All things Corona Virus

[Boiler 46,117]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yes! What a sweet little town that was.  

 

Charlotte Tilbury has a brand new lip and cheek product out, so keep an eye out for that.  

Which cheeks?

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

25 minutes ago, laylalex said:

No kidding, now all my ads on this page are for lingerie all of a sudden. What is VJ trying to tell me????

maybe vj ad revenue thinks alex is a pile driver too?

[laylalex 7,300]

18 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Which cheeks?

These kind:

 

8 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

maybe vj ad revenue thinks alex is a pile driver too?

I think it knows I have drastically cut back on expenditure recently because there's nowhere to go and be dressed up, so now it's pushing.... interior-only clothing.

 

Oh god, I have hopelessly dragged this off topic now.  I'm so sorry. But it has done a lot for my mood.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

33 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Tell 'em to go to the Beauty Thread.

Maybe its my medicine,  but that was clever, witty and funny with just the right amount of snark. I think i will ask doc to adjust something 

[Boiler 46,117]

Good the other ones may not be VJ Family Friendly.

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

17 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

Oh god, I have hopelessly dragged this off topic now.  I'm so sorry. But it has done a lot for my mood.  

just one of many services we provide here at vj - besides giving lord alex a new nickname every week.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

59 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

just one of many services we provide here at vj - besides giving lord alex a new nickname every week.

Why am i now getting ads for whip cream chargers

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Why am i now getting ads for whip cream chargers

maybe your wife has a surprise for you?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

Just now, Ban Hammer said:

maybe your wife has a surprise for you?

Most of her surprises end badly 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

A  few quick points.

 

 

1. One week does not a trend make

2. You said that was as of Jul 4, . so not only did they not have all the data in as it usually  lags a few days, especially with a holiday.

3. Back in April and part of May we were testing a much greater percentage of people who had symptoms. So naturally .....

4. The red line is the  total number of people who tested positive. Since the last reporting period was not complete and there were over 1 million fewer test in the sample pool, quite naturally the number number of people who tested positive  is going to be lower. 

 

Snip from website in your link

 

Nationally, levels of influenza-like illness (ILI) and COVID-19-like illness (CLI) activity continue to increase overall. The percentage of specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, decreased slightly from last week; however, this past week included a holiday, which could impact both testing and reporting. Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed.

1. No one said anything about trends.

2. The CDC said as of Jul 4, not me.  (I'm sure all will understand that the shortened testing over the holiday week is why there are fewer cases)

3. I have no idea what you mean, nor if this is true.  It's just the numbers put out by the CDC.

4. Yes, the red line shows total cases.

 

All I did was put the CDC numbers in a visual format, and made zero inference about the numbers.  It's up to each of us to reach our own conclusions.  Any issues with the facts need to be taken up with the CDC, not the messenger, please and thank you.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

 

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

Refrigerated trucks requested in Arizona, Texas as morgues reach capacity amid COVID-19 surge

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/refrigerated-trucks-requested-in-arizona-texas-as-morgues-reach-capacity-amid-covid-19-surge

[Jody and Misho 99]

43 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Refrigerated trucks requested in Arizona, Texas as morgues reach capacity amid COVID-19 surge

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/refrigerated-trucks-requested-in-arizona-texas-as-morgues-reach-capacity-amid-covid-19-surge

CDC stats:

 

[yuna628 9,714]

7 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

 

 

 

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Read the following attached to the publication, as submitted by the authors after further review of their work.

 

Quote

CORRESPONDENCE

Universal Masking in the Covid-19 Era

TO THE EDITOR

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)¹ as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions.^2,3 Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not.⁴

We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.^5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.⁸ We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA

Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest.

This letter was published on June 3, 2020, at NEJM.org. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by yuna628

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Read the following attached to the publication, as submitted by the authors after further review of their work.

 

 

Notice how all the, this is a scam repeaters are rarely if ever medically trained