Bluegrasscard

Apologies. Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513410/ From above: Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test. Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

I think 0 for 455 is rare.

So, in theory, you MAY. So to start with you have to be a) infected and b) asymptomatic. Both are very, very rare things. Though its thrown around like half the population is Typhoid Marys. Also very rare is asymptomatic transmission (in any setting) and public transmission (vs home transmission). The whole scenario that masks supposedly protect society is based on a chain of extremely unlikely things all occurring. Its a scenerio that seems almost unattainable. Could it happen - of course, in theory. Are the odds 25% or .0000025%? Probably a lot closer to the later.

The original report cited by the podium people that was used to create the original uproar about 'asymptomatic' had to be updated. The asymptomatic person (that was never directly interviewed in the original) later confirmed she was symptomatic. There are now other studies where they have confirmed that "asymptomatic" people hardly, if ever, are carriers. References: April WHO update with reference to asymptomatic xmit Study 455 contacts 0 xmits The logic is simple. If you have a strong enough immune system to contain the virus from causing symptoms, then the virus is not likely multiplying heavily in your system or the new copies are getting handled as they break out of the host cells. As always, a strong immune system is your best defense at any age.

This could make the chaos of 1975 in Jefferson County look mild.

Transparency would (or should) be helpful. "Cases" without a descriptor adjective is not a useful metric. "Verified active infections" each week would be more useful.

Throw LexCath in as a possibility.

When you do the math remember that "cases" is a positive test - not a person. Positive tested people will have follow-up testing that is also positive. So CASES > People infected. Somewhat amazing that the number of actual people infected is not a statistic that is released.

Its the cancel culture of today. Once the accusation is made, regardless of truth or fact or history the decision makers are put under the microscope and hounded to "fix it", even if its not broken. Specifically to Boyle County, in 10 years of being a parent of kids from a rival school I can not ever recall anything tied to a Confederate legacy.

Not even close since a 50% is the acceptable (according to the FDA) "protection rate" threshold of those who do take the vaccine. So if half take the wonder vaccine then only 25% will be protected and 75% will not be. Lets say 2/3s take it - probably an unrealistic target but lets give it a go. 33% protected 66% not. Are these acceptable to return to "normal" and full contact sports?

Define "case". Use this as reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODiOgHu6bQI

100% is not a statistically realistic number for hundreds of testing sites by any stretch. The metrics coming of out of Florida may be grossly (order of magnitude) flawed. Especially when antigen tests results are added to the "positive case' count.

It seems things are getting interesting in Florida. Hundreds of testing sites with 100% positive tests (cases). And as of July 1, Orange county started reporting those who test positive for antigen as new cases. Other states have been doing this for some time now.

What really slows down infectious disease in the summer is sunlight. Sunlight keeps vitamin-D levels up in people. In the winter so many more people of all ages are vitamin-D deficient. Its amazing to see the debates on this subject. Here is a pro-VitD article. You can find ones claiming the link is untrue as well. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vitamin-d-deficiency-may-raise-risk-of-getting-covid19

The science thus far says asymptomatic carriers rarely transmit the virus. The apparent new term is "pre-symptomatic" which should just be a subset of "asymptomatic". But it seems to the new fad. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?__twitter_impression=true "From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual," Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO's emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency's Geneva headquarters. "It's very rare." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/ 455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research. ... No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.

Everytime I look at data I get more frustrated. Stumbled onto this site tonight. Gee-whiz graphics, state by state break-out, etc. Then I look at Kentucky and it says we have 19,653 Cases 422,232 Negative tests 441,885 Total TESTS (Emphasis added) So the math is easy above. And from the math it certainly appears Cases == Positive Test A positive testing PERSON will most certainly have multiple tests done on them. Thus the number of "cases" is not a number of people at all. The number of people who actually test positive would be somewhat less than that. How much less? Who knows? Someone does. But if you like numbers, here is another site. https://covidtracking.com/data

Seems it drops off outside the metros. Jessamine swings from 80/20 to 20/80. It will go back to 80/20 after 5 tonight and then drop off by next weekend.

I think most healthy people tolerate a mask well for some period of time. For us, the Mrs. has put in three days at the office (medical/dental admin/academics) each time comes home with headache and nausea for a couple of hours. Its a 'discomfort' that extends well beyond the period when just wearing the mask. She has history of asthma but not had any active treatment in decades, nothing that has been issue for decades. Source or cause? Hard to say. Son works in warehouse environment, tolerates it well and seems to be like your experience. But he still like to take it off when in his private office - "so I can breath". I am not saying masks are inherently dangerous to all. They do change your pulmonary activity though. And that change can be simple discomfort, longer lasting effects such as above or, at times, the trigger of something more serious. The study points out, completely healthy people usually have systems that can and do compensate for the change. Some people have conditions that limit or prevent compensating for the change and create a more substantial risk. People should be aware of that. Policy makers should be aware and sensitive to that. But it seems easier to label people as "selfish" by some.

Very. Practicing medicine with no knowledge.

So from how you phrased this it sounds like its "uncomfortable" every time you work. So I will ask - when do you know that the "uncomfortable-ness" (a definitive indication that your physiological system is under some sort of stress) has become some sort of injury?

Seems to be a statistic the CDC does not care about. The most well known case is the two Chinese students. Though they refuse to say it was "because" of the mask. There is also potential unrecoverable long term damage potential.

This analyzed at rest and with exercise/activity. Somewhere in-between is the trip to the grocery. I do not think they would use the term 'dangerous' in the study. They did cite this: The data of this study are obtained in healthy young volunteers, the impairment is likely to be significantly greater, e.g., in patients with obstructive pulmonary diseases [18]. From our data, we conclude that wearing a medical face mask has a significant impact on pulmonary parameters both at rest and during maximal exercise in healthy adults. The point is that masks are now this apparent magic solution and being shoved onto the public. Like shutting down businesses, the downside is ignored though it is very real for some level of people. People should understand masks have an impact on your physiology and to be mindful of the risks and issues associated with masks. And those with higher responsibilities should not advertise this a some sort of silver bullet that carries zero risk.

Science..... 3 days old. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/ This first randomized cross-over study assessing the effects of surgical masks and FFP2/N95 masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity yields clear results. Both masks have a marked negative impact on exercise parameters such as maximum power output (Pmax) and the maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max/kg). FFP2/N95 masks show consistently more pronounced negative effects compared to surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduce pulmonary parameters at rest (FVC, FEV1, PEF) and at maximum load (VE, BF, TV). Furthermore, wearing the masks was perceived as very uncomfortable with a marked effect on subjective breathing resistance with the FFP2/N95 mask. Conclusion Medical face masks have a marked negative impact on cardiopulmonary capacity that significantly impairs strenuous physical and occupational activities. In addition, medical masks significantly impair the quality of life of their wearer. These effects have to be considered versus the potential protective effects of face masks on viral transmissions. The quantitative data of this study may, therefore, inform medical recommendations and policy makers.

No football at any level is the mostly likely outcome. Since the "kick-off" is normally the HS level its hard to see the HS level in any state committing to a season, sadly.

It is home made - its not a double blind study. But it points out - that even though she was 'testing' the O2 saturation, and yes - it did remain high, she cited the high heart rates and noted (properly) this is excess CO2 the body wants to eliminate. I have an O2/BPM monitor coming tomorrow. Should be interesting. Of course the Apple watch records heart rate. The O2 has received a lot of press. The elavated heart rate - less so. And the reason for the elevated rate is notable.