Again, too much focus on the act of flying - not enough on the inherently bad idea of moving people between disparate populations.
Australia. Who has less cases during the entire pandemic than the United States has added Every. Single. Day. since June 9th.
as much as I believe some of the studies re: covid/air travel, seems like these opinion pieces are really getting pushed out there and I am sure the airlines are behind some of them.
LETS JUST COMPLETELY IGNORE THE UNITED STATES HAS AND OUTBREAK AN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T. These fucking Ghouls are desperate to "get this economy going" but have no interest in containing the virus
and more macro view, they are still trying to convince folks its OK for large gatherings in closed, indoor spaces....on top of the unique airflow circumstances airplanes present.
It's so fucking dangerous and dumb with studies that don't apply to the united states, and then they call it an "Opinion Piece" to skirt liability. Fucking pieces of shit
Again, the data is from Australia. Their fucking cases per million population is 779. The lowest state in our country is Hawaii at 1,951. They don't allow international travel either since March 20th-ish, can't nail down the exact date from the news. So let me do some MIT level math real quick. In a system where there are 779 cases per million, average plane capacity is between 150-200 (I'll call it 200 from here). 200/1,000,000=0.0002 or .02%*779=0.1558 average covid passengers on an Australian plane. Let's get to one passenger, that would require 6.4 full planes (1280 passengers). Then you have to be within 6 feet of someone we'll say to risk exposure. We'll take a middle aisle seat, which has this layout-ish: x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x that's 20/30 seats within my guesstimated 6' range. So you only get 20 out of 200 possible passengers on a full plane. The chances of the 1 infected passenger on one of the 6.4 full planes sitting within 6' of you is pretty low. Let's do America. 15,103 cases per million. 0.02%*15,103= 3.0206. So every plane in the USA has 3 average infections. Now you have a significant chance of someone sitting within 6' of you that has it, depending on how they are spread around the cabin. We'll just spread them evenly, so that means there are 60 seats of a possible 200, 30%. If there wasn't a mask mandate (is there one? looking at you, Zodiac Cruz), the chances of catching this on a plane would be worrisome. I am a designer, not a mathematician, someone correct me on any of the above and I'll edit.
Can't find the tweet but someone very accurately pointed out that it's either him or Bolsonaro who is always the sickest person in the world.
Seems light. We've given boomers & Qtards ARs and they are just sandy hook'ing us about 40-50x ever day
Wtf? 96% of child abuse incidences are perpetrated by someone the child knows. Following this logic, we all need to lock our kids up in solitary confinement. On top of that, I've never seen nose and mouth shape listed on an amber alert. As if there's no other identifiers on the girl in the picture. They usually list height, weight, hair color, last known clothing.
School District has 90 Staff Members on Quarantine after meetings this week. Announced Virtual Learning for the fall and everyone is freaking out. Joined the "Protest" Facebook group to see what people are saying. Same stupid bullshit, Then a debate about wearing masks to the protest broke out.... Feel for these kids who can't get some time away from their idiot parents.
i think this is U.S. data supported by some Australian data extrapolation. Being on the plane is not the point, anyways, but I have read that planes use a type of air handling that is suited to prevent transmission.
I don't get this, medically. Suppose someone is sitting to my left or right or right behind me (thinking of the propelled direction of a cough/sneeze on this one), what is the air filtration going to do to stop their particles from reaching me?
First, I think it would be good to go read the MIT study and understand their assumptions. I don't know what they are, I haven't read it. I assume that masks make a difference. As for air handling, downward drafted air is much better than air that flows across. The idea is to make the air less turbulent and push airflow downward as much as possible.
I'm curious if Peterson was taking Hydroxychloroquine. They mentioned antivirals but didn't list specifics.
500k - 1.5M deaths before this thing is actually over aint looking too bad anymore. if anyone wants to go back 234324324 pages.
Indeed. The other one I'm seeing a lot is "We didn't shut down everything under Obama during H1N1 and that killed more people." This entire experience is a dystopian lesson in disinformation combined with idiocy. It takes a simple Google search to recognize the statistical difference between the two diseases.
Love the go-to distraction for the truthers is something that is designed to trigger an emotional response. It’s the same old thing, people vote with their hearts and not their heads. You are more likely to sway the unintelligent portion of the population with emotion rather than facts they don’t want to take the time to understand
There's quite a few logical fallicies in that image, starting with the presumption that kids wear a mask solely to save their life instead of decreasing community spread. I'm also curious how and where they developed that 60k x more likely number. I request a source from her but I won't hold my breath.
17% positive rate in early August. No matter how bad I suck at anything later on in life I'll be comforted by the fact I can't ever suck as bad as the Republican state and federal leaders did during this crisis
Some notable assumptions: Starts with assuming flights from a state (later just went with median) and measuring that state's last 7 days case average per capita. The numbers were from late June, pre pop-off. "air travelers are considerably less likely to be contagious than the citizenry as a whole." This is later explained because they are likely to be more affluent so less likely to have it. I counter that people who are traveling are at a higher risk of exposure (car transportation, hotel, business meetings) vs some poor person staying at home unemployed and unable to afford a flight. Yes, poor people are getting it more, but a little stretch to say travelers are affluent AND cautious to the point of 1/3 as likely to have covid. "All passengers are wearing masks" and further "Ignoring the possibility that the masks under study" (in a study where it found 82% reduction in transmission with a mask... which later the paper says "there were apparently some masked individuals in the studies that generated the equation" thus conferring some of the benefits of wearing a mask already. Fucky?) "were more effective than those worn by airline passengers." Uh-huh, people leave their fucking noses out all the time and wear less effective face coverings like bandanas. Delta lets you wear "cloth coverings," for example. And you're allowed to take off masks when eating or drinking. People will stretch this time out as long as possible to "catch their breath" or whatever. "we treat the risks associated with boarding the aircraft, leaving the aircraft, visiting the lavatory, and touching surfaces in the passenger cabin, as second-order effects" and that people who pass by you on their way to the lavatory, for example, won't infect you because of limited time to expose you. Cause apparently they don't sneeze or cough. "Lacking available studies about the benefit conferred by seatbacks, we make the estimate that they are about ¾ as effective as plexiglass" ??? There was something I can't find where it treated two in-range infected/contagious individuals as mutually exclusive. My math Those are the things that stand out. The airline air handling part means the paper assumes only those in your row and in the row in front and behind you are possible sources of infection. I'll accept that, that's reasonable. My x's chart from above assumes a fully booked flight with no masks, not what this paper was assuming. I'm paper'd out. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20143826v3.full.pdf+html
yeah, they definitely had to make assumptions to simplify. biggest criticism i would have is using late June data to make inferences about today. Just doesn't apply anymore. That's probably not their fault - these things take a while to analyze and then get published. But problematic for anyone trying to use it today.
"This estimate of Q would have increased by a factor of 1.6" if using mid-July data when the paper was written.
i was attacked for my prediction just a few months ago. pretty hard. and was told we were stopping at 60k deaths because models.