FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Interesting viewpoint

Jump to newest
 

By *rank59 OP   Man
over a year ago

Northwich

A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham

Not sure any of that is surprising or particularly new information? Lack of outside transmission cases has been mentioned a few times eg after the packed beaches a couple of times last summer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reenleavesCouple
over a year ago

North Wales

I just read that article and it does go on to say the the CDC admit that there was limited data available on outdoor transmission at the time of writing the report. They based it on a study from Singapore that took an average of indoor and outdoor transmission at a building site.

I don't think this is a case of the government trying to hoodwink the public. More one of them making a conservative judgement call based on the best information available at the time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *traight_no_iceMan
over a year ago

Stoke

I read about it but the thing is even the ones who criticize do not know what is the transmisson rate.

The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%.

What is it then? 1% or .1%?

As for there is no documented case, how can they be so sure?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank59 OP   Man
over a year ago

Northwich

All valid points. As I said Not saying it's gospel or 100% correct.

It does make some valid points about interpreting the available info and how you make conclusions.

Reality is no one fully knows and we may never fully know.

"Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

Half empty or half full viewpoint?

I am not a fan of Boris but now is not the time (IMHO) to be having a go at the government or the scientists. They do what they can with the info they have.

Eventually it can be looked at. What I found interesting in the article was the questioning of looking at the data.

" What is it then 1% or 0.1%?"

Isn't that the point? We don't know. Only that it appears to be a lot less then the 10% stated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"All valid points. As I said Not saying it's gospel or 100% correct.

It does make some valid points about interpreting the available info and how you make conclusions.

Reality is no one fully knows and we may never fully know.

"Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

Half empty or half full viewpoint?

I am not a fan of Boris but now is not the time (IMHO) to be having a go at the government or the scientists. They do what they can with the info they have.

Eventually it can be looked at. What I found interesting in the article was the questioning of looking at the data.

" What is it then 1% or 0.1%?"

Isn't that the point? We don't know. Only that it appears to be a lot less then the 10% stated."

As I say, as far as the UK is concerned, I don't think anyone was ever working on an assumption of anything like 10% anyway.

American understanding might be a bit behind us on this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank59 OP   Man
over a year ago

Northwich

"American understanding might be a bit behind us on this."

Could well be.

Also there are so many factors that vary from country to country that could make a significant difference to transmission etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reenleavesCouple
over a year ago

North Wales

Another factor is that they're talking about an average. If you're face to face with someone with the virus and having a long chat together a couple of feet apart then that poses a higher risk than if you're passing them in the street.

If we say that passing in the street or standing in a queue outside carries a 1% risk. And chatting with a mate in a beer garden for an hour carries a 20% risk (all guesswork) then obviously you need to average that out to give an outdoor transmission figure. And then to cover themselves, they need to err on the side of caution and present a semi-worst case scenario.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.""

In reality, it is VERY difficult to actually pinpoint the moment that someone gets infectected, so any figures produced without doing a controlled experiment would be speculative, this includes those figures in the article stating "The actual risk" is...

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.""

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.""

A bit like the "ban" on mobile phones on garage forecourts. Total worldwide explosions caused by this...= 0. Is it still a "risk"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imes_berksMan
over a year ago

Bracknell


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C"

At holiday resorts they have netting to stop the sharks getting to the beaches. Think of them as face masks for the beaches

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

A bit like the "ban" on mobile phones on garage forecourts. Total worldwide explosions caused by this...= 0. Is it still a "risk"?"

The actual reason for the ban was nothing to do with explosions. In the early days of mobile phones, there was a quirk where their strong radio transmitter would interfere with the electronics in the fuel pumps... giving you free fuel. If they told people the real reason, everyone would have been doing it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

A bit like the "ban" on mobile phones on garage forecourts. Total worldwide explosions caused by this...= 0. Is it still a "risk"?

The actual reason for the ban was nothing to do with explosions. In the early days of mobile phones, there was a quirk where their strong radio transmitter would interfere with the electronics in the fuel pumps... giving you free fuel. If they told people the real reason, everyone would have been doing it. "

Oh do come along. Pull the other one.

No phones are not dangerous at pumps, no they have never caused an accident.

But you've gone too far making stuff up about free fuel. A step too far there. Damaged your credibility with me you have.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

A bit like the "ban" on mobile phones on garage forecourts. Total worldwide explosions caused by this...= 0. Is it still a "risk"?

The actual reason for the ban was nothing to do with explosions. In the early days of mobile phones, there was a quirk where their strong radio transmitter would interfere with the electronics in the fuel pumps... giving you free fuel. If they told people the real reason, everyone would have been doing it.

Oh do come along. Pull the other one.

No phones are not dangerous at pumps, no they have never caused an accident.

But you've gone too far making stuff up about free fuel. A step too far there. Damaged your credibility with me you have. "

When i worked for BP part of the training even said there has never been a fire caused by a mobile phone, we still was told not to turn the pump on if somone was on their phone though because of a fire risk though lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ewfie02Couple
over a year ago

Ayrshire


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C"

I am surprised that the government hasn't banned swimming. Can't have people dying because of shark attacks. I mean what if everyone went swimming at the same time? The NHS would be overwhelmed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

A bit like the "ban" on mobile phones on garage forecourts. Total worldwide explosions caused by this...= 0. Is it still a "risk"?

The actual reason for the ban was nothing to do with explosions. In the early days of mobile phones, there was a quirk where their strong radio transmitter would interfere with the electronics in the fuel pumps... giving you free fuel. If they told people the real reason, everyone would have been doing it.

Oh do come along. Pull the other one.

No phones are not dangerous at pumps, no they have never caused an accident.

But you've gone too far making stuff up about free fuel. A step too far there. Damaged your credibility with me you have. "

It's actually true, there were even companies selling little hand held radio transmitters for this very reason (you would see the adverts in the back of newspapers with the "sex-line" adverts). Obviously they soon fixed the pumps to stop it happening.

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank59 OP   Man
over a year ago

Northwich

I used to work for Marconi Comms on the system for the fuel pumps. I can confirm it was a problem Gilbarco the other system used (and now could be the only one) had similar problems to start with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *omewhatSlightlyDazedMan
over a year ago

Warwick Birmingham & YamYamLand


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C

I am surprised that the government hasn't banned swimming. Can't have people dying because of shark attacks. I mean what if everyone went swimming at the same time? The NHS would be overwhelmed. "

Imagine if all the buildings with unsafe cladding were to go up in smoke... Oh wait, not covid so not important to this government.

On another note, the vaccine rollout is going fantastic, makes up for all the dithering and dallying for the first 12 months of the pandemic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’m just utterly amazed at how when outside the wind blows pollen into my face and sets of my hay fever but magically blows covid particles away....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C

Stop

At holiday resorts they have netting to stop the sharks getting to the beaches. Think of them as face masks for the beaches "

Stop these evil buggers..

Time to fight back ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

We've had to work on the fly a lot, since January 2020, determining things as we went along. Most people were probably doing their best. We were ignorant pretty much and some aspects were slower to reap rewards, with authoritative data that could really shape policy that had a solid grounding in reality.

It was very tough for the CDC until the end of 2020, because of the administration. Often politics shaped policy and advice. In research evidence reporting, it's easy to provide the limitations of your evidence, qualifying it and using accepted statistical certainty methods etc. Sadly the media and politicians will often not be scientifically that competent and will dumb down uncertainty etc, to produce something that fits their own narrative.

A distorted, generalisation can easily become a self-propogating myth, that continues without it ever having any truth. We use less than 10% of our brains, is 1 of them, for example.

The problem for the CDC and the USA generally, is that this virus is so destructive, that small policy errors or inappropriate advice could have substantial impacta on lives lost, quality of life, the economy etc.

People also believe what they want, often when the evidence contradicts it. Changing opinions can be tough work.

With an issue where evidence is hard to come by, this absence of evidence can be a major problem, as doubters with an opinion will demand evidence to even start to consider whether their opinions may benefit from revision.

Ever day in the forum you will see someone's argument that you will think is not based on facts or evidence. People are difficult creatures

The experts will likely be able to model the liklihoods of infections in multiple conditions, including outdoors and inside. It's different to being able to detail any 1 infection to having been caught outside. You can have statistical probabilities. Plus we're probably much more accurate with them today, than at the start of last year.

The CDC was relieved of funding and expertise at the wrong times. Coincidentally, the prominence of populism is their politics, wanting to drive home very simple messages - with many of the target public wanting it that way, likely helped to foment inaccuracies, falsehoods and the potential for danger. Even political rallies inside were held in ways that ignored the evidence of how safety was better fostered.

We can each learn lessons from such past experiences and hope to improve the lives of others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"A US friend of mine posted this today.

I found it interesting(please read the article in the link). I do not say it's 'gospel'. More an interesting thought on transmission:

"Today's NYTimes has one of what I think is the most significant articles I've seen on Covid in a long time. Indeed, I think folks should actually read it.

The long and the short? The US CDC's report of the transmission risk of '10% or less for outside exposure' is grossly exaggerated. The actual risk of contracting Covid from outdoors exposure is less than 1% and probably much less; as little as .1%. Moreover, there is no documented case in the world of outdoors transmission from casual short exposures.

(links not allowed but if you google 'the new york times A Misleading C.D.C. Number' you will find it)

There is a lot of interesting information in the article; particularly how small misunderstood statistical data pieces from one place can have profound distorted effects around the world. e.g.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

The point for me is, why do these sharks attack and how can they be stopped.? C

At holiday resorts they have netting to stop the sharks getting to the beaches. Think of them as face masks for the beaches "

And there's no evidence of sharks catching covid when people were swimming nearby, with those net 'masks' in use.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top