Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Lauren Leist
@Lauren_Leist
?
18h
80% of nursing home residents in Louisiana are vaccinated. The result is an all-time low in nursing home COVID deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. Vaccines save lives. #lagov
Oxford University is reportedly ready to begin testing a nasal spray version of the Covid-19 vaccine it developed with pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, according to documents seen by the Financial Times, which could help bring about a more accessible, needle-free version of the vaccine that is still held up as a leading hope for most of the world despite being plagued by numerous reputation-damaging controversies in Europe and the U.S..
KEY FACTS
Oxford University has begun searching for participants in the early-stage trial, the Financial TimesreportedThursday, which will take around four months to complete and could begin as early as next week.
The small trial, known as a Phase I trial, will test the vaccine?s safety ahead of potentially much larger trials to test efficacy.
The Oxford team is seeking around 30 healthy adults under the age of 40 to receive the vaccine, the Financial Times reported, citing a recruitment sheet it had obtained.
...
SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by viral load, S gene variants and demographic factors and the utility of lateral flow devices to prevent transmission
Posted April 05, 2021.
Lennard YW Lee, Stefan Rozmanowski, Matthew Pang, Andre Charlett, Charlotte Anderson, Gareth J Hughes, Matthew Barnard, Leon Peto, Richard Vipond, Alex Sienkiewicz, Susan Hopkins, John Bell, Derrick W Crook, Nick Gent, A Sarah Walker, Tim EA Peto, David W Eyre
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.31.21254687
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
...
Results 231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ?50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively.
Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ?50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases.
...
Background How SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect sensitivity is unknown.
Methods We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 01-September-2020 and 28-February-2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between PCR-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using one of four LFDs.
Results 231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ∼50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively.
Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ∼50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases.
Key points In 2,474,066 contacts of 1,064,004 SARS-CoV-2 cases, PCR-positive tests in contacts increased with higher index case viral loads, the B.1.1.7 variant and household contact. Children were less infectious. Lateral flow devices can detect 83.0-89.5% of infections leading to onward transmission.
### Competing Interest Statement
DWE declares lecture fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. LYWL declares speaker fees from the Merck group and Servier, outside the submitted work. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare.
### Funding Statement
This study was funded by the UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (NIHR200915), and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health or Public Health England. DWE is a Robertson Foundation Fellow and an NIHR Oxford BRC Senior Fellow. ASW is an NIHR Senior Investigator. LYWL is supported by the NIHR Oxford BRC.
### Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was conducted as part of national COVID-19 surveillance under the provisions of Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 and therefore did not require individual patient consent. It was approved by Public Health England (PHE), the UK COVID-19 LFD oversight group and NHS Test and Trace. The protocol for this work was reviewed by the PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group, which is the PHE Research Ethics Committee, and was found to be fully compliant with all regulatory requirements. As no regulatory or ethical issues were identified, it was agreed that a full ethical review would not be needed, and the protocol was approved.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The data are not publicly available given their scale and confidential nature.
In spite of pleading for more vaccines for MI through the media, Detroit's supply exceeds demand. I think trust is still gone thanks to the lead travesty.
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan said the city’s hospitals are starting to fill up with COVID-19 patients, and he’s worried about the “extremely low” vaccine rate.
I was hoping they would go to plan B - a big part of that being monoclonal antibodies so was thrilled to see this:
While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer may not be getting the surge of vaccines she asked for from Washington D.C., the state will be ramping up a specific antibody treatment for those who are sick.
LANSING, Mich. ? While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer may not be getting the surge of vaccines she asked for from Washington D.C., the state will be ramping up a specific antibody treatment for those who are sick.
Whitmer?s decision not to force further restrictions is getting support from state Republican leaders.
"...there’s an obvious contest that’s happening between different sectors of the colonial ruling class in this country. And they would, if they could, lump us into their beef, their struggle." ---- Omali Yeshitela, African People’s Socialist Party
(My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.) Never forget Excalibur.
Risk of rare blood clotting higher for COVID-19 than for vaccines
RESEARCHHEALTHCORONAVIRUS
COVID-19 leads to a several-times higher risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) blood clots than current COVID-19 vaccines.
Researchers at the University of Oxford have today reported that the risk of the rare blood clotting known as cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) following COVID-19 infection is around 100 times greater than normal, several times higher than it is post-vaccination or following influenza.
The study authors, led by Professor Paul Harrison and Dr Maxime Taquet from Oxford University?s Department of Psychiatry and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, counted the number of CVT cases diagnosed in the two weeks following diagnosis of COVID-19, or after the first dose of a vaccine. The then compared these to calculated incidences of CVT following influenza, and the background level in the general population.
They report that CVT is more common after COVID-19 than in any of the comparison groups, with 30% of these cases occurring in the under 30s. Compared to the current COVID-19 vaccines, this risk is between 8-10 times higher, and compared to the baseline, approximately 100 times higher.
The breakdown comparison for reported cases of CVT in COVID-19 patients in comparison to CVT cases in those who received a COVID-19 vaccine is:
In this study of over 500,000 COVID-19 patients, CVT occurred in 39 in a million patients.
In over 480,000 people receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), CVT occurred in 4 in a million.
CVT has been reported to occur in about 5 in a million people after first dose of the AZ-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine.
Compared to the mRNA vaccines, the risk of a CVT from COVID-19 is about 10 times greater.
Compared to the AZ-Oxford vaccine, the risk of a CVT from COVID-19 is about 8 times greater.
However, all comparisons must be interpreted cautiously since data are still accruing.
Paul Harrison, Professor of Psychiatry and Head of the Translational Neurobiology Group at the University of Oxford, said: ?There are concerns about possible associations between vaccines, and CVT, causing governments and regulators to restrict the use of certain vaccines. Yet, one key question remained unknown: ?What is the risk of CVT following a diagnosis of COVID-19??.
?We?ve reached two important conclusions. Firstly, COVID-19 markedly increases the risk of CVT, adding to the list of blood clotting problems this infection causes. Secondly, the COVID-19 risk is higher than we see with the current vaccines, even for those under 30; something that should be taken into account when considering the balances between risks and benefits for vaccination.?
Dr Maxime Taquet, also from the Translational Neurobiology Group, said: ?It?s important to note that this data should be interpreted cautiously, especially since the data on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine come from EMA monitoring, whereas the other data uses the TriNetX electronic health records network. However, the signals that COVID-19 is linked to CVT, as well as portal vein thrombosis ? a clotting disorder of the liver ? is clear, and one we should take note of.?
An important factor that requires further research is whether COVID-19 and vaccines lead to CVT by the same or different mechanisms. There may also be under-reporting or mis-coding of CVT in medical records, and therefore uncertainty as to the precision of the results.
Improving indoor ventilation and air quality will help us all to stay safe
Over a year into the covid-19 pandemic, we are still debating the role and importance of aerosol transmission for SARS-CoV-2, which receives only a cursory mention in some infection control guidelines.12
The confusion has emanated from traditional terminology introduced during the last century. This created poorly defined divisions between ?droplet,? ?airborne,? and ?droplet nuclei? transmission, leading to misunderstandings over the physical behaviour of these particles.3 Essentially, if you can inhale particles?regardless of their size or name?you are breathing in aerosols. Although this can happen at long range, it is more likely when close to someone, as the aerosols between two people are much more concentrated at short range, rather like being close to someone who is smoking.4
People infected with SARS-CoV-2 produce many small respiratory particles laden with virus as they exhale. Some of these will be inhaled almost immediately by those within a typical conversational ?short range? distance (<1 m), while the remainder disperse over longer distances to be inhaled by others further away (>2 m). Traditionalists will refer to the larger short range particles as droplets and the smaller long range particles as droplet nuclei, but they are all aerosols because they can be inhaled directly from the air.5
Why does it matter? For current infection control purposes, most of the time it doesn?t. Wearing masks, keeping your distance, and reducing indoor occupancy all impede the usual routes of transmission, whether through direct contact with surfaces or droplets, or from inhaling aerosols. One crucial difference, however, is the need for added emphasis on ventilation because the tiniest suspended particles can remain airborne for hours, and these constitute an important route of transmission.
If we accept that someone in an indoor environment can inhale enough virus to cause infection when more than 2 m away from the original source?even after the original source has left?then air replacement or air cleaning mechanisms become much more important.67 This means opening windows or installing or upgrading heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, as outlined in a recent WHO document.8 People are much more likely to become infected in a room with windows that can?t be opened or lacking any ventilation system.
A second crucial implication of airborne spread is that the quality of the mask matters for effective protection against inhaled aerosols. Masks usually impede large droplets from landing on covered areas of the face, and most are at least partially effective against inhalation of aerosols. However, both high filtration efficiency and a good fit are needed to enhance protection against aerosols because tiny airborne particles can find their way around any gaps between mask and face.910
If the virus is transmitted only through larger particles (droplets) that fall to the ground within a metre or so after exhalation, then mask fit would be less of a concern. As it is, healthcare workers wearing surgical masks have become infected without being involved in aerosol generating procedures.111213 As airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2 is fully recognised, our understanding of activities that generate aerosols will require further definition. Aerosol scientists have shown that even talking and breathing are aerosol generating procedures.141516
It is now clear that SARS-CoV-2 transmits mostly between people at close range through inhalation. This does not mean that transmission through contact with surfaces or that the longer range airborne route does not occur, but these routes of transmission are less important during brief everyday interactions over the usual 1 m conversational distance. In close range situations, people are much more likely to be exposed to the virus by inhaling it than by having it fly through the air in large droplets to land on their eyes, nostrils, or lips.17 The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.181920
Improved indoor air quality through better ventilation will bring other benefits, including reduced sick leave for other respiratory viruses and even environmentally related complaints such as allergies and sick building syndrome.2122 Less absenteeism?with its adverse effect on productivity?could save companies significant costs,23 which would offset the expense of upgrading their ventilation systems. Newer systems, including air cleaning and filtration technologies, are becoming ever more efficient.24
Covid-19 may well become seasonal, and we will have to live with it as we do with influenza.25 So governments and health leaders should heed the science and focus their efforts on airborne transmission. Safer indoor environments are required, not only to protect unvaccinated people and those for whom vaccines fail, but also to deter vaccine resistant variants or novel airborne threats that may appear at any time. Improving indoor ventilation and air quality, particularly in healthcare, work, and educational environments, will help all of us to stay safe, now and in the future.
Footnotes
Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: JWT has given talks on general aspects of covid-19 (including transmission) at meetings sponsored by Thea Pharmaceuticals, Thornton & Ross, Landsec, and is conducting a study funded by Sanofi Pasteur on the effect of timing of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers on their vaccine induced immunity. LCM does consultancy for CrossFit, MITRE Corporation, and Smiths Detection.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
Dr. Robert Redfield will advise on health and safety for the company behind the Haiku UV-C.
Big Ass Fans, the Kentucky-based maker of a virus-killing smart fan, is seeking to boost its COVID-19 credentials by adding the former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to its ranks.
In January, this country had the highest per capita covid case rate in the world. Today: 34 cases, 1 death, test positivity 0.7%. Wide open. Left B.1.1.7 in the dust. @OurWorldInData 4:07 PM ? Apr 16, 2021?Twitter Web
"...there’s an obvious contest that’s happening between different sectors of the colonial ruling class in this country. And they would, if they could, lump us into their beef, their struggle." ---- Omali Yeshitela, African People’s Socialist Party
(My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.) Never forget Excalibur.
Heneghan and colleagues' systematic review, funded by WHO, published in March, 2021, as a preprint, states: ?The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission?.1 This conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review's findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.
If an infectious virus spreads predominantly through large respiratory droplets that fall quickly, the key control measures are reducing direct contact, cleaning surfaces, physical barriers, physical distancing, use of masks within droplet distance, respiratory hygiene, and wearing high-grade protection only for so-called aerosol-generating health-care procedures. Such policies need not distinguish between indoors and outdoors, since a gravity-driven mechanism for transmission would be similar for both settings. But if an infectious virus is mainly airborne, an individual could potentially be infected when they inhale aerosols produced when an infected person exhales, speaks, shouts, sings, sneezes, or coughs. Reducing airborne transmission of virus requires measures to avoid inhalation of infectious aerosols, including ventilation, air filtration, reducing crowding and time spent indoors, use of masks whenever indoors, attention to mask quality and fit, and higher-grade protection for health-care staff and front-line workers.2 Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses is difficult to demonstrate directly.3 Mixed findings from studies that seek to detect viable pathogen in air are therefore insufficient grounds for concluding that a pathogen is not airborne if the totality of scientific evidence indicates otherwise. Decades of painstaking research, which did not include capturing live pathogens in the air, showed that diseases once considered to be spread by droplets are airborne.4 Ten streams of evidence collectively support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted primarily by the airborne route.5
...
First, superspreading events account for substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission; indeed, such events may be the pandemic's primary drivers.6 Detailed analyses of human behaviours and interactions, room sizes, ventilation, and other variables in choir concerts, cruise ships, slaughterhouses, care homes, and correctional facilities, among other settings, have shown patterns?eg, long-range transmission and overdispersion of the basic reproduction number (R0), discussed below?consistent with airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2 that cannot be adequately explained by droplets or fomites.6 The high incidence of such events strongly suggests the dominance of aerosol transmission.
Second, long-range transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between people in adjacent rooms but never in each other's presence has been documented in quarantine hotels.7 Historically, it was possible to prove long-range transmission only in the complete absence of community transmission.4
Third, asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from people who are not coughing or sneezing is likely to account for at least a third, and perhaps up to 59%, of all transmission globally and is a key way SARS-CoV-2 has spread around the world,8 supportive of a predominantly airborne mode of transmission. Direct measurements show that speaking produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets,9 which supports the airborne route.
Fourth, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is higher indoors than outdoors10 and is substantially reduced by indoor ventilation.5 Both observations support a predominantly airborne route of transmission.
Fifth, nosocomial infections have been documented in health-care organisations, where there have been strict contact-and-droplet precautions and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) designed to protect against droplet but not aerosol exposure.11
Sixth, viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air. In laboratory experiments, SARS-CoV-2 stayed infectious in the air for up to 3 h with a half-life of 1?1 h.12 Viable SARS-CoV-2 was identified in air samples from rooms occupied by COVID-19 patients in the absence of aerosol-generating health-care procedures13 and in air samples from an infected person's car.14 Although other studies have failed to capture viable SARS-CoV-2 in air samples, this is to be expected. Sampling of airborne virus is technically challenging for several reasons, including limited effectiveness of some sampling methods for collecting fine particles, viral dehydration during collection, viral damage due to impact forces (leading to loss of viability), reaerosolisation of virus during collection, and viral retention in the sampling equipment.3 Measles and tuberculosis, two primarily airborne diseases, have never been cultivated from room air.15
Seventh, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified in air filters and building ducts in hospitals with COVID-19 patients; such locations could be reached only by aerosols.16
Eighth, studies involving infected caged animals that were connected to separately caged uninfected animals via an air duct have shown transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that can be adequately explained only by aerosols.17
Ninth, no study to our knowledge has provided strong or consistent evidence to refute the hypothesis of airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Some people have avoided SARS-CoV-2 infection when they have shared air with infected people, but this situation could be explained by a combination of factors, including variation in the amount of viral shedding between infectious individuals by several orders of magnitude and different environmental (especially ventilation) conditions.18 Individual and environmental variation means that a minority of primary cases (notably, individuals shedding high levels of virus in indoor, crowded settings with poor ventilation) account for a majority of secondary infections, which is supported by high-quality contact tracing data from several countries.19, 20 Wide variation in respiratory viral load of SARS-CoV-2 counters arguments that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be airborne because the virus has a lower R0 (estimated at around 2?5)21 than measles (estimated at around 15),22 especially since R0, which is an average, does not account for the fact that only a minority of infectious individuals shed high amounts of virus. Overdispersion of R0 is well documented in COVID-19.23
Tenth, there is limited evidence to support other dominant routes of transmission?ie, respiratory droplet or fomite.9, 24 Ease of infection between people in close proximity to each other has been cited as proof of respiratory droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, close-proximity transmission in most cases along with distant infection for a few when sharing air is more likely to be explained by dilution of exhaled aerosols with distance from an infected person.9 The flawed assumption that transmission through close proximity implies large respiratory droplets or fomites was historically used for decades to deny the airborne transmission of tuberculosis and measles.15, 25 This became medical dogma, ignoring direct measurements of aerosols and droplets which reveal flaws such as the overwhelming number of aerosols produced in respiratory activities and the arbitrary boundary in particle size of 5 ?m between aerosols and droplets, instead of the correct boundary of 100 ?m.15, 25 It is sometimes argued that since respiratory droplets are larger than aerosols, they must contain more viruses. However, in diseases where pathogen concentrations have been quantified by particle size, smaller aerosols showed higher pathogen concentrations than droplets when both were measured.15
In conclusion, we propose that it is a scientific error to use lack of direct evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in some air samples to cast doubt on airborne transmission while overlooking the quality and strength of the overall evidence base. There is consistent, strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spreads by airborne transmission. Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant. The public health community should act accordingly and without further delay.
...
Votre article sugg?re que le taux de maladies nosocomiales dans les h?pitaux fran?ais doit ?tre tr?s haut et non g?rable .
Je suis surpris que les chiffres ne soient pas produit .
deux questions:
- l'?limination dans les airs de mat?riaux contamin?s par les avions est toujours autoris?, car cela semble le plus grand diffuseur sous certaines conditions climatiques d'une part , d'autre part cela peut supprimer toute d?marche de z?os covid en bien des lieux ?
- est-il pr?cis?, en bien des lieux, que le principal lieu, ? l'int?rieur ou le port du masque de qualit? , doit ?tre impos?, ce sont les toilettes ?
il faut de la coh?rence, dans les mesures, et produire les chiffres d'une part , d'autre part poser le cadre l?gal des situations :
Ce peut ?tre une maladie professionnelle dont les co?ts doivent ?tre support?s par l'employeur ou pas ?
je dis cela car , il y a bien des toilettes, public priv? , etc ?
Il existe encore des toilettes publiques ouvertes et elles sont g?r?es comment ?
"...there’s an obvious contest that’s happening between different sectors of the colonial ruling class in this country. And they would, if they could, lump us into their beef, their struggle." ---- Omali Yeshitela, African People’s Socialist Party
(My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.) Never forget Excalibur.
MIT researchers say you?re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies
PUBLISHED FRI, APR 23 202112:15 PM EDTUPDATED 58 MIN AGO
Rich Mendez
...
The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet ? even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.
...
Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.
?We argue there really isn?t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks,? Bazant said in an interview. ?It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you?re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.?
The important variable the CDC and the WHO have overlooked is the amount of time spent indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is inside with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.
Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could also be just as effective or more effective than spending large amounts of money on a new filtration system, he said.
...
?The distancing isn?t helping you that much and it?s also giving you a false sense of security because you?re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you?re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually,? he noted.
Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.
...
Posted the 04/26/2021 10:20 PM
Update the 04/27/2021 12:06 AM
Article written by
C. Rougerie, C. Colnet, K. Lempereur, M. Mouamma, A.Lo Cascio, H. Horoks - France 2
France Televisions
20 hours
Monday, April 26, 2021 edition
On Monday April 26, more than 14 million French people received a first dose of a vaccine against Covid- 19. Is vaccination a sufficient provision to get out of the epidemic?
More than a year after the start of the Covid- 19 epidemic , the initial strain of the virus has been replaced by other more problematic variants: the British , the Brazilian, the South African and now the Indian, which caused considerable damage, especially in New Delhi. These variants thwart plans for an exit from the epidemic.
" The virus has an interest in mutating to circulate better within populations. We know that we are not 100% effective, " explains Doctor Benjamin Davido , infectious disease specialist at Raymond Poincar? Hospital.
A race against time
Current vaccines are effective against the British variant, but less against South Africans and Brazilians. A loss of effectiveness which is explained by the characteristics of the virus: " When a large part of the population begins to be immunized either by natural disease or by vaccination, so-called escape variants appear ", explains Professor Yves Buisson, epidemiologist and member of the Academy of Medicine. It is a race against time that must be waged on several fronts. "The entire population should be able to be vaccinated quickly, but during this time necessary to vaccinate a large number of people, barrier procedures must be strictly applied, vaccination alone will not be enough ", explains Anne Goffard, virologist at the CHU de Lille (North).
Vous vous ?tes fourvoy? depuis le d?but . Les chinois ont tout ?crit . Leur syst?me m?dical a des d?fauts il est hyper concentr?. Donc , dans le cas d'une maladie nosocomiale , il permet l'explosion , ce qui s'est produit ? Wuhan. Que le virus vienne de l? ou d'ailleurs est un autre question.
En revanche quand le C.D.C chinois sur ordre de la plus haute autorit? nationale est intervenu , ce C.D.C s'est comport? pour ce virus comme pour un virus ebola, donc il a fait le m?nage des h?pitaux et fait tomber les t?tes des politiques qui avaient faut? .
En France , il ne faut pas confiner il faut nettoyer les syst?mes m?dicaux . Donc en zone contamin?e , seule la t?l? m?decine est possible , et pour les h?pitaux , la production du taux de maladies nosocomiales doit ?tre l'objectif en tout lieu et pour toujours.
Quand un h?pital redevient disponible pour autre chose que le covid et donc que le personnel et toutes les proc?dures sont en oeuvre , on ouvre plus .
Cette maladie c'est d'abord la maladie d'un syst?me m?dical obsol?te ...
Ces mauvaises vaccinations sont de mauvais outils qui ne donnent aucun vrai espoir , car elles compliquent de beaucoup l'assainissement du syst?me de sant? .
Si les m?decins s'engagent ? faire le m?nage en leur sein et le prouver, l? tout devient possible ...
J'ai re?u ceci hier : France 67 M habitants 30 000 covid hospitalis?s
Normandie 3,3 M habitants 1600 covid hospitalis?s
Seine-Maritime 1,2M habitants 720 covid hospitalis?s
Rouen agglom?ration 498 000 habitants 260 covid hospitalis?s
Le Havre agglom?ration 270 000 habitants 67 covid hospitalis?s
Dieppe agglom?ration 47 000 habitants 60 covid hospitalis?s
F?camp agglom?ration 39 000 habitants 10 covid hospitalis?s
Si on prend Le Havre comme base on devrait avoir au Havre
120 malades si Le Havre ?tait comme la moyenne de la France
130 par rapport ? la Normandie, 160 par rapport ? la Seine Maritime,
140 par rapport ? Rouen, 344 par rapport ? Dieppe et 62 par rapport ? F?camp.
il y a donc des m?decins de terrain sur le pont et les faits sont l? , les hospitaliers se bougent quand ?
Tweet
Comment