But the article goes on to say that "common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony"
But what I found interesting about the article (and it is long read) is his hypotheses on mode of transmission. Which is the "direct ballistic delivery of a large-droplet Flüggian payload from face A to face B" and that means that interventions like the "expanded use of masks and social distancing is critical" And we should also speak softly, avoid “coughing, blowing and sneezing,” or exhibiting any kind of agitated respiratory state in public, and angle their mouths downward when speaking."
But he does warn that he is a Computer Scientist rather than having any medical background.
The author seems to ignore the obvious confounding factor here of selection bias -- super spreader events all seem to deal with people who are in the same social circles rather than outside them, as would be the case in public transportation, movie theaters, gyms, etc. The reason being that events with people in social socials are readily traceable to an infected individual attending, whereas contact tracing for anonymous infection in a shared area is much more difficult.
Even diseases with low transmissibility are known to be disseminated by public transit, such as tuberculosis.
I didn't get the sense that he was claiming any kind of authority, and he was pretty up front about selection bias. He wrote:
> I am not an epidemiologist, let alone a virologist. And the data I am working with is substandard anyway, as there are all sorts of obvious selection biases at play, including the editorial biases of the journalists on whom I rely for local reports.
Adding a disclaimer like this to the middle rather than all the places in the article where they might be implying that SSEs only occur in certain documented situations is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst, in my opinion.
Is it really disingenuous at best? Like you think the best case scenario is that this guy is being insincere. I sincerely think this approach of just assuming bad faith is not useful.
The articles elaborate. In Japan and Singapore contract tracing is much easier,
Japan
> Less than two weeks later, she tested positive for the virus, and the authorities swiftly alerted others who had been at the club. As more infections soon emerged from three other music venues in the city, officials tested concertgoers and their close contacts, and urged others to stay home. All told, 106 cases were linked to the clubs, and nine people are still hospitalized.
Singapore
> Singapore's biggest cluster of Covid-19 patients, traced to a restaurant in Jurong, had more than just a dinner in common, said Ministry of Health director of medical services Kenneth Mak yesterday.
> "We've recognised that many of the individuals linked to this particular group of people getting infected had many common social activities," said Associate Professor Mak, pointing to other gatherings such as singing classes that infected individuals had taken part in together.
> "So, in fact, their social interactions went well beyond the dinner in that particular location, and as a result of those close activities... that's where the spread is actually occurring," he said.
Washington was at a choir, where everyone would have known each other
> Health officials said all 28 choir members who were tested for COVID-19 were found to be infected. The other 17 with symptoms never got tested, either because tests were not available or — like Comstock and Owen — the singers were under the impression that only people in dire condition were eligible.
I think more importantly, it's much easier to pull a list of people attending a particular concert or other ticketed mass gathering, compared to getting a recursive enumeration of people whose paths intersected with any of a set of suspected people on mass transit during the course of a couple of days.
Well, I'd say there's a big difference between sitting silently in chairs at an opera or symphony and standing/moshing/yelling loudly in extremely crowded quarters at a rock concert.
I get that, and the comment I was replying to was specifically refuting the "ballistic droplets" theory in favor of a "confounding variable" of them just happening to be in the same social circles.
High risk for mortality, yes. But are they higher risk for actually catching the bug when exposed? I don't think anyone knows that.
I'm not even sure how you could come up with numbers on how much viral exposure is needed to infect someone, short of controlled experiments with volunteers. The odds of killing a few volunteers seems pretty damn high, especially if you are testing with more vulnerable folks to establish a differential estimate. That's not a study I'd want to be involved in on either side of the clipboard.
Just hypothesizing as well, but I think he might have it backwards. I'm not convinced you'll get magnitudes more virus in the ambient air from singing. But as a receiver if you're mouth breathing and taking deep breaths you're extra vulnerable. Nose hair is pretty effective
>or exhibiting any kind of agitated respiratory state in public
The only sizable population of people that I still see out in public that aren't wearing masks are joggers. I wonder if and when we will put a stop to that.
This would also explain why many people are asymptomatic. They are still getting exposed but with a much lower viral load. Maybe the best "vaccine" here is just the lowest possible microdose of the coronavirus. We really should be looking at all the asymptomatic or low symptoms folks and figuring out what they have in common with one another. I would bet you it's just very low exposure, which gives the body more time to develop antibodies and mount a defense instead of the immune system being overwhelmed before it can adequately develop antibodies.
It is a bit more complex, old farming methods need to change as well, but not as much as Corp farming. This video explains regenerative farming which restores the soul and captures carbon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_NtNyvOyRM
It looks like there is something very rotten recently about the culture of Boeing. I wonder if any of it is due to the HQ been moved away from the engineering base in Seattle to Chicago?
If people working in your quality managment quit because they have issues squaring current behaviour with their conscience, you have a real cultural problem.
There are a number of tax breaks for foreigners, meaning effectively if you have not live in Portugal for 5 years you do not pay hardly any tax. This is dependent on you getting good advice.
It really worries me about if we know the implications of the algorithms that are been used. I don't think that this is what FB intended, but more thought needs to be given to affects of algorithms.
I think the tie between the protests and the algorithm changes are tenuous at best. Who can say if the protests would have happened without Facebook? Paris and France have a long history of protests besides.
“Normal stuff happens due to Facebook” should really be the onion take here.
Suppose there’s a headline “50% of birthday parties are planned on Facebook” - does that mean Facebook is suddenly responsible for all those birthday parties? Or are they normal events that happen to be planned on Facebook these days?
Facebook has changed people's behaviour. The amount of people that wish me well on my birthday has greatly increased due to Facebook making it is easier to do so. On the other hand Facebook has made it easier to spread information. With this increase in power does the platform have an extra responsibility ?
Maybe you can try to explain
why, but Adamm Smith who defined the concept of Monopoly would disagree with you. The purpose of the government is to stop firms ever being able to create one.This means before a monopoly is created.
> Why not break them up with identical tech stack to start off with
Now we’re arbitrarily drawing lines. Platform-service separation, on the other hand, has precedent. (As does gobbling up up-and-coming competitors, as Facebook did with Instagram and WhatsApp.)
Because whichever identical tech stack got the domain name Google.com would win. Do you know if Google is even the best search engine anymore? If Bing had gotten better would you know? Most people wouldn't.
But what I found interesting about the article (and it is long read) is his hypotheses on mode of transmission. Which is the "direct ballistic delivery of a large-droplet Flüggian payload from face A to face B" and that means that interventions like the "expanded use of masks and social distancing is critical" And we should also speak softly, avoid “coughing, blowing and sneezing,” or exhibiting any kind of agitated respiratory state in public, and angle their mouths downward when speaking."
But he does warn that he is a Computer Scientist rather than having any medical background.