Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

giphy.gif


I'll accept this retort as capitulation that masks work (even against aerosols) as evidenced by peer reviewed, empirically based science.
You’ll get no such thing and they do no such thing. That article looks familiar to one I remember using luminescence as detection methods for a sub micron particle. Stupid as hell and doesn’t pass the sniff test.
 
You’ll get no such thing and they do no such thing. That article looks familiar to one I remember using luminescence as detection methods for a sub micron particle. Stupid as hell and doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Sorry, I already accepted your capitulation.

Empirically based, peer reviewed science > your sniff test
 
inching toward capacity? The highest in the CDC numbers that were linked in an earlier post is Georgia at 80%; given 65-70% is normal capacity it seems the ICU crisis is being overblown.

maybe I'm missing what you are suggesting?

If 65-70% is normal, then we've suddenly entered a phase wherein most locales are well below normal.
 
Sorry, I already accepted your capitulation.

Empirically based, peer reviewed science > your sniff test
I’ll trust my 30 years of actual knowledge in electro optics and image sampling theory to tell me the idiot baboons don’t know **** if they think that can image sub micron particles in any camera field of view useful for this test to be relevant. I mean if they got a fire hose of particles and imaged that ok 😂
 
If 65-70% is normal, then we've suddenly entered a phase wherein most locales are well below normal.



I thought that sounded high too, but here are HHS numbers from a 2019 study...
Over the three years studied, total ICU occupancy ranged from 57.4% to 82.1% and the number of beds filled with mechanically ventilated patients ranged from 20.7% to 38.9%. There was no change in occupancy across years and no increase in occupancy during influenza seasons. Mean hourly occupancy across ICUs was 68.2% SD ± 21.3, and was substantially higher in ICUs with fewer beds (mean 75.8% (± 16.5) for 5–14 beds versus 60.9% (± 22.1) for 20+ beds, P = 0.001), and in academic hospitals (78.7% (± 15.9) versus 65.3% (± 21.3) for community not-for profit hospitals, P < 0.001). More than half (53.6%) of ICUs had 4+ beds available more than half the time. The mean percentage of ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation in any given hour was 39.5% (± 15.2), and a mean of 29.0% (± 15.9) of ICU beds were filled with a patient on a ventilator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
Sorry, I already accepted your capitulation.

Empirically based, peer reviewed science > your sniff test
So I read the link in depth. They went thru a long diatribe about how aerosols address a large array of particle size and then rationalized a definition which accommodates a particle size 1000x bigger than a 0.1micron SARSCov-2 particle.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Science! 🤡

For this paper, we adopt the definition by Milton (52) that incorporates findings from modern aerosol physics which suggest that particles much larger than the 5-μm boundary (a number that is sometimes cited by public health authorities as a droplet/aerosol cutoff) can remain suspended in air for many minutes or more, can waft around, and, of significant consequence for public health implications for this pandemic, accumulate depending on currents of air and ventilation status of the environment (52). We will thus refer to these respiratory emissions as “respiratory particles” with the understanding that these include particles that are transmitted through the air in a manner beyond the “ballistic trajectories” traditionally assumed of respiratory droplets and thus include aerosols that can remain suspended in the air (52). While determining an exact number is not necessary for purposes of this review, according to latest research informed by modern aerosol physics, 100 μm is considered the boundary between aerosols and droplets (52).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
I’ll trust my 30 years of actual knowledge in electro optics and image sampling theory to tell me the idiot baboons don’t know **** if they think that can image sub micron particles in any camera field of view useful for this test to be relevant. I mean if they got a fire hose of particles and imaged that ok 😂

I'll accept this as more evidence of a complete capitulation and that you're digressing from the argument. I'm glad that you've finally reconciled that your anecdotal feelings are no substitute for empirically based, peer reviewed studies.
 
Well then awesome. We've managed to reduce ICU usage.
Bham's post sent me down a rabbit hole.

This is the current situation in GA. Basically there are 3,000 ICU beds and we've been fluctuating around 2,300 since March and now we're around 2,400+ with a reporting spike about a week ago that I can't figure out.

1627496724678.png
 
I'll accept this as more evidence of a complete capitulation and that you're digressing from the argument. I'm glad that you've finally reconciled that your anecdotal feelings are no substitute for empirically based, peer reviewed studies.
Scroll up one post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 🤡
 
Scroll up one post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 🤡

This is embarrassing, even for you.

Source control was proven, unequivocally. But if you need the feel the need to posit your anecdotal narrative as refutation of empirical evidence - feel free to thump your chest and insert clown emojis, but you and I (and whoever else reads the study with any modicum of intellectual honesty) knows that you're wrong.
 
My understanding of ICU space available is it is elastic. It can be controlled somewhat by delaying other procedures scheduled. Elective surgery, non urgent surgery can be deferred until ICU space is normalized. If this is the case, then reports disclosing the percentage of space available is not as dire as we think.
My resource for this understanding is the two rural hospitals McMom covers.

Maybe @NurseGoodVol , @kiddiedoc can weigh in as well.
 
This is embarrassing, even for you.

Source control was proven, unequivocally. But if you need the feel the need to posit your anecdotal narrative as refutation of empirical evidence - feel free to thump your chest and insert clown emojis, but you and I (and whoever else reads the study with any modicum of intellectual honesty) knows that you're wrong.
Go find a mirror champ! 😂

They proved they could have “some” effectiveness on a particle 1000x larger than the particle in question.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Science! 🤡
 
Black couple Dies of COVID after Refusing to take vaccine because they didn't trust doctors after 40-year-long Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment that denied penicillin to black men

A black couple from Georgia died of COVID-19 after refusing to get vaccinated because of lack of trust - due, in part, to a past racist medical experiment in which black men from Alabama were denied treatment for syphilis.

Martin, 53, and Trina Daniel, 49, of Savannah succumbed to the virus within three hours of each other. They died July 6.

45999725-9835065-image-a-1_1627478727769.jpg

Martin, 53, and Trina Daniel, 49, of Savannah, Georgia succumbed to the virus within three hours of each other. They died July 6

Covid US: Black Georgia couple dies after refusing to take vaccine because of Tuskegee experiment | Daily Mail Online
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
I hate McDonalds, it should barely be classified as food but I ain't gonna lie, I get a McRib while they're out.

COMON' LOW PORK PRICES!

So... you're no different than the government?

Spend money on pork that doesn't do you a lot of good in the long run?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
Go find a mirror champ! 😂

They proved they could have “some” effectiveness on a particle 1000x larger than the particle in question.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Science! 🤡

Yawn. More peer reviewed, empirical evidence for you to dismiss.

TL; DR Version: Masks reduce the amount and distance of expelled particles



On the utility of cloth facemasks for controlling ejecta during respiratory events

SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, infects cells in the upper respiratory system. Transmission of Covid-19 is currently believed18,19,20 to happen primarily through shedding of virus particles in droplets ejected as infected people speak, cough or sneeze, or through contact with viable infective virus deposited on surfaces. When people cough or sneeze21 (or even simply talk loudly22,23), they eject droplets of mucosal fluid. Large droplets ~O(100 µm) fall due to gravity and, under no wind conditions, are transported over lateral distances of the order of 1 m. However, turbulent flows resulting from violent expulsions during sneezing or coughing suspend finer droplets and transport them over large distances, of the order of 7-8 m.24,25,26 Therefore, it has been suggested that transmission of infection through fine droplets be investigated.27,28,29 The effect of surgical masks and N95 respirators on airflows (but not spread of droplet ejecta) during expiratory events has been experimentally imaged.30 Here, we employ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to address the influence of homemade face masks on the turbulent clouds that result due to sneezing events, and on the lateral extent of spread of ejecta. Our emphasis is on understanding the effect of face masks in altering the flow field and droplet dispersion due to the respiratory event.

Wearing a mask has a significant impact on the spread of cough ejecta. We observe the time dependent trajectories of large and small droplets with time from the respiratory event (Figure 2). Without a mask (Figure 2, top panel), large drops are not convected by the flow and rapidly fall to the ground: drops > 200 µm fall within a lateral distance of 0.2 m, while drops > 125 µ m extend to about 2 m (SI, Figure S6). In contrast to the large drops, smaller drops (< 25 µ m in size) are convected by the turbulent cloud. They shrink in size as their water content is completely evaporated, and are transported to significant distances, as far as 5 m from the face (SI, Figure S7). We observe that the non-volatile content in these drops continues to stay suspended for as long as 60 s. Our data is consistent with the experimental literature.25 Wearing even a simple cotton mask restricts the spatial transport of droplets (Figure 2, bottom panel). Large droplets (> 4 µm) are trapped by the mask while smaller droplets are transported by the flows through the surface of the mask and through the openings on the sides. At t = 0.4 s, droplet ejecta is transported over less than 0.3 m (as compared to well over 2 m, without a mask). Thus, large droplets are trapped by the mask while the damping of the turbulent flow field by the mask leads to smaller droplets being transported only over relatively short distances. Flow through the openings around the mask convects small droplets along the face, in contrast to the case without a mask.
 
Yawn. More peer reviewed, empirical evidence for you to dismiss.

TL; DR Version: Masks reduce the amount and distance of expelled particles



On the utility of cloth facemasks for controlling ejecta during respiratory events

SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, infects cells in the upper respiratory system. Transmission of Covid-19 is currently believed18,19,20 to happen primarily through shedding of virus particles in droplets ejected as infected people speak, cough or sneeze, or through contact with viable infective virus deposited on surfaces. When people cough or sneeze21 (or even simply talk loudly22,23), they eject droplets of mucosal fluid. Large droplets ~O(100 µm) fall due to gravity and, under no wind conditions, are transported over lateral distances of the order of 1 m. However, turbulent flows resulting from violent expulsions during sneezing or coughing suspend finer droplets and transport them over large distances, of the order of 7-8 m.24,25,26 Therefore, it has been suggested that transmission of infection through fine droplets be investigated.27,28,29 The effect of surgical masks and N95 respirators on airflows (but not spread of droplet ejecta) during expiratory events has been experimentally imaged.30 Here, we employ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to address the influence of homemade face masks on the turbulent clouds that result due to sneezing events, and on the lateral extent of spread of ejecta. Our emphasis is on understanding the effect of face masks in altering the flow field and droplet dispersion due to the respiratory event.

Wearing a mask has a significant impact on the spread of cough ejecta. We observe the time dependent trajectories of large and small droplets with time from the respiratory event (Figure 2). Without a mask (Figure 2, top panel), large drops are not convected by the flow and rapidly fall to the ground: drops > 200 µm fall within a lateral distance of 0.2 m, while drops > 125 µ m extend to about 2 m (SI, Figure S6). In contrast to the large drops, smaller drops (< 25 µ m in size) are convected by the turbulent cloud. They shrink in size as their water content is completely evaporated, and are transported to significant distances, as far as 5 m from the face (SI, Figure S7). We observe that the non-volatile content in these drops continues to stay suspended for as long as 60 s. Our data is consistent with the experimental literature.25 Wearing even a simple cotton mask restricts the spatial transport of droplets (Figure 2, bottom panel). Large droplets (> 4 µm) are trapped by the mask while smaller droplets are transported by the flows through the surface of the mask and through the openings on the sides. At t = 0.4 s, droplet ejecta is transported over less than 0.3 m (as compared to well over 2 m, without a mask). Thus, large droplets are trapped by the mask while the damping of the turbulent flow field by the mask leads to smaller droplets being transported only over relatively short distances. Flow through the openings around the mask convects small droplets along the face, in contrast to the case without a mask.
🤡 masks dont work
 
So... you're no different than the government?

Spend money on pork that doesn't do you a lot of good in the long run?

If pork barrel pork subsidies help get the pork prices low enough for McDonalds to have a fire sale on McRibs, I'll support it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top