Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Covid-19 News/Info' started by thewitt, Jun 13, 2020.
Interesting chart. Curious about some of the thinking that went into this - for example, pontoon boat rides seems very specific.
I assume most of the activities depend on how the people at a location behave - wearing a mask or not, touching the same surfaces, etc.
Must be safe to protest, riot and loot as they are not listed! <sarc>
Just more “experts” guessing about stuff to see their name in print.
It is just a bunch of folks making crap up to try and fear monger more.
I've done things in the 6 - 8 range and nothing.
Hell I uber/lyft drive daily and yet nothing.
Camping is the same risk level as being inside grocery stores with a bunch of people? Playing at a playground is the same as being in a casino or movie theater, and higher than being stuck in an airplane with people? Public pools(which many experts have said are fairly low to medium risk) are a 7? No mention of subways/public transit? Either they're pushing a bias or just pulled it out of their butt.
If there were a major hurricane in the gulf, the same folks who put that chart together would suddenly become hurricane experts.
Airplanes = backyard bar b q's?
That doesn't sound right.
There literally isn't enough data to make the claims in this list valid.
The media and academia is one big fart sniffing circle any more.
You know what is riskier than going to a playground? SHUTTING DOWN AN ECONOMY!
The list seems to be based on sound logic to me. Do you see something wrong with it based on your COVID-19 expertise?
Where there ya go, that's proof COVID-19 doesn't exist.
People wonder why there is such speculation surrounding COVID. This chart is proof.
Several have already been mentioned above. How do they determine compliance? What about all those things they don’t mention?
why are grocery stores and camping the same? Hair salons. The people that cut my hair rarely face me, even before. We both wore masks. Tell again why this is more risky than an airplane?
what is their algorithm?
What is their science?
Yes, speaking to see their name in print without the data, algorithm, and science behind it. It is no better than your guess of mine, and worse than ours when we are in the actual situation and can see what is going on in the location.
no mention of being at home, where you are probably most likely to contract it. You have the longest and most intimate contact. If asymptomatic spread is as likely some say, that is where you should be most fearful, if anyone has left the home.
The assumptions of this chart seem to jive with the studies I've been reading. Although I'd think airplanes are higher
This thing seems to spread, almost exclusively, from sustained contact, indoors..
Walking past somebody outdoors, probably ok
Sitting next to someone on a train, in a church service, probably not ok...
Packed restaurant, bar, concert, indoors, pentacostal style "jumping for Jesus" service, highest risk for "super spreader" event...
Crowded outdoor event, basketball game, protest, etc... Data is conflicting... We have Nat guard coming down with this, so there is evidentaly some risk, but it's hard to say how much...
Incidentally walking past somebody in a Walmart, likely ok if you can avoid getting trapped in a line or whatever, still there is some risk...
Picking up mail or an Amazon package, exposure risk is virtually nil. I have yet to read of a verfied transmission this way.
Wiping down every grocery item with chlorox wipes, like the "expert" (a pediatrician) in that YouTube video, almost certainly unnecessary
This thing, when individuals are in close contact indoors is highly infectious...
There are incidents of 1 person infecting 50..
To your question about a haircut.. if you barber has it, or if you have it, the risk of transmission is high... Masks, especially n95 or greater help...
But, regardless, you are only rolling the dice on one person, as opposed to dozens in the crowded bars scenario.....
Yup, it's the granny smoked a pack a day, and lived to be 80, therefore cigarettes don't cause lung cancer line of thinking.
Not what he claimed or said.
it is evidence, a data point that maybe their assessment is wrong, or that a 6 is 1 in 100,000 chance and an 8 is a 1 in 80,000 chance. Without numbers, the scale is of little meaning. Without reference points, it is of limited use to change what you want to do. As such it is a vanity piece.