employees in other locations may wear double-layered cloth masks). Depending on your exposure risk, this will be an N95 for which you have been fitted, or a surgical mask. The use of cloth masks is not allowed in patient care areas due to infection control protocols.  The CDC’s current research did not evaluate the effectiveness of wearing two surgical/procedure masks. If staff would like to wear two surgical masks, pay close attention to the fit. Two loose fitting surgical masks may not increase protection and will not maximize the masks’ effectiveness.  If you would like to follow the new CDC guidance as an added precaution outside the workplace, or while working in non-clinical areas, we encourage you to do so.

[Seth]

13 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I just need someone to explain to my why the covid only got worse since we mandated everyone wear masks.  No science is addressing this. 

And then, why stop at 2? 3 is demonstrably better (I read the study) so why not 4 or 5?

Though funny, if I were to take what you are saying literally, like a supply/demand issues. If the percentages are that much better from 1 to 2, then they made the recommendation. 3 may cause a supply/demand issue.

[Yetti]

12 minutes ago, Seth said:

Though funny, if I were to take what you are saying literally, like a supply/demand issues. If the percentages are that much better from 1 to 2, then they made the recommendation. 3 may cause a supply/demand issue.

Which is why originally they recommended for the commoners to not wear masks because they were afraid there would not be any for the hospitals.

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

It would be interesting to see where/how people are getting it.  They don't seem to be releasing much data on that.  Are all the cases coming from gyms? Dine in restaurants? Grocery stores?  Where is the bulk of transmission happening and is it where masks typically are worn or not.  That's the kind of science I mean. 

There's not much way to know specifically how any individual contracted it, especially since there are multiple ways to contract it.   Inhaled, touched, bodily contact...whatever.   Knowing what specific event led to the infection is hard to know.

What does become evident sometimes is when groups get infected, so a common environment or occurrence might be observable and analyzable.   This has led to a number of cases where it became evident that ventilation systems in closed areas can make a difference.    If you're in a closed area with a group and the air keeps getting recirculated, the likelihood of contraction naturally goes up.   I suspect a lot more will be learned as time goes on, but since this is a relatively new disease a lot is still just not known.

 

6 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Right now, there's really no way to quantify whether the masks helped or not, from a layman's perspective.  You can look around the country at places that mandated masks early vs those that didn't, and the data makes no sense to me.  Reference this study in Kansas.

"By the week of the governor’s executive order requiring masks (July 3–9), COVID-19 incidence had increased 467% to 17 per 100,000 in mandated counties and 50% to six per 100,000 among nonmandated counties. By August 17–23, 2020, the 7-day rolling average COVID-19 incidence had decreased by 6% to 16 cases per 100,000 among mandated counties and increased by 100% to 12 per 100,000 among nonmandated counties."

Even though they say cases decreased in mask mandate areas and went up in non mandate areas, it was still safer to be in a non mandate area.  16 cases/100,000 in the areas requiring a mask vs 12 cases per 100,000 in areas not requiring one. 

It's hard for me to wrap my head around that.

Mandates and practice don't correlate 100%, and it may turn out that the usual environments where people don't wear masks, e.g., at home, wherever, are enough to overcome a lot of mask use.   It does seem like a lot of families get it together, in my observation, anyway, so that provides transmission opportunities until people are symptomatic and quarantine, and clearly that doesn't even happen.

A counterpoint to whether people think masks work or not is to ask whether they're comfortable with the entire surgery staff not wearing them the next time they get invasive surgery.   Then all of a sudden most people think they work. 

 

6 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I also wonder how much is trying to prevent the spread has allowed the mutations to occur.  The virus has been prevented from naturally circulating in the population and burning out, thus giving it a chance to mutate.  I'm not saying people dying is a good thing, but it's just something I'm curious about.  

Mutations are random events due to things that alter genes, like alpha particles, radiation, or just errors in reproduction.   I don't think they have anything to do with mitigation measures.   The fewer viruses there are out there the lower the number of mutations will be, just because of fewer opportunities to mutate.  

 

[jaylw314]

14 hours ago, Dan Babenco said:

I believe the specs for a N95 mask call for a 95% reduction in particles that are 300 nm in size.  The COVID-19 virus is about 75 nm in size.  So just single viruses won't

be filtered that well, but the issue is droplets of saliva that may be in the 300-500 nm size containing several virus particles. 

It really is good at preventing an asymptomatic carrier from dispersing millions of little spray packets containing the virus, not so great at protecting the wearer from breathing in one virus or a million, especially if they leak around the sides.  Better than nothing, and most infections are asymptomatic or mild. 

See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIOSH_air_filtration_rating

 

Dan

Particles or droplets smaller than about 100 nm don't make it through any filter--they are small enough they are bounced around by Brownian motion and stick to any sieve due to Van der Waals attraction.  So even a sieve size larger a than 100 nm filters out the smaller particles.

Droplets larger than about 1000 nm can be physically sieved by most materials fairly easily.  If you feel spray standing next to someone who sneezes, you got hit by droplets up to (or perhaps unpleasantly, more than) 1 mm.

So it's the middle-size particles that they measure in the N95 rating, because they are the toughest to block. 

Worse yet, this size particle is the perfect size to make it farthest in the lungs.  Large particles deposit in the mouth and throat, but as particles get smaller, they make it farther in.  particles around 1000 nm make it all the way to the alveoli.  below 100 nm, they make it all the way in, but they start getting blown out before they stick. 

Obviously, I simplify a bit, and these aren't rigorous numbers or hard limits, so take it with a grain of salt.

Edited February 12, 2021 by jaylw314

[RobertGary1]

I’m curious why they tell us that rates of COVID hospitalizations are rising in California as 10% of Californians (those most likely to need hospitalization) have been vaccinated. This seems to confirm my suspicion that we aren’t going back to normal once everyone is vaccinated. 

[jaylw314]

15 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I just need someone to explain to my why the covid only got worse since we mandated everyone wear masks.  No science is addressing this. 

I sense sarcasm, so here's some in exchange:

I need someone to explain to me why people only get diagnosed with cancer after they saw a doctor.  Clearly seeing doctors must cause cancer. 

 

[RobertGary1]

3 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I sense sarcasm, so here's some in exchange:

I need someone to explain to me why people only get diagnosed with cancer after they saw a doctor.  Clearly seeing doctors must cause cancer. 

 

Implying that wearing the mask is how COVID is diagnosed?

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’m curious why they tell us that rates of COVID hospitalizations are rising in California as 10% of Californians (those most likely to need hospitalization) have been vaccinated. This seems to confirm my suspicion that we aren’t going back to normal once everyone is vaccinated. 

On the pessimistic side it is possible that things never go back to the previous "normal".    We don't know how long the vaccine works, and if the virus mutates faster than it can be suppressed then continuing vaccinations may turn into a regular "normal" thing.   

[RobertGary1]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

On the pessimistic side it is possible that things never go back to the previous "normal".    We don't know how long the vaccine works, and if the virus mutates faster than it can be suppressed then continuing vaccinations may turn into a regular "normal" thing.   

More doctors seem to be agreeing.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/12/doctors-warn-covid-will-become-endemic-and-people-need-to-learn-to-live-with-it.html

[N201MKTurbo]

18 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

More doctors seem to be agreeing.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/12/doctors-warn-covid-will-become-endemic-and-people-need-to-learn-to-live-with-it.html

Just like the other corona viruses which I've been suffering with as long as I've been alive. We have all caught a cold, haven't we? Science hasn't been able to eliminate those corona viruses yet.

And what is all this about science and such? I used to work on software for scoring tissue slides. We would try to compare our results with professional pathologists, the trouble was the standard deviation from a group of 10 pathologists is huge, so they didn't all agree on anything. As a layman, I can tell you if a ER/PR or KI67 slide is a 1 or a 4, but the 2 and 3s are anybody's guess.

[jaylw314]

33 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’m curious why they tell us that rates of COVID hospitalizations are rising in California as 10% of Californians (those most likely to need hospitalization) have been vaccinated. This seems to confirm my suspicion that we aren’t going back to normal once everyone is vaccinated. 

Hospitalizations rates are probably delayed from infection by 3-6 weeks.

However, I don't think there was any illusion of things going back to "normal" once everyone is vaccinated, since insufficient people in this country will get vaccinated.  IIRC in a survey about 30-40% of Americans say things that suggest they will not take steps to get vaccinated.

Realistically, in terms of percentages there have been few people vaccinated (5-10% or something?).  That's not going to put a dent in any of the population data out there.  We might see that about 3-6 weeks after 25-30% of people have been vaccinated is my guess.

[jaylw314]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

Just like the other corona viruses which I've been suffering with as long as I've been alive. We have all caught a cold, haven't we? Science hasn't been able to eliminate those corona viruses yet.

And what is all this about science and such? I used to work on software for scoring tissue slides. We would try to compare our results with professional pathologists, the trouble was the standard deviation from a group of 10 pathologists is huge, so they didn't all agree on anything. As a layman, I can tell you if a ER/PR or KI67 slide is a 1 or a 4, but the 2 and 3s are anybody's guess.

NOVEL coronavirus.  that means different from the others.

The scientific process requires the willingness to question ones beliefs and to put yourself in a position to be disproven.  It's funny how all the court and legal cases attacking science have all harped on the claim of "oh, science got it wrong before, so why would you believe science?"  FWIW, all those court cases have failed.

[N201MKTurbo]

14 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

NOVEL coronavirus.  that means different from the others.

The scientific process requires the willingness to question ones beliefs and to put yourself in a position to be disproven.  It's funny how all the court and legal cases attacking science have all harped on the claim of "oh, science got it wrong before, so why would you believe science?"  FWIW, all those court cases have failed.

Anyone who thinks science is unified or settled, has never been to a design review meeting...

I just had a discussion with the esteemed professor yesterday. He said to take all the Euler angles out of my software quaternions are the way to go!

I asked how I was going to drive my hexapod with quaternions? he said "oh yea, you need Euler angles!"

Edited February 12, 2021 by N201MKTurbo

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Hospitalizations rates are probably delayed from infection by 3-6 weeks.

However, I don't think there was any illusion of things going back to "normal" once everyone is vaccinated, since insufficient people in this country will get vaccinated.  IIRC in a survey about 30-40% of Americans say things that suggest they will not take steps to get vaccinated.

Realistically, in terms of percentages there have been few people vaccinated (5-10% or something?).  That's not going to put a dent in any of the population data out there.  We might see that about 3-6 weeks after 25-30% of people have been vaccinated is my guess.

I thought the point in prioritizing people for the vaccine was so that 10% will have the highest impact. I don’t qualify to get the vaccine anytime soon. Estimate for me is July.  

[FJC]

19 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I will commit to wearing twice as many masks as most people here at the airport, which is still zero.

Totally dont get it...We'd not be here if people donned a mask as soon as we knew to do that.

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, FJC said:

Totally dont get it...We'd not be here if people donned a mask as soon as we knew to do that.

I don't think we know that, but that's what they want you to believe. 

I won't stop you from wearing it if it makes you feel better. 

How did human civilization survive for all these millennia without masks?