Jump to content
advertisement_alt
rebelfd

New Virus Discovered in China

Recommended Posts

On 10/13/2021 at 10:35 PM, Neeek said:

 

If you took "it isn't debatable" as meaning there is no possiblity of any airborne spread ever, then yes I was wrong.  Thats just never what i said.   I said that pathogens are categorized by their primary mechanism of spread  (the cold is respiratory spread, tuberculosis is airborne spread but that still isn't an absolute), and it isn't debatable that covid is a respiratory pathogen.  I've explained the nuance of particle sizes and different transmission under different circumstances a dozen times.  I've posted systematic reviews of the data (the highest level of evidence we have).   I don't know what else to tell you

The change is that, for the newer variants, aiborne spread may be more important/common.  Which is exactly what I have said.    If a new strain has evidence suggesting primarily airborne spread in the future (in addition to being terrifying), then I will say that the new strain is airborne.  That still won't negate prior facts.  

 

On 2/1/2021 at 10:28 PM, Neeek said:

 

@pluv.  Definitely not airborne.  It isn't debatable.     Here is my explanation when mupp made this claim from a while back. 

 

Maybe I'm just parroting msnbc though.   I think this is a Maddow quote.  

Definitely not airborne is what you said and that isn’t debatable 

 

You can parrot it all you want and write a lot of words but the facts are in early February you said it wasn’t debatable.  Studies came out in may citing it was airborne which were done over he precious 10 months since the start of Covid.  So this clearly was airborne even with the original variants. 

you trying to claim this is airborne with mew variants maybe is laughable.  It’s been airborne since day one and studies have shown that. 
 

Below is another post from you and pretty much every thing that you wrote is wrong and a bunch of horseshit.  Which is fine because we all make mistakes.  Some admit mistakes and defeat and some double down.   Some triple down
 

 

That part about "some theorizing" is nonsense.  They can theorize whatever they want, but it is not supported by real-world evidence.  The studies about "airborne transmission" are all theoretical based on like physics and airflow (the recent one in clinical infectious disease was written by environmental scientists, not doctors and is widely criticized byepidemiologists and ID experts).  They are not clinical, and don't represent what actually happens under normal circumstances - how the vast majority of transmission occurs.   

Edited by Preston__Luv
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF isn’t “airborne” and respiratory spread the same thing? 
 

A person coughs out microscopic droplets and they are then spread through the air. 
 

A good question is…

is CoVID more contagious than the bubonic plague? 
 

Black Death is a good movie I highly recommend 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh I see 👀 I guess respiratory droplets are considered larger and fall to the ground quicker

“Airborne” transmission is when even smaller droplets are able to cling to dust particles/residue and float around

Didn’t realize there was a difference


They are both basically the same thing but obviously anything that can break down into smaller particles becomes more contagious due to its ability to linger in the circulating air longer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2021 at 1:20 AM, Preston__Luv said:

 

Definitely not airborne is what you said and that isn’t debatable 

You can parrot it all you want and write a lot of words but the facts are in early February you said it wasn’t debatable.  Studies came out in may citing it was airborne which were done over he precious 10 months since the start of Covid.  So this clearly was airborne even with the original variants. 

you trying to claim this is airborne with mew variants maybe is laughable.  It’s been airborne since day one and studies have shown that. 
 

Below is another post from you and pretty much every thing that you wrote is wrong and a bunch of horseshit.  Which is fine because we all make mistakes.  Some admit mistakes and defeat and some double down.   Some triple down
 

That part about "some theorizing" is nonsense.  They can theorize whatever they want, but it is not supported by real-world evidence.  The studies about "airborne transmission" are all theoretical based on like physics and airflow (the recent one in clinical infectious disease was written by environmental scientists, not doctors and is widely criticized by epidemiologists and ID experts).  They are not clinical, and don't represent what actually happens under normal circumstances - how the vast majority of transmission occurs.   

. . .   

I'm not sure you understand how this works.

 Maybe just read the systematic review of the literature.  It will explain it for you.  Not that you care but a systematic review is a good thing - it literally searches the literature for ALL of the studies related in any way to this topic, picks the best/most relevant ones, has experts review them, and then provides a summary of what the literature says.  It is not perfect, but the highest level of evidence available - slightly above PLUV posting a study that popped up on his phone news feed and he then immediately posted on P5s.  Here is what it said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505025/

"The dominant route of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is respiratory"

"That proximity so clearly increases risk for infection suggests that classic droplet transmission is more important than aerosol transmission "  I posted the longer version earlier if you want.  It talks about the nuance of airborne like I did.  But I don't want you to get distracted.  

 

https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/infection-prevention/personal-protective-equipment-in-medical-settings/

Here are the IDSA guidelines.  The IDSA is the gold standard source of information for infectious diseases - transmission, prevention, diagnosis, treatment.  It is written by ID experts for ID experts and doctors that treat patients with these conditions.    It is also better than any study you will find with google.  They last updated this information in July of 2021, but their recommendations have not changed since 4/2020.  This is because the COVID-specific data has not been sufficient to change the recommendations.  They are using expertise, understanding of virology and transmission, epidemiologic data, and historical comparisons.  Here is what they say:

"In summary: The primary mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission appears to be inhalation of respiratory droplets. In specific scenarios, particularly indoor settings with poor ventilation, aerosol transmission may also occur; however, epidemiologic data is not consistent with aerosols being the primary mode of transmission."

 

So, like, you aren't right.  My early posts aligned with the IDSA recommendations (mostly based on pre-covid data and expertise), and my recent posts align with the systematic review (based on actual COVID-specific studies, even though they are limited).  Imagine that.  Its fine that you just ignored the "vast majority of tranmission part" of my post to try to get a gotcha by speaking in absolutes.  I'm comfortable with that.

Don't get met wrong, I will always enjoy the amazing confidence you have in your understanding of things for which you have literally no expertise.  I'm just not sure your googling of media headlines is likely to be superior to actual experts reviewing the information, or even  just my regular old degree and cerficiations.

Enjoy whatever conclusion you decide to continue with.  I'll stop talking about this now.  It was useful for me to tak another look at the literature - didn't want to miss something.    I've now grown tired of talking to the brick wall.  

 

 

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2021 at 8:33 PM, Neeek said:

. . .   

I'm not sure you understand how this works.

 Maybe just read the systematic review of the literature.  It will explain it for you.  Not that you care but a systematic review is a good thing - it literally searches the literature for ALL of the studies related in any way to this topic, picks the best/most relevant ones, has experts review them, and then provides a summary of what the literature says.  It is not perfect, but the highest level of evidence available - slightly above PLUV posting a study that popped up on his phone news feed and he then immediately posted on P5s.  Here is what it said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505025/

"The dominant route of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is respiratory"

"That proximity so clearly increases risk for infection suggests that classic droplet transmission is more important than aerosol transmission "  I posted the longer version earlier if you want.  It talks about the nuance of airborne like I did.  But I don't want you to get distracted.  

 

https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/infection-prevention/personal-protective-equipment-in-medical-settings/

Here are the IDSA guidelines.  The IDSA is the gold standard source of information for infectious diseases - transmission, prevention, diagnosis, treatment.  It is written by ID experts for ID experts and doctors that treat patients with these conditions.    It is also better than any study you will find with google.  They last updated this information in July of 2021, but their recommendations have not changed since 4/2020.  This is because the COVID-specific data has not been sufficient to change the recommendations.  They are using expertise, understanding of virology and transmission, epidemiologic data, and historical comparisons.  Here is what they say:

"In summary: The primary mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission appears to be inhalation of respiratory droplets. In specific scenarios, particularly indoor settings with poor ventilation, aerosol transmission may also occur; however, epidemiologic data is not consistent with aerosols being the primary mode of transmission."

 

So, like, you aren't right.  My early posts aligned with the IDSA recommendations (mostly based on pre-covid data and expertise), and my recent posts align with the systematic review (based on actual COVID-specific studies, even though they are limited).  Imagine that.  Its fine that you just ignored the "vast majority of tranmission part" of my post to try to get a gotcha by speaking in absolutes.  I'm comfortable with that.

Don't get met wrong, I will always enjoy the amazing confidence you have in your understanding of things for which you have literally no expertise.  I'm just not sure your googling of media headlines is likely to be superior to actual experts reviewing the information, or even  just my regular old degree and cerficiations.

Enjoy whatever conclusion you decide to continue with.  I'll stop talking about this now.  It was useful for me to tak another look at the literature - didn't want to miss something.    I've now grown tired of talking to the brick wall.  

 

 

I don’t need anymore explanations from you disguising that you were wrong. 
 

You said it wasn’t airborne and that’s not debatable.  
 

you never parroted until recently anything about it being airborne but that not being the primary method of infection. 
 

Back in February you were adamant it wasn’t at all airborne.  Said it wasn’t debatable.  I don’t care about how easy it is or is not to get 

When it’s airborne a person can get it who is as not in close proximity.  This makes it impossible to contain and anything less than full lockdowns being next to pointless 

anyway. 
 

you won’t admit that for some reason. 
 

I agree is spreads much easier if someone sneezes in your space.  But that’s not the argument and never was. 
 

the argument I s was covid airborne.  You said no it’s not debatable…

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 7:24 AM, TheSilentBob said:

In layman’s terms, it’s airborne but in scientific classification, it’s not airborne. How hard is this to grasp? 

Because scientifically it is airborne and a simple google search will tell you this. 
 

but I will give it a rest with Neek as he clearly just wants to disguise the fact that it Is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 7:24 AM, TheSilentBob said:

In layman’s terms, it’s airborne but in scientific classification, it’s not airborne. How hard is this to grasp? 

In layman's terms, if you try to, you can get the virus to suspend in tiny fluid droplets that travel longer distances to infect you.   Like if you use a nebulizer, or if your are in a room with no windows or ventilation where sick people are screaming and coughing for a while, you can still get sick even if you stay 15 feet away from everyone.    

But the way most people actually get infected is by close contact.  COVID travels from fluid in the airway that comes out with breathing and coughing, but the fluid drops are too big to travel through the air, and just settles to the ground after being expelled.   Your are much less likely to be infected by someone that is 20 feet away.  And good ventilation and spending less time around infected people also helps. 

The actual relevant fact is how one gets infected.   Distance is a key determinant but not absolute.  The rest is esoteric bullshit that PLUV is obsessing about to prove we are all being lied and doctors don't know the truth or something

Edited by Neeek
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 10:24 AM, Neeek said:

In layman's terms, if you try to, you can get the virus to suspend in tiny fluid droplets that travel longer distances to infect you.   Like if you use a nebulizer, or if your are in a room with no windows or ventilation where sick people are screaming and coughing for a while, you can still get sick even if you stay 15 feet away from everyone.    

But the way most people actually get infected is by close contact.  COVID travels from fluid in the airway that comes out with breathing and coughing, but the fluid drops are too big to travel through the air, and just settles to the ground after being expelled.   Your are much less likely to be infected by someone that is 20 feet away.  And good ventilation and spending less time around infected people also helps. 

The actual relevant fact is how one gets infected.   Distance is a key determinant but not absolute.  The rest is esoteric bullshit that PLUV is obsessing about to prove we are all being lied and doctors don't know the truth or something

 

“isn’t airborne, definitely not debatable”. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2021 at 5:50 AM, raisethis2 said:

Colin Powell died of covid complications even though he was fully vaccinated. When they said 95% effective, they told the truth. 

RIP. 
 

old people die. It’s what happens. He lived out the average life expectancy though so there’s that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2021 at 4:50 AM, raisethis2 said:

Colin Powell died of covid complications even though he was fully vaccinated. When they said 95% effective, they told the truth. 

He was 84. You can die from sneezing at that age unless you’re Chuck Norris or Clint Eastwood

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2021 at 6:18 PM, truesyalose said:

Red Sox

over

yes run in 1st -110

over 10.5 +140

over 11 +175

Red Sox first 5 over 2.5 +120

Astros first 5 over 2.5 +120

over 27 hre +105

over 3 hre in 1st inning +127

Rodriguez under 4 Ks -105

Urquidy over 3.5 Ks +127

Bregman over 1.5 hrr -150

Verdugo over 1.5 hrr -120

Correa over 2 hrr -120

Arroyo over 1.5 hrr +162

Hernandez over 2 hrr -120

Renfroe over 1.5 hrr +105

Martinez over 2 hrr -115

Altuve over 2.5 hrr +115

Schwarber over 2 hrr +105

Tucker over 1.5 hrr -132

Brantley under 2 hrr -127

Devers over 2.5 hrr +127

Bogaerts over 2 hrr -115

Alvarez under 2.5 hrr -167

Gurriel over 1.5 hrr -132

Devers -127 Alvarez hrr

Altuve -110 Schwarber hrr

Hernandez -110 Bregman hrr

Martinez -127 Tucker hrr

Correa PK Bogaerts hrr

Gurriel -110 Renfroe hrr

Verdugo PK Brantley hrr

100 each per person. qtb

 

 

 

Would love rt2 to say 200 for the lot. But fyi. Wrong thread

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2021 at 5:29 PM, truesyalose said:

Florida has the lowest amount of Covid cases per capita of any state other than Hawaii. 
 

some people itt are awfully quiet now. DeSantis 2024!

Dumbass, Florida has been manipulating the numbers for months. Nothing coming from DiSantis is ever to believed. He had his chance. 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2021 at 3:29 PM, truesyalose said:

Florida has the lowest amount of Covid cases per capita of any state other than Hawaii. 
 

some people itt are awfully quiet now. DeSantis 2024!

4th highest per capita rate of infections overall, and 9th high rate of deaths.  The literal worst large state besides new York which was the epicenter at the start of this whole thing.  

Almost literally doing the worst possible job, but since we are now at the nadir of their 3rd wave the statistics guru shouts victory lol.  They would have 21,000 fewer deaths if they were just doing the same job as california.

 

Nailed it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.