|
|
Post by lou on Dec 22, 2021 18:04:29 GMT -5
NYT:
A new forecast, by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, predicts that there will be three billion new coronavirus infections in the next two months — about as many as there have been in the last two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Dec 22, 2021 21:24:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Dec 24, 2021 15:13:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Dec 24, 2021 16:15:57 GMT -5
NYT: A new forecast, by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, predicts that there will be three billion new coronavirus infections in the next two months — about as many as there have been in the last two years. That is roughly three out of eight people on earth getting it. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 24, 2021 17:47:01 GMT -5
Duck and cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Dec 24, 2021 18:04:11 GMT -5
44K positive tests in NY today.
Of course the youngsters home for the holidays hit the take home tests- they can avoid the quarantine/contact tracing ‘mess’ if positive. And they’re not in the stats. (Speaking to my colleagues and neighbors, this sort of maneuver/convenience is not confined to the college-aged.)
Think about that next time a college shuts down a campus and sends all the kids home for Covid-related reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 24, 2021 21:23:10 GMT -5
Did you mean to say;" Attack and serve?"  |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 26, 2021 19:39:07 GMT -5
To reply to the question in the football forum in the bowl cancellation thread re: infectiousness. A fully vaccinated, boostered individual who becomes infected is as infectious as an unvaccinated, infected individual, -- for about a day. Which for Omicron would usually be day three after the initial infection. By day three, antibodies and T-cells have begun kicking in and the infection is suppressed and the infectiousness is also greatly suppressed. For the unvaccinated, for those unvaccinated whose acquired COVID-immunity has weakened, and for those fully vaccinated with significantly diminished vaccine efficacy, the period of infectiousness will typically be longer. An unvaccinated individual who becomes seriously ill with COVID could be infectious for weeks. Based on NY Times reporting of observations of ER physicians in NYC, individuals infected with Omicron and who are symptomatic, typically present with upper respiratory tract symptoms. Those infected with Delta will also commonly present with cough and breathing difficulty. For the vaccinated, antibodies and T-cells kick in before the virus migrates to the lungs. There is also some laboratory evidence that Omicron is less efficient than Delta at infecting lung cells. _____________________________ Using sewage to test for the presence and prevalence of COVID in a community. Graph below reflects daily testing for Greater Boston. Prevalence is at an all-time high. Re-analysis of sewage samples from early 2020 indicate that COVID had infected a significant number of individuals in Greater Boston by March 3, 2020. (The sudden uptick may reflect, in part, the superspreader Biogen conference in Boston at the end of February, 2020. The Biogen conference led to 330,000 cases world-wide.)  |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 26, 2021 19:58:19 GMT -5
To reply to the question in the football forum in the bowl cancellation thread re: infectiousness. A fully vaccinated, boostered individual who becomes infected is as infectious as an unvaccinated, infected individual, -- for about a day. Which for Omicron would usually be day three after the initial infection. By day three, antibodies and T-cells have begun kicking in and the infection is suppressed and the infectiousness is also greatly suppressed. For the unvaccinated, for those unvaccinated whose acquired COVID-immunity has weakened, and for those fully vaccinated with significantly diminished vaccine efficacy, the period of infectiousness will typically be longer. An unvaccinated individual who becomes seriously ill with COVID could be infectious for weeks. Based on NY Times reporting of observations of ER physicians in NYC, individuals infected with Omicron and who are symptomatic, typically present with upper respiratory tract symptoms. Those infected with Delta will also commonly present with cough and breathing difficulty. For the vaccinated, antibodies and T-cells kick in before the virus migrates to the lungs. There is also some laboratory evidence that Omicron is less efficient than Delta at infecting lung cells. _____________________________ Using sewage to test for the presence and prevalence of COVID in a community. Graph below reflects daily testing for Greater Boston. Prevalence is at an all-time high. Re-analysis of sewage samples from early 2020 indicate that COVID had infected a significant number of individuals in Greater Boston by March 3, 2020. (The sudden uptick may reflect, in part, the superspreader Biogen conference in Boston at the end of February, 2020. The Biogen conference led to 330,000 cases world-wide.) This doesn't get explained often in the MSM, so thanks. The next puzzler is "more infectious" that rarely is well defined. Does that mean transmission at longer distances, shorter time periods, from surfaces, into eyes as well as nose and mouths? Rarely gets explained well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 27, 2021 8:28:37 GMT -5
To reply to the question in the football forum in the bowl cancellation thread re: infectiousness. A fully vaccinated, boostered individual who becomes infected is as infectious as an unvaccinated, infected individual, -- for about a day. Which for Omicron would usually be day three after the initial infection. By day three, antibodies and T-cells have begun kicking in and the infection is suppressed and the infectiousness is also greatly suppressed. For the unvaccinated, for those unvaccinated whose acquired COVID-immunity has weakened, and for those fully vaccinated with significantly diminished vaccine efficacy, the period of infectiousness will typically be longer. An unvaccinated individual who becomes seriously ill with COVID could be infectious for weeks. Based on NY Times reporting of observations of ER physicians in NYC, individuals infected with Omicron and who are symptomatic, typically present with upper respiratory tract symptoms. Those infected with Delta will also commonly present with cough and breathing difficulty. For the vaccinated, antibodies and T-cells kick in before the virus migrates to the lungs. There is also some laboratory evidence that Omicron is less efficient than Delta at infecting lung cells. This doesn't get explained often in the MSM, so thanks. The next puzzler is "more infectious" that rarely is well defined. Does that mean transmission at longer distances, shorter time periods, from surfaces, into eyes as well as nose and mouths? Rarely gets explained well. If two individuals each having equal amounts of COVID virus loadings, with one being infected with Delta, and the other infected with Omicron, the individual infected with Omicron is initially much more infectious than the individual infected with Delta. It is said anecdotally, but perhaps correctly, that Omicron can be spread by merely breathing, while Delta is spread by talking, shouting, singing, coughing, sneezing This notion is supported by very recent laboratory testing in the UK, where Omicron was shown to initially and primarily infect the nose. www.gov.uk/government/publications/imperial-college-london-omicron-vs-delta-replication-19-december-2021/imperial-college-london-omicron-vs-delta-replication-19-december-2021It should be noted that the above experiments done at Imperial College London in the third week of December used equal amounts of virus inoculus (the amount of virus taken in) which is certainly not the case in the real world. And measures of the level of infection at 24, 48, and 72 hours do not reflect the response of a body's immune system to the infection (assuming an individual has some level of immunity). |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 27, 2021 8:56:37 GMT -5
“ This notion is supported by very recent laboratory testing in the UK, where Omicron was shown to initially and primarily infect the nose.”
And this is why I get so annoyed at people who follow the letter of the law and wear a mask but as a chin-jock covering only their mouth and not the nose. I can’t figure if this is a form of passive-aggressive protest or they are simply ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 27, 2021 9:35:14 GMT -5
I would guess many might say it was the former, but IMHO, that merely shows it was actually the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 27, 2021 9:46:18 GMT -5
And this is why I get so annoyed at people who follow the letter of the law and wear a mask but as a chin-jock covering only their mouth and not the nose. To the best of my knowledge, there are zero people doing that. Anyone wearing a mask that isn't covering the nose is not following the letter of the law |
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Dec 27, 2021 10:46:37 GMT -5
Re The unvaccinated & unmasked: There is no cure for stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 27, 2021 11:06:15 GMT -5
These same people probably have higher compliance wearing a seatbelt, partly because they could get stopped but also because it's a physical barrier against hard physical items they can see (the steering column, engine, etc.) that could crush their chest.
The virus is microscopic and can't be seen coming out of someone's nose, hanging in the air and being breathed in by your nose. So the "S" word is correct. Some people aren't bright enough to fear something they can't see.
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 27, 2021 11:12:45 GMT -5
I understand your comment but "the law" varies and many simply state you are required (sometimes "recommended") to "wear a mask." While I have seen a few places that actually have diagrams with the proper use of a mask showing covering the nose as well as the mouth, many/most do not. And, there is no enforcement mostly because usually no one is actually authorized to do that. When layman suggest or more strongly argue to those not following "the law," it runs the risk of arguments and even fights.
Tom, I'm sure you recall the game HC played at BU which mandated the wearing of masks. Even most of the BU players, not all, were wearing chin-jocks, especially if they were on the court. More compliance when they were on the bench. I recall saying at the time they must have thought "you can make me wear a mask but you can't make me wear it correctly."
Here in Rhode Island, the governor required masks indoors. Yesterday at Mass, there is a sign on the Church door that says that "masks are recommended." The vast majority of congregants were wearing masks and most doing so properly. I counted at least 5, 4 males, 1 female not wearing masks at all. No, the priest nor ushers said anything. The topper was one of the Eucharistic Ministers and a Holy Cross alum who is normally very vigilant wearing a mask, apparently forgot his. When time to distribute Communion, my hope was he had his in his pocket. Nope. Then I thought the pastor or the in-resident Msgr. saying the Mass was going to give him one. Nope.
Fortunately, we weren't in his cohort and my wife agreed that if we had been, we would have veered off to another Eucharistic Minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 27, 2021 11:51:48 GMT -5
I understand your comment but "the law" varies and many simply state you are required (sometimes "recommended") to "wear a mask." While I have seen a few places that actually have diagrams with the proper use of a mask showing covering the nose as well as the mouth, many/most do not. And, there is no enforcement mostly because usually no one is actually authorized to do that. When layman suggest or more strongly argue to those not following "the law," it runs the risk of arguments and even fights. Tom, I'm sure you recall the game HC played at BU which mandated the wearing of masks. Even most of the BU players, not all, were wearing chin-jocks, especially if they were on the court. More compliance when they were on the bench. I recall saying at the time they must have thought "you can make me wear a mask but you can't make me wear it correctly." Here in Rhode Island, the governor required masks indoors. Yesterday at Mass, there is a sign on the Church door that says that "masks are recommended." The vast majority of congregants were wearing masks and most doing so properly. I counted at least 5, 4 males, 1 female not wearing masks at all. No, the priest nor ushers said anything. The topper was one of the Eucharistic Ministers and a Holy Cross alum who is normally very vigilant wearing a mask, apparently forgot his. When time to distribute Communion, my hope was he had his in his pocket. Nope. Then I thought the pastor or the in-resident Msgr. saying the Mass was going to give him one. Nope. Fortunately, we weren't in his cohort and my wife agreed that if we had been, we would have veered off to another Eucharistic Minister. - where I work there are some masking requirements. Sometimes I get stuck with the task of enforcing it. If someone has a mask on that is not covering the nose, I tell them to put their mask on. If questioned, I respond that if it isn't on properly it's not on. - If you're going to put up a sign that masks are "recommended" neither the priest nor the ushers should be saying anything. The five people chose to not heed the recommendation. There are many states where it is recommended but not required to wear a seat belt in a car. The authorities on those states don't stop people who don't heed the recommendation to remind them of the recommendation. The fact that the parish is only recommending masks inside in opposition to the state mandate is another story. - I thought what BU did was dumb. Not commenting about the wisdom of the policy. I don't like the concept of having a requirement and then allowing people to blatantly ignore it. If you're not going to enforce a requirement, don't require it. You are correct that it was ridiculous to see players wearing masks that didn't even cover mouths, but why should players adhere to a paper requirement that was cumbersome |
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Dec 27, 2021 13:36:31 GMT -5
I understand your comment but "the law" varies and many simply state you are required (sometimes "recommended") to "wear a mask." While I have seen a few places that actually have diagrams with the proper use of a mask showing covering the nose as well as the mouth, many/most do not. And, there is no enforcement mostly because usually no one is actually authorized to do that. When layman suggest or more strongly argue to those not following "the law," it runs the risk of arguments and even fights. Tom, I'm sure you recall the game HC played at BU which mandated the wearing of masks. Even most of the BU players, not all, were wearing chin-jocks, especially if they were on the court. More compliance when they were on the bench. I recall saying at the time they must have thought "you can make me wear a mask but you can't make me wear it correctly." Here in Rhode Island, the governor required masks indoors. Yesterday at Mass, there is a sign on the Church door that says that "masks are recommended." The vast majority of congregants were wearing masks and most doing so properly. I counted at least 5, 4 males, 1 female not wearing masks at all. No, the priest nor ushers said anything. The topper was one of the Eucharistic Ministers and a Holy Cross alum who is normally very vigilant wearing a mask, apparently forgot his. When time to distribute Communion, my hope was he had his in his pocket. Nope. Then I thought the pastor or the in-resident Msgr. saying the Mass was going to give him one. Nope. Fortunately, we weren't in his cohort and my wife agreed that if we had been, we would have veered off to another Eucharistic Minister. There literally is an on going pandemic and they are giving out Communion with the wine??? Am I the only one that sees the problem here? |
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Dec 27, 2021 13:38:29 GMT -5
I understand your comment but "the law" varies and many simply state you are required (sometimes "recommended") to "wear a mask." While I have seen a few places that actually have diagrams with the proper use of a mask showing covering the nose as well as the mouth, many/most do not. And, there is no enforcement mostly because usually no one is actually authorized to do that. When layman suggest or more strongly argue to those not following "the law," it runs the risk of arguments and even fights. Tom, I'm sure you recall the game HC played at BU which mandated the wearing of masks. Even most of the BU players, not all, were wearing chin-jocks, especially if they were on the court. More compliance when they were on the bench. I recall saying at the time they must have thought "you can make me wear a mask but you can't make me wear it correctly." Here in Rhode Island, the governor required masks indoors. Yesterday at Mass, there is a sign on the Church door that says that "masks are recommended." The vast majority of congregants were wearing masks and most doing so properly. I counted at least 5, 4 males, 1 female not wearing masks at all. No, the priest nor ushers said anything. The topper was one of the Eucharistic Ministers and a Holy Cross alum who is normally very vigilant wearing a mask, apparently forgot his. When time to distribute Communion, my hope was he had his in his pocket. Nope. Then I thought the pastor or the in-resident Msgr. saying the Mass was going to give him one. Nope. Fortunately, we weren't in his cohort and my wife agreed that if we had been, we would have veered off to another Eucharistic Minister. - where I work there are some masking requirements. Sometimes I get stuck with the task of enforcing it. If someone has a mask on that is not covering the nose, I tell them to put their mask on. If questioned, I respond that if it isn't on properly it's not on. - If you're going to put up a sign that masks are "recommended" neither the priest nor the ushers should be saying anything. The five people chose to not heed the recommendation. There are many states where it is recommended but not required to wear a seat belt in a car. The authorities on those states don't stop people who don't heed the recommendation to remind them of the recommendation. The fact that the parish is only recommending masks inside in opposition to the state mandate is another story. - I thought what BU did was dumb. Not commenting about the wisdom of the policy. I don't like the concept of having a requirement and then allowing people to blatantly ignore it. If you're not going to enforce a requirement, don't require it. You are correct that it was ridiculous to see players wearing masks that didn't even cover mouths, but why should players adhere to a paper requirement that was cumbersome Well, they didn't enforce the mask policy at Holy Cross for patrons when I was up there this year for some hoops games....I haven't seen many people enforce the policies from all the campuses I go to. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 27, 2021 14:18:03 GMT -5
I understand your comment but "the law" varies and many simply state you are required (sometimes "recommended") to "wear a mask." While I have seen a few places that actually have diagrams with the proper use of a mask showing covering the nose as well as the mouth, many/most do not. And, there is no enforcement mostly because usually no one is actually authorized to do that. When layman suggest or more strongly argue to those not following "the law," it runs the risk of arguments and even fights. Tom, I'm sure you recall the game HC played at BU which mandated the wearing of masks. Even most of the BU players, not all, were wearing chin-jocks, especially if they were on the court. More compliance when they were on the bench. I recall saying at the time they must have thought "you can make me wear a mask but you can't make me wear it correctly." Here in Rhode Island, the governor required masks indoors. Yesterday at Mass, there is a sign on the Church door that says that "masks are recommended." The vast majority of congregants were wearing masks and most doing so properly. I counted at least 5, 4 males, 1 female not wearing masks at all. No, the priest nor ushers said anything. The topper was one of the Eucharistic Ministers and a Holy Cross alum who is normally very vigilant wearing a mask, apparently forgot his. When time to distribute Communion, my hope was he had his in his pocket. Nope. Then I thought the pastor or the in-resident Msgr. saying the Mass was going to give him one. Nope. Fortunately, we weren't in his cohort and my wife agreed that if we had been, we would have veered off to another Eucharistic Minister. There literally is an on going pandemic and they are giving out Communion with the wine??? Am I the only one that sees the problem here? At my church and other places I have been, wine is not being offered. Bread only. Priest/Minister uses sanitizer immediately before distributing Communion. I think that is pretty common throughout this country |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 27, 2021 14:21:11 GMT -5
Well, they didn't enforce the mask policy at Holy Cross for patrons when I was up there this year for some hoops games....I haven't seen many people enforce the policies from all the campuses I go to. BC, CCSU, and Harvard all had their ushers enforcing masking rules. Enforcement did seem to get more relaxed as the game progressed |
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Dec 27, 2021 16:41:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 27, 2021 16:46:58 GMT -5
In the Catholic churches and Masses (should always be capitalized!) I've attended in RI, CT, NY, it was very rare when the Eucharist was in both species and invariably just bread - no wine - except at a wedding and then usually just the bride and groom.
Like Crucis, I would not partake of wine for many of the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 27, 2021 17:41:04 GMT -5
"Sipping in a cup that a number of people have already placed their mouth just seems to invite the spread of potential illness."
Just for clarity, there are no cases of transmission of any disease from a communion cup/chalice on record anywhere. I realize that just because something has never happened, that does not mean it is impossible in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Dec 27, 2021 17:50:07 GMT -5
Is it truly bread & wine? Bread & grape juice? Transubtantiaton? O, ye' of little faith. Do not be afraid.(Pope JPII)
|
|
