Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 109 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
This is why we can't have nice things. View: https://twitter.com/MerylKornfield/status/1280338795372654592


I am sure some people protesting caught it there. But my feeling is that most young people caught it doing young people things. Going to bars, going to clubs, and going to house parties.
Hollywood and Highland, Los Angeles, CA June 7, 2020. If this was a photo of a sporting event on the same day you would be apoplectic. Let’s not pretend this has not had an impact on COVID spikes.

 
Can you read? I am sure some people protesting caught it there.

Quit trolling. Seriously.

https://apnews.com/481d933b0caa6f5fc61f466c86d4777b
I'm not trying to antagonize. I'm just questioning the use of your qualifier.

I am sure some people protesting caught it there. But my feeling is that most young people caught it doing young people things. Going to bars, going to clubs, and going to house parties.
Look, maybe you are correct. Maybe COVID simply doesn't spread outdoors and in sunlight. If true that's great news for Baseball, football, soccer... outdoor festivals and a whole bunch of activities that I miss.
 
.

That's dodging the issue. In the first place, the legislative process is not applicable to a temporary national emergency. It's too slow, and the law would have to be repealed later. Executive orders are the way to go, and people have been disobeying them.

In the second place, if a law were passed, many opposed to the law would continue not to wear masks. People have no problem breaking laws when they find it self-serving. Look at the millions of idiots shooting off fireworks in their backyards on July 4.
I'm not dodging the issue - I posted the video from Judge Napolitano, Professor of Law & former NJ Superior Court Justice, on the legality of the mask mandates.

Furthermore, on the issue of these executive orders issued by some of the governors - they're unconstitutional. Governors are citing the Jacobson v. Massachusetts Supreme Court decision back in 1905 as their legal right for the executive orders. However, according to Napolitano there's been four (4) Supreme Court decisions since then that has undermined Jacobson.

Here's an excellent online seminar with Judge Napolitano on the Constitutional issues with these lockdowns, mandates, travel restrictions, etc ("Martial Law & Lockdowns"). Some governors and elected officials probably don't want to hear this, but this isn't China, Russia, Spain, etc.

View: https://youtu.be/I2C-EjKjiIU


Uh, no, you still don't get it. Masks don't protect the wearer. They protect other people from the wearer.
Not according to this interview with a scientist who has thoroughly researched the issue and wrote a paper on it:

View: https://youtu.be/C1ODBTdNiG0


We really don't know how much is due to health, and how much to genetics. There's also evidence that many people may have some T-cell mediated immunity to the virus. That isn't necessarily a function of health. At this point, it's a total crapshoot how someone responds to infection.
I agree on the T-cell immunity. In addition, certain vitamins & minerals (particularly D3) can support healthy T-cell growth:

View: https://youtu.be/Ft4bVtcQcGM
 
Last edited:
Hollywood and Highland, Los Angeles, CA June 7, 2020. If this was a photo of a sporting event on the same day you would be apoplectic. Let’s not pretend this has not had an impact on COVID spikes.

I don't think anyone would dispute that this behavior is dangerous and stupid. The difference between a sporting event where tickets are sold and a Nationwide response to conditions akin to 1969 US are huge. Will we suffer from the exposure? Most definitely. Are these folks "better" or "worse" citizens than barhoppers that refuse to protect themselves and others? Probably not but likely much more apathetic until they get sick. Or someone in their family does.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Arizona reported over 30% positives today, hitting a new record for the state. Florida also hit a new record for positivity at 16.27%. The median age is also creeping up. I would guess that there is another week before any of the initial mitigation attempts start to have an effect on the data. It is going to be rough. The Florida outbreak is really going to show what an outbreak looks like when people on the ground do their own thing without a lot of input from above.
 
Reactions: jmdirt and Koronin
In Victoria we are going into semi lockdown (well, in Melbourne and it's outer suburbia) again this week, for six weeks, so we should get on top of it. For the amount of testing that we are doing (a lot), 191 new covid 19 cases in a day isn't too bad (especially considering that 191 DEATHS in a day is standard in many places in the world).
Victoria might get on top of it but at what price?

Sadly, thanks to the Victorian government bungles now the entire country is at risk of going back into lockdown. That includes the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands working in private businesses in other states. What Victoria's bungles show is that there is no place for complacency with COVID-19, the virus is so contagious it spreads like wildfire so 191 cases can become 1,000 cases very quickly. Then come the deaths. Lets hope any re introduced restrictions don't stop us riding our bikes outside.

We should also not forget the Federal government is effectively printing billions of dollars to keep the economy afloat and "Jobkeeper" is due to end on September 30. MMT economics is not sustainable.

I am also not convinced that BLM protests in Melbourne didn't contribute, yes other states had protests but everything else was better managed. In any case, endorsing those protests when the rest of us are being lectured to about social distancing is the height of irresponsibility.
 
Last edited:
You guys did a very good job overall and should reap the rewards moving forward. You also handled the cruise ships very humanely even if it inflated your numbers.

Masks are most beneficial where social distancing is not always possible like on the train or in a workplace. I can't perform all my duties from home. I have no issues wearing my mask as mandated by my employer when I am in their building. Speaking of workplace policy. Nonessential Travel is still not recommended, but now people who leave the state must get tested before returning to work. It will ruffle the feathers of those with shore homes in Delaware.
I agree with you on masks, regarding public transport it has been noticeable on Sydney roads in peak (rush) hour that post lockdown traffic was worse than expected as many chose to drive rather than risk catching public transport.

Sadly the very good job we did so far is now at risk due to a rebound in the state of Victoria. Other Australian states have since closed borders to Victoria, so we are all getting nervous that full lockdowns might be reintroduced. Full lockdown has just been re introduced across the metropolitan area of Melbourne.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Nomad, post: 2437632, member:
C’mon Nomad, just cut it out with your ridiculous posts. You realize that one judge’s opinion does necessarily reflect what the law is, right? That’s why our courts have split decisions and dissenting opinions?
And you realize that “a scientist’s” (as in one scientist’s) statement or theory does not represent the body of scientific evidence or the weight of scientific opinion on a subject?
It is VERY easy to find individual crackpot (or just self-serving) judges and scientists in this country, so please come up with better supported arguments and replicable findings rather than posting the same videos. You are a thread wrecker.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Victoria might get on top of it but at what price?

Sadly, thanks to the Victorian government bungles now the entire country is at risk of going back into lockdown. That includes the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands working in private businesses in other states. What Victoria's bungles show is that there is no place for complacency with COVID-19, the virus is so contagious it spreads like wildfire so 191 cases can become 1,000 cases very quickly. Then come the deaths. Lets hope any re introduced restrictions don't stop us riding our bikes outside.

We should also not forget the Federal government is effectively printing billions of dollars to keep the economy afloat and "Jobkeeper" is due to end on September 30. MMT economics is not sustainable.

I am also not convinced that BLM protests in Melbourne didn't contribute, yes other states had protests but everything else was better managed. In any case, endorsing those protests when the rest of us are being lectured to about social distancing is the height of irresponsibility.
People jumping quarantine, trying to cross borders illegally, and celebrating religious festivals against government advice probably doesn't help either, also crowds on beaches, group protests etc. Hardly just the government's fault. In a hard lockdown the economy is an afterthought as it was in Italy, China and Spain and other places. Commonsense doesn't suddenly improve during a pandemic as we have seen. Now the Brazilian president is infected, oh the irony. Nothing like a pandemic to highlight the total ineptitude of some elected officials.
 
In Victoria we are going into semi lockdown (well, in Melbourne and it's outer suburbia) again this week, for six weeks, so we should get on top of it. For the amount of testing that we are doing (a lot), 191 new covid 19 cases in a day isn't too bad (especially considering that 191 DEATHS in a day is standard in many places in the world).
The trouble is they are having trouble tracing the source of many of those infections which is what happens when the numbers go up and don't all come from the same area.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Not according to this interview with a scientist who has thoroughly researched the issue and wrote a paper on it:
Let’s look at the seven studies he uses to support his thesis (apparently the format doesn't produce numbers, so each bullet point is a number):


  • 32 subjects, 16 wore masks, 16 did not. There was only one cold in each group. Obviously the small sample size, and particularly the fact that most controls did not get a cold, makes this study meaningless, and the authors themselves basically concluded this.
  • The authors state, “There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.” This is basically the current thinking.
  • The authors conclude there is no difference between N95 and surgical masks. They don’t say there is no effect, they say there is no difference in their effects. They specifically recommend wearing masks. And again, note, this study, like the others, only looked at the benefit to the wearer.
  • The authors concluded there weren’t enough data to conclude whether N95 masks were better than surgical masks.
  • The authors conclude that masks didn’t protect against viral infections. But then they cite a number of studies that show that masks were effective against SARS.
  • The authors reported no difference between N95 and surgical masks. Again, they didn’t conclude that these masks weren’t effective; only that there was no difference in their effectiveness.
  • Same as 6)
In summary, there are several problems with these studies: 1) all of these studies were carried out before the pandemic, and thus did not look at SARS-CoV-2 specifically; 2) most of the studies compared different mask types vs. each other, not vs. controls wearing no masks; 3) none of the studies actually considered whether masks would protect others from the person wearing the mask.

Rancourt points out that if there were a benefit of a mask, the N95 should be superior to a surgical mask. But that only addresses point 2), not the other two points. To address them, he basically goes to physics, arguing that the masks will not block fine aerosol particles, each of which may contain a number of viral particles capable of infecting someone. He also cites a study indicating that viral infections increase during seasonal periods of low humidity, while decreasing during periods of high humidity. His interpretation of this is that high humidity results in larger droplets that fall more quickly out of the air.

He concludes, “if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected.” If that were true, then everyone within the same range of an infected person who is infecting some people would become infected. But we know this isn’t the case. Some people may have just as much contact with an infected person as other people who get infected (e.g., in a Chinese restaurant; a S. Korean office building; German households), but remain uninfected. They must be breathing in just as many particles, but don’t get infected. Why? Because it isn’t true that if anything gets through, you will become infected. This point is also underscored by the mean infectious dose Rancourt refers to. This is a dose that will infect half the people, but not all. This clearly implies that any reduction in incoming aerosol particles could potentially make the difference between getting sick and not.

Also, he again relies on studies of other viruses. There are no studies to my knowledge that show the minimum effective dose for SARS-CoV-2. Rancourt also doesn’t show data indicating how many viral particles may be contained in an aerosol particle. Theoretically, a 2.5 uM particle could contain several thousand SARS-CoV-2 particles, but that doesn’t mean that in practice it actually does. So when he says "the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle", this is speculative. Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, there is the so what? counter. Suppose the value of masks has been greatly exaggerated. What is the harm done? Rancourt refers to one study suggesting negative effects of wearing masks, and others have raised this issue too. But I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people who wear a mask experience no adverse effects except the unpleasantness. I find it really hard to believe that the likely effects of some reduction of viral particles in the air aren't outweighed by some very minor health effects claimed by others.

I should note that this link was removed from a research website. Rancourt claims he was censored. I don’t support censorship, and think Rancourt has a right to be heard. I welcome his views. But every scientist has experienced having a submitted article to a journal rejected. That isn't censorship, at least not necessarily so. It usually reflects the view of peers that the standards of the study do not meet certain widely acknowledged criteria.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Kaptain Kool
Let’s look at the seven studies he uses to support his thesis (apparently the format doesn't produce numbers, so each bullet point is a number):


  • 32 subjects, 16 wore masks, 16 did not. There was only one cold in each group. Obviously the small sample size, and particularly the fact that most controls did not get a cold, makes this study meaningless, and the authors themselves basically concluded this.
  • The authors state, “There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.” This is basically the current thinking.
  • The authors conclude there is no difference between N95 and surgical masks. They don’t say there is no effect, they say there is no difference in their effects. They specifically recommend wearing masks. And again, note, this study, like the others, only looked at the benefit to the wearer.
  • The authors concluded there weren’t enough data to conclude whether N95 masks were better than surgical masks.
  • The authors conclude that masks didn’t protect against viral infections. But then they cite a number of studies that show that masks were effective against SARS.
  • The authors reported no difference between N95 and surgical masks. Again, they didn’t conclude that these masks weren’t effective; only that there was no difference in their effectiveness.
  • Same as 6)
In summary, there are several problems with these studies: 1) all of these studies were carried out before the pandemic, and thus did not look at SARS-CoV-2 specifically; 2) most of the studies compared different mask types vs. each other, not vs. controls wearing no masks; 3) none of the studies actually considered whether masks would protect others from the person wearing the mask.

Rancourt points out that if there were a benefit of a mask, the N95 should be superior to a surgical mask. But that only addresses point 2), not the other two points. To address them, he basically goes to physics, arguing that the masks will not block fine aerosol particles, each of which may contain a number of viral particles capable of infecting someone. He also cites a study indicating that viral infections increase during seasonal periods of low humidity, while decreasing during periods of high humidity. His interpretation of this is that high humidity results in larger droplets that fall more quickly out of the air.

He concludes, “if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected.” If that were true, then everyone within the same range of an infected person who is infecting some people would become infected. But we know this isn’t the case. Some people may have just as much contact with an infected person as other people who get infected (e.g., in a Chinese restaurant; a S. Korean office building; German households), but remain uninfected. They must be breathing in just as many particles, but don’t get infected. Why? Because it isn’t true that if anything gets through, you will become infected. This point is also underscored by the mean infectious dose Rancourt refers to. This is a dose that will infect half the people, but not all. This clearly implies that any reduction in incoming aerosol particles could potentially make the difference between getting sick and not.

Also, he again relies on studies of other viruses. There are no studies to my knowledge that show the minimum effective dose for SARS-CoV-2. Rancourt also doesn’t show data indicating how many viral particles may be contained in an aerosol particle. Theoretically, a 2.5 uM particle could contain several thousand SARS-CoV-2 particles, but that doesn’t mean that in practice it actually does. So when he says "the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle", this is speculative. Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, note that this link was removed from a research website. He claims he was censored. I don’t support censorship, and think Rancourt has a right to be heard. I welcome his views. But he also should be criticized.
RE: Humidity: Research pre C19 bang: I have read several papers over the years about the positive effects of humidity on the respiratory system. Moisture contributes to healthier nose, mouth, sinus, throat, lung tissues. It also helps with the production and removal of mucous (an important part of keeping things out of our lungs).

Due to the above, I was hoping that more humid days would make a big dent in C19, but FL (and other southern states) are pretty humid now, yet C19 is blowing up.
 
Here are three studies supporting the effectiveness of masks:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25805

N95 masks, medical masks, and homemade masks made of four‐layer kitchen paper and one‐layer cloth could block 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% of the virus in aerosols.
Type 403 nebulizer (Yuyue Medical Equipment & Supply Company, Jiangsu, China) was used to produce aerosols. The aerosols have the median diameters 3.9 μm, and 65% of the aerosols have the diameters less than 5.0 μm, as given in the specification of the nebulizer.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

Surgical masks reduced viral copy numbers in the fine fraction by 2.8 fold (95% CI 1.5 to 5.2) and in the coarse fraction by 25 fold (95% CI 3.5 to 180). Overall, masks produced a 3.4 fold (95% CI 1.8 to 6.3) reduction in viral aerosol shedding
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002618&utm_campaign=Sonya, Supposedly&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue newsletter

All masks provided protection against transmission by reducing exposure during all types of activities, for both children and adults (Table 1). Within each category of masks, the degree of protection varied by age category and to a lesser extent by activity. We observed no difference between men and women. Surgical masks provided about twice as much protection as home made masks, the difference a bit more marked among adults. FFP2 masks [Euro equivalent of N95] provided adults with about 50 times as much protection as home made masks, and 25 times as much protection as surgical masks.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Compulsory masks in Scotland from, I think Friday, in all shops and on public transport (already the case on public transport). Huge amounts of complaining locally and people essentially saying they will lie about having asthma etc. so they don't have to wear one if challenged. Having cycled past lots of buses recently I'd say approx 25% of people are complying and the rest are either not wearing them or have moved them to their chin/neck once sat down.
 
C’mon Nomad, just cut it out with your ridiculous posts. You realize that one judge’s opinion does necessarily reflect what the law is, right? That’s why our courts have split decisions and dissenting opinions?
What's "ridiculous" about posting information from a renowned Constitutional Law expert? In case you missed it; Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court Justice, Professor of Law (Seton Hall School of Law & Brooklyn Law School) and Senior Legal Analyst for FOX News & FBN. He's giving his qualified legal opinion on the lockdowns, mandates, travel restrictions, and so on.

Question: Given the seriousness of this pandemic, do you think he should be censored? He's featured weekly on FNC & FBN for his opinion on a wide variety of legal matters. Many Americans watch FNC and are interested in his opinions (not everyone watches CNN)

And you realize that “a scientist’s” (as in one scientist’s) statement or theory does not represent the body of scientific evidence or the weight of scientific opinion on a subject?
Of course I do. However, Dr. Rancourt said in his thesis that in reviewing the available studies on masks there wasn't any RCTs or quality literature that supported the use of masks. However, I appreciate "Merckx Index's" analysis of Rancourt's thesis - I thought it was very informative. And I understand - definitely masks need to be worn.

That was never my contention in the first place (I wear mine everywhere except when go for a run or ride). My thought was that I'm not annoyed by other people refraining from wearing any facial coverings and frankly got tired of seeing all these hostile & physical confrontations with the public (this country has enough problems as it is with the violent protests, collapsed economy, skyrocketing violent crime, etc). But I can see the importance of full compliance with masks.

The problem going forward is enforcement. For example, many police & sheriff's departments in Texas are refusing to enforce it. Cinncnati PD is refusing to enforce it. Orange County (3rd largest county in CA) is refusing to enforce the mandate - just to name a few. And as I mentioned previously, a fairly large municipality near where I live passed a mask mandate but without an enforcement clause (the police chief said it would be impossible to enforce). So, as more & more law enforcement agencies across the nation refuse to enforce mask mandates, more & more people won't wear them...period. Then what? What do governors & mayors do now that increasing numbers of law enforcement agencies won't enforce their mandates? Bring in the National Guard to do the enforcement?

The irony here is during the Floyd protests governors & mayors were talking about defunding the police, closing precincts, slashing budgets, cancelling academy classes, etc. And now these same governors & mayors demand the police enforce thier mask mandates. So how screwed up has this gotten now?



It is VERY easy to find individual crackpot (or just self-serving) judges and scientists in this country, so please come up with better supported arguments and replicable findings rather than posting the same videos. You are a thread wrecker.
This I don't understand - so Napolitano & Rancourt are "self-serving crackpots?" Napolitano is highly respected by the legal community. Dr. Rancourt is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. MI even said Rancourt has a right to be heard that he "welcome his views." These guys aren't conspiracy theory bloggers or anything like that.

And if posting information from qualified professionals that shouldn't be discussed during a pandemic like this is "thread wrecking" - then what's point of the thread? Everyone must have the same opinion on the various topics discussed here? No disagreement? If anyone feels different about some of the issues of this pandemic (other than politics) ...don't discuss it here? Just agree with everyone or don't say anything? And don't post links from medical experts that may have different opinions about the dynamics of the virus - only info from experts that the majority of the scientific community agrees with? Because I guess the "science is settled" on this virus and no other medical expert should dare have a different opinion?
 
Last edited:
As if it wasn't bad enough! Its troubling that it could compromise respiration for the rest of your life, but neurological issues too?!
Interesting article.
“Biologically, Adem has some similarities with multiple sclerosis, but it is more severe and usually happens as a one-off. Some patients are left with long-term disability, others can make a good recovery.”
I did an 8 week rotation in a coronavirus lab long ago. They used the mouse adapted strain MHV which was also used as a model to study MS progression in mice.

The long term effects of viral infections can be unpredictable.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness.
The testing turnaround time is not good enough. If it takes over a week to get results, the utility of the test is questionable at best.

View: https://twitter.com/KeishaBottoms/status/1280824621214896129
 
Reactions: jmdirt

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS