I wasn't making any comment btw. Just thought people would be surprised and interested

ZOMG THIS!

When I talk to my poker buddies, we always use "seems like x% this helps or y% this is a nothingburger" etc. etc.

But for 99% of the people I talk to who aren't ex gamblers, it's always all or nothing. It boggles my mind how they think so definitively, and how they're always so sure they're always right in every aspect of life. I find it just plain irritating to have conversations with most non gamblers when it comes to complex/not fully known topics.

Huh?

No such “some time” number exists. It doesn’t depend on time exposure at all. That’s a corollary at best.

No one knows, nor is it even possible to identify, a group of people that “were exposed enough that they SHOULD get it but didn’t.” So the only strategy one could even come up with is don’t get exposed “for some time”- Which was the only premise known before asking the question. Which makes the entire question totally meaningless.

Maybe you could try rephrasing if there’s a real question in there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is David Sklansky leveling us?

I don’t know where I’m at...

And thanks to everyone for the spirited Florida debate. Nothing more riveting than a bunch of familiar strangers debating the exact odds of my death.

Luckily, I got the inside scoop from my Florida family - the whole sick thing is over. Spread the word.

We are waiting to get more info. Honestly, my wife has a great great uncle who is 100. Totally coherent, golfs, amazing man really. He and all the older folks (80+)are getting together constantly for dinner, I think at restaurants etc. Pretty morbid and messed up, but I think the chances of him dying from Covid are high enough we should probably go to get to see him before it’s too late.

Coronavirus infection isn't just about hygiene and distance. It's about time, too.

I have talked with several people lately who have taken articles like this, and combined them with the recent CDC update that defines prolonged exposure as 15 minutes, to mean that as long as you limit your possible exposure to 15 minutes or less you'll be fine.

They're getting together for more than dinner, thethrill009.

Probably need to up the odds of getting covid if you're going to a retirement home to see anyone.

Recent "study" of harmful effects of Hydroxychloroquine, which caused cessation of independent studies of hydroxy, has been cited as having used fraudulent data and methods in reaching its conclusion:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oxychloroquine
And:

That's an insane story. Democrat ops to harm the president's reputation? Chinese ops? They've done crazier, planning a Russian collusion hoax that consumed the mainstream media and US consciousness for two years. This would be small potatos in comparison.

Meanwhile, more proof that experts (and expert journals) are trash and should be completely ignored:
What an absolute joke. "Peer reviewed" in prestigious journals while amateur Internet sleuths looking at the data quickly spotted it as a fraud. None of the expert researchers did apparently, nor the expert reviewers, nor the expert journal editors.

I read your question as trying to get a relationship between time and probability of infection, given a constant environment (e.g. waiting inside a bank with physical distancing measures in place).

The parameters would be many: my vulnerability to infection, number of people in the bank, volume of the interior, effectiveness of ventilation, likelihood of others in the bank already infected, etc.

Although "time" itself may be relevant, I was obviously mainly using that word as a stand in for viral load. Perhaps fifteen minutes talking is about as bad as one minute near a cougher.

But in any case IF it is indeed true that there is a threshold of viral load that needs to be passed to get the disease, and furthermore the degree to which that threshold is passed is correlated with severity, then it certainly implies one thing, and may imply others.

It definitely implies that wearing a mask sometimes keeps the wearer from contracting Covid 19.

It also might imply that we can learn something from those who were exposed and never got it. Or maybe even use their blood or whatever.

It also implies that it might be useful if there was ever a program to purposely infect young healthy volunteers. Give them a borderline amount that will sometimes not do the trick. When it succeeds the chances it does harm would go down even more. When it fails we have people to study and maybe utilize in other ways.

Meant something else. My fault not yours.

Trip is officially cancelled.

Gross.

Basically you are vaccinating people with a live viral load. Unfortunately dosages to "do the trick" are not consistent for every person, and although the results for many would be good, for the remainder they would likely be either none or quite bad.

I guess there could be a study to infect voluntary individuals with a single CV virion, as that would be the smallest dosage possible, and increment from there. But the time and logistics of performing a study like that would be overwhelming.

Just more evidence of confirmation bias to train the synapses.

That is not a good argument when the subjects are voluntary, young, and apt to get it (randomly and most likely with a larger viral load) anyway. Even more true if there is indeed a good chance for a big upside for the world.

Th day advertising for prescription drugs became allowed in public media was the day your thesis was acknowledged by people in the know.

1300 deaths in Brazil today seems to hurt the hot weather helps stop the virus spread arguments, am I wrong?

Yes, if you say hot weather doesn't help you're wrong.
It's not the cure but it reduces transmission and when combined with masks and social distancing.
I'm going to guess Brazilian deaths are going to be linked to Easter mass. F****** religion is going to kill us all one way or another.

Cheers from a hot humid country with currently no local transmissions, cinemas open now, indoor group dining, malls. Basically everything except night clubs

My in laws are in brazil. And from what I gather a lot of people there just don't take it serious. Masks in their region are mandatory for buses and stores, but good luck keeping people away from gatherings, praying and parties. I hope they can get their sh*t together because I go twice a year, and would like to return by year's end.

Same experience by my Brazilian friends.

...........................

where are all the geniuses who were touting Sweden's no lockdown policy now?

from the article:

"Deaths in Sweden, though, have been eight times higher than in Denmark and 19 times higher than in Norway, even though Sweden is only double each neighbors’ size. The outbreak appears to be continuing to course through their society, even while most other European countries seem to have gotten things under control, at least for now."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...482_story.html

.....................


some more info for all the geniuses out there
and the best part is that it's from their favorite source:
Fox News






https://www.foxnews.com/health/hydro...virus-symptoms

Former Mi6 boss Sir Richard Dearlove belives that the virus was an accident that originated from a lab in China.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-...124812559.html

FallawayJumper,
Nice to see you reading real news rather than fake news. If someone told me in 2010 that Fox News would be far more reliable than the NYT in 2020 I'd have laughed in his face. Yet here we are. Weird world.

From the study it looks like hydroxychloroquine had a 16% lower rate of symptoms 4 days after exposure (probably too late to prevent symptoms, the virus is already well through the system by then). So a much better result than placebo, but the overall infection rate was so low in both groups it didn't reach statistical significance.

So the jury is still out on it. The conclusion we can draw from the study: It doesn't provide a very large benefit in initial symptom display taken 4 days after exposure. It may provide a moderate benefit (number needed to treat: 6, better than most drugs by far).