Some say the end is near
11-24-20, 02:30 PM
#76
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
Didn't say "clouds" of anything were raining down from the sky.
Just pointed out the simple fact that live viruses and bacteria have indeed been found in the air column great distances beyond apparent sources. And that bioaerosols have contained infectious agents for hours (ie, with measles) in air.
As for the stupidity or intelligence of the questions that exist, it's still quite open as to how long this specific thing lasts, how far it can travel, what the viral load needs to be in order to risk transmission. Stupidly or intelligently, some of the top scientists in the world are examining exactly these questions.
Last month (Aug. 26-27, 2020), for example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine held a workshop to discuss much of the latest research and results known to-date on SARS-CoV-2. They've published the proceedings, along with a Proceedings in Brief for general release: click.
In short, according to them: To-date, at least as of the end of October of this year, it's still unknown how long this thing can survive in bioaerosols, and still unknown how far it can travel while still remaining viable and infectious. (Though, clearly, distance and a number of other variables can greatly impact it.)
All I suggested was exactly that. That it's simply unknown, even with as much study as SARS-CoV-2 has gotten in the past year.
One can believe it's all stupidity to continue such questions in a situation where what's known is still open, not fully understood (by their own admission), and being evaluated. The scientists in the field are continuing to explore and question, for all of those reasons, as evidenced above, for whatever that's worth. Which people can accept or disregard.
Just pointed out the simple fact that live viruses and bacteria have indeed been found in the air column great distances beyond apparent sources. And that bioaerosols have contained infectious agents for hours (ie, with measles) in air.
As for the stupidity or intelligence of the questions that exist, it's still quite open as to how long this specific thing lasts, how far it can travel, what the viral load needs to be in order to risk transmission. Stupidly or intelligently, some of the top scientists in the world are examining exactly these questions.
Last month (Aug. 26-27, 2020), for example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine held a workshop to discuss much of the latest research and results known to-date on SARS-CoV-2. They've published the proceedings, along with a Proceedings in Brief for general release: click.
In short, according to them: To-date, at least as of the end of October of this year, it's still unknown how long this thing can survive in bioaerosols, and still unknown how far it can travel while still remaining viable and infectious. (Though, clearly, distance and a number of other variables can greatly impact it.)
All I suggested was exactly that. That it's simply unknown, even with as much study as SARS-CoV-2 has gotten in the past year.
One can believe it's all stupidity to continue such questions in a situation where what's known is still open, not fully understood (by their own admission), and being evaluated. The scientists in the field are continuing to explore and question, for all of those reasons, as evidenced above, for whatever that's worth. Which people can accept or disregard.
By the way, the scientific uncertainty in the indoors setting is to what extent the two meter limit is the actual limit and/or if the virus can accumulate in the indoor air over time. No one in their right mind is even looking at the possibility that the virus can travel in the air over miles.
You've grossly understated the amount of scientific knowledge there is on the subject and taken that as license to claim immunity from being criticized for engaging in stupid, uninformed speculation.
Likes For livedarklions:
11-24-20, 05:58 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 361 Post(s)
Liked 217 Times
in
165 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
If you actually bothered to read the publication you linked ...
... but generally outdoor exposure is such a low-order risk that virtually no research is going into how best to manage it ...
... but generally outdoor exposure is such a low-order risk that virtually no research is going into how best to manage it ...
Outside a lab, outdoor transmissibility is a much more difficult environment to examine, to be sure.
Indeed, dispersal rates, impact of sunlight/UV, distances involved between hosts ... all are examples of variables that will impact any airborne-transmitted pathogen. Obviously. Outdoors is a tough environment with variables hard to control (for testing). Again, obviously. Which are primary reasons why much research isn't done in the area.
Following the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004, there were some studies that investigated "spreader" events in apartment complexes, healthcare and related risky settings, to examine the potential for airborne transmissibility. (SARS-CoV-1 isn't quite the same as SARS-CoV-2, though, so it's unclear if it's at least as easily transmitted; no doubt many studies will come along exploring exactly this question, to the point it'll be well understood for this one.)
Some studies point to the ability of exhaled (smaller-particle) aerosols remaining in the (indoor) air for potentially hours, particularly if airflows are dynamic (and not merely closed-up rooms). Some studies have suggested this SARS-CoV-2 can survive for several minutes with (simulated) sunlight UV; which is a lab test situation and not necessarily directly (fully) correlated to varying environmental conditions out of doors.
Anyway. Point was, simply, it's unclear just how far this novel virus can travel to the point of transmitting to another. Respiratory aerosols can travel, in many studies noting indoor travel can exceed 8+ meters, and that's without airflow dynamics that HVAC, open windows, movement of persons about the space all bring to a situation; let alone the difficulty of evaluating an outdoor situation.
A much lower risk? Of course.
Low enough to disregard? By comparison to indoor threats, most researchers seem to assume so.
And so, it is unclear and will remain so, reduced comparative threat though it obviously is. Until the evaluations are made. Until then, it's a question whether there's still risk or no risk in, say, a park, or on a run or ride across the street from others, or any other situation where distances over many minutes might carry sufficient virus to other hosts.
Wasn't suggesting how far. Was simply pointing out it's still largely unknown.
As for underestimation of what's been evaluated, one would think that, over the past three-fourths of a year, there would be greater general knowledge of any such conclusions about the risk area. There's little to nothing in the literature, though, as mostly it's lab evaluations and some very specific indoor risk settings. Instead, the general consensus seems to be: it's not nearly as risky so traditional assumptions will be continued and it'll remain a back-burner question. Which is fine. It'll just continue to be an unknown. Which really was the only point: it's not known what the real risk is, how far far enough is, not in dynamic outdoor settings.
11-25-20, 05:48 AM
#78
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
And, fact is, since the thing's airborne and apparently can hang out for days while maintaining its efficacy, who can say how easily it'll move on air currents from spot to spot, just like dust from storms or volcanoes, just like industrial crap from Asia to the Americas, continuing to find its way to the least little village in the middle of nowhere.
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
Read it, and viewed most of the presentations and discussions, as well has having read most of the cited and referenced support material and other reference works. From this along with several others.
Outside a lab, outdoor transmissibility is a much more difficult environment to examine, to be sure.
Indeed, dispersal rates, impact of sunlight/UV, distances involved between hosts ... all are examples of variables that will impact any airborne-transmitted pathogen. Obviously. Outdoors is a tough environment with variables hard to control (for testing). Again, obviously. Which are primary reasons why much research isn't done in the area.
Following the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004, there were some studies that investigated "spreader" events in apartment complexes, healthcare and related risky settings, to examine the potential for airborne transmissibility. (SARS-CoV-1 isn't quite the same as SARS-CoV-2, though, so it's unclear if it's at least as easily transmitted; no doubt many studies will come along exploring exactly this question, to the point it'll be well understood for this one.)
Some studies point to the ability of exhaled (smaller-particle) aerosols remaining in the (indoor) air for potentially hours, particularly if airflows are dynamic (and not merely closed-up rooms). Some studies have suggested this SARS-CoV-2 can survive for several minutes with (simulated) sunlight UV; which is a lab test situation and not necessarily directly (fully) correlated to varying environmental conditions out of doors.
Anyway. Point was, simply, it's unclear just how far this novel virus can travel to the point of transmitting to another. Respiratory aerosols can travel, in many studies noting indoor travel can exceed 8+ meters, and that's without airflow dynamics that HVAC, open windows, movement of persons about the space all bring to a situation; let alone the difficulty of evaluating an outdoor situation.
A much lower risk? Of course.
Low enough to disregard? By comparison to indoor threats, most researchers seem to assume so.
And so, it is unclear and will remain so, reduced comparative threat though it obviously is. Until the evaluations are made. Until then, it's a question whether there's still risk or no risk in, say, a park, or on a run or ride across the street from others, or any other situation where distances over many minutes might carry sufficient virus to other hosts.
Wasn't suggesting how far. Was simply pointing out it's still largely unknown.
As for underestimation of what's been evaluated, one would think that, over the past three-fourths of a year, there would be greater general knowledge of any such conclusions about the risk area. There's little to nothing in the literature, though, as mostly it's lab evaluations and some very specific indoor risk settings. Instead, the general consensus seems to be: it's not nearly as risky so traditional assumptions will be continued and it'll remain a back-burner question. Which is fine. It'll just continue to be an unknown. Which really was the only point: it's not known what the real risk is, how far far enough is, not in dynamic outdoor settings.
Outside a lab, outdoor transmissibility is a much more difficult environment to examine, to be sure.
Indeed, dispersal rates, impact of sunlight/UV, distances involved between hosts ... all are examples of variables that will impact any airborne-transmitted pathogen. Obviously. Outdoors is a tough environment with variables hard to control (for testing). Again, obviously. Which are primary reasons why much research isn't done in the area.
Following the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004, there were some studies that investigated "spreader" events in apartment complexes, healthcare and related risky settings, to examine the potential for airborne transmissibility. (SARS-CoV-1 isn't quite the same as SARS-CoV-2, though, so it's unclear if it's at least as easily transmitted; no doubt many studies will come along exploring exactly this question, to the point it'll be well understood for this one.)
Some studies point to the ability of exhaled (smaller-particle) aerosols remaining in the (indoor) air for potentially hours, particularly if airflows are dynamic (and not merely closed-up rooms). Some studies have suggested this SARS-CoV-2 can survive for several minutes with (simulated) sunlight UV; which is a lab test situation and not necessarily directly (fully) correlated to varying environmental conditions out of doors.
Anyway. Point was, simply, it's unclear just how far this novel virus can travel to the point of transmitting to another. Respiratory aerosols can travel, in many studies noting indoor travel can exceed 8+ meters, and that's without airflow dynamics that HVAC, open windows, movement of persons about the space all bring to a situation; let alone the difficulty of evaluating an outdoor situation.
A much lower risk? Of course.
Low enough to disregard? By comparison to indoor threats, most researchers seem to assume so.
And so, it is unclear and will remain so, reduced comparative threat though it obviously is. Until the evaluations are made. Until then, it's a question whether there's still risk or no risk in, say, a park, or on a run or ride across the street from others, or any other situation where distances over many minutes might carry sufficient virus to other hosts.
Wasn't suggesting how far. Was simply pointing out it's still largely unknown.
As for underestimation of what's been evaluated, one would think that, over the past three-fourths of a year, there would be greater general knowledge of any such conclusions about the risk area. There's little to nothing in the literature, though, as mostly it's lab evaluations and some very specific indoor risk settings. Instead, the general consensus seems to be: it's not nearly as risky so traditional assumptions will be continued and it'll remain a back-burner question. Which is fine. It'll just continue to be an unknown. Which really was the only point: it's not known what the real risk is, how far far enough is, not in dynamic outdoor settings.
By putting your original quote together with this latest statement, your backpedaling is made rather obvious. You suggested the possibility of intercontinental airborne transmission, now you're acknowledging that the uncertainty is how many meters indoors it can travel. It is not "largely unknown" if this virus can spread from exposures to people miles away, you just made that up. There's nothing to indicate it can or has spread in this manner, and you've now taken to criticizing science for not being able to prove a negative.
And you're just wrong, everything I've read or heard (and that's a lot) is very clear on the fact that outdoor spread between socially distant people is a vanishingly small possibility. And that's derived from epidemiological studies, not from lack of testing due to difficulties. They're not studying the hell out of indoor transmission because it's easy (it's not), they're doing it because almost all of the cases they've traced were the results of that type of exposure.
You said something stupid, and acted indignant when called out on it. Your defense seems to be that your words don't have possible consequences, but it's been hard enough to convince people to take the real risks seriously enough to take precautions without foolish exaggerations getting out there for people to debunk and discredit the whole message.
Likes For livedarklions:
11-26-20, 07:07 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times
in
116 Posts
Chief Medical Officer dodges giving AstraZeneca jab his full backing as the company reveals it will run a NEW Oxford vaccine trial after accidental lower dose blocked 90% of infections in participants
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...berg-News.html
11-26-20, 08:29 PM
#80
cyclotourist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times
in
105 Posts
Very interesting. Sounds like the Astra Zeneca vaccine works, but they screwed up the trials, so we don't really know the efficacy.
Story says they are doing another 30 000 person trial in the US. At the present rate of infections it should take them a couple of days to get enough positive results.
Story says they are doing another 30 000 person trial in the US. At the present rate of infections it should take them a couple of days to get enough positive results.
11-28-20, 05:59 AM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times
in
116 Posts
Scientists are aiming to launch a nationwide trial as soon as possible to find out if the top coronavirus vaccines can stop the virus from spreading
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...194049613.html
12-01-20, 08:14 AM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 361 Post(s)
Liked 217 Times
in
165 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
By putting your original quote together with this latest statement, your backpedaling is made rather obvious. You suggested the possibility of intercontinental airborne transmission ...
Simply noted that air movement can indeed carry things great distances. Mentioned the simple example of dust and pollutants from other spots, to provide context. Didn't state nor mean to imply any sort of efficacy across "intercontinental" distances with pathogens like this, which clearly depends on the particular pathogens' abilities in question. Though clearly that's what you inferred, and ran with it.
Whether the ability of a given pathogen to maintain its virulence is "vanishingly small" or something else is hard to know until it's studied. I haven't yet seen, in several months of looking, a range of SARS-CoV-2 specific evaluations that indicate the degree of risk at distances beyond "room" distances. Some might well exist; just haven't seen them yet, nor has anyone else presented any indication of such, on this or a few other discussion forums where I occasionally post. That doesn't equate to a claim there's great risk, no matter how much "running with it" is done.
Would love to believe that the examples of lasting hours on surfaces (even outdoors), ability to travel (via aerosols, including through HVAC across buildings' floors), ability to fill a space (ie, even large rooms) ... equate to "vanishingly small" risk. Would feel even better if such scientific proofs could be found to indicate that, and if they were actually widely published to where general understanding could account for them.
12-01-20, 03:48 PM
#83
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
Ah. So there's the likely source of misunderstanding, misconstruing.
Simply noted that air movement can indeed carry things great distances. Mentioned the simple example of dust and pollutants from other spots, to provide context. Didn't state nor mean to imply any sort of efficacy across "intercontinental" distances with pathogens like this, which clearly depends on the particular pathogens' abilities in question. Though clearly that's what you inferred, and ran with it.
Whether the ability of a given pathogen to maintain its virulence is "vanishingly small" or something else is hard to know until it's studied. I haven't yet seen, in several months of looking, a range of SARS-CoV-2 specific evaluations that indicate the degree of risk at distances beyond "room" distances. Some might well exist; just haven't seen them yet, nor has anyone else presented any indication of such, on this or a few other discussion forums where I occasionally post. That doesn't equate to a claim there's great risk, no matter how much "running with it" is done.
Would love to believe that the examples of lasting hours on surfaces (even outdoors), ability to travel (via aerosols, including through HVAC across buildings' floors), ability to fill a space (ie, even large rooms) ... equate to "vanishingly small" risk. Would feel even better if such scientific proofs could be found to indicate that, and if they were actually widely published to where general understanding could account for them.
Simply noted that air movement can indeed carry things great distances. Mentioned the simple example of dust and pollutants from other spots, to provide context. Didn't state nor mean to imply any sort of efficacy across "intercontinental" distances with pathogens like this, which clearly depends on the particular pathogens' abilities in question. Though clearly that's what you inferred, and ran with it.
Whether the ability of a given pathogen to maintain its virulence is "vanishingly small" or something else is hard to know until it's studied. I haven't yet seen, in several months of looking, a range of SARS-CoV-2 specific evaluations that indicate the degree of risk at distances beyond "room" distances. Some might well exist; just haven't seen them yet, nor has anyone else presented any indication of such, on this or a few other discussion forums where I occasionally post. That doesn't equate to a claim there's great risk, no matter how much "running with it" is done.
Would love to believe that the examples of lasting hours on surfaces (even outdoors), ability to travel (via aerosols, including through HVAC across buildings' floors), ability to fill a space (ie, even large rooms) ... equate to "vanishingly small" risk. Would feel even better if such scientific proofs could be found to indicate that, and if they were actually widely published to where general understanding could account for them.
Right now, you're in "if I can imagine it, it's possible" territory. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that the virus is stable over long periods of time while airborne outside or that it doesn't disperse too much to be communicable outdoors over distance and time. Again, the reason that it's not being studied is it's neither a serious possibility nor has it ever actually been observed.
Indoor transmission is a whole different thing. I never said any of that was a vanishingly small risk. Outdoor transmission when socially distanced is a vanishingly small risk. Why would I suggest something as stupid as inter-floor transmission is not a real risk? We know that's actually happened. Mike Osterholm said he knew the thing was probably airborne when they first described the pattern of spread through the cruise ship--it had to be traveling through the ventilation system.
I'm done with this.
Likes For livedarklions:
12-02-20, 06:42 AM
#85
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by skookum
Good idea. Guys, lets discuss something else.
12-02-20, 07:34 AM
#86
Senior Member
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Yes! I'm interested in how people are going to decide when they can stop wearing masks and stop fearing public gatherings. My thinking is there's going to be a "grey area" period while the vaccinations roll out.
I’m not a bar, concert, movie theater type of person so restaurants are about the only thing I miss. I only averaged one or two meals a month in pre-pandemic times.
12-02-20, 08:53 AM
#87
Society Dropout
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,977
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1536 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times
in
1,007 Posts
August 20, 2021 will be my first concert that was rescheduled and will be the first time I will be in a large crowd. Hopefully it will be safe by then but I’m not sure as of today. Mötley Crüe, Def Leppard, Poison, and Joan Jett will be like a mini festival. The group I’m going with has hotel booked within walking distance of the Alamodome. Looking forward to this but not at a high risk to anybody’s health. Other concerts I have tickets for are all in the Fall 2021 in September/October. Will I get vaccinated by then? I’m not sure. The grey area period that you have mentioned will tell us if this will workout or not. In the meantime I will live in a cave..
Likes For Hondo Gravel:
12-02-20, 09:05 AM
#88
cyclotourist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times
in
105 Posts
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel
August 20, 2021 will be my first concert that was rescheduled and will be the first time I will be in a large crowd. Hopefully it will be safe by then but I’m not sure as of today. Mötley Crüe, Def Leppard, Poison, and Joan Jett will be like a mini festival. The group I’m going with has hotel booked within walking distance of the Alamodome. Looking forward to this but not at a high risk to anybody’s health. Other concerts I have tickets for are all in the Fall 2021 in September/October. Will I get vaccinated by then? I’m not sure. The grey area period that you have mentioned will tell us if this will workout or not. In the meantime I will live in a cave..
You're risking your health just listening to those bands.
Likes For skookum:
12-02-20, 09:08 AM
#89
Society Dropout
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,977
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1536 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times
in
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by skookum
You're risking your health just listening to those bands.
I knew that was coming. I’m going to relive my youth being an 80s kid. Nostalgia I guess it is.
12-02-20, 09:19 AM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times
in
116 Posts
Inside the family-run Baltimore warehouse making the dry ice pellets key to keeping the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine cool
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cine-cool.html
Likes For CycleryNorth81:
12-02-20, 09:32 AM
#91
cyclotourist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,312
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times
in
105 Posts
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel
I knew that was coming. I’m going to relive my youth being an 80s kid. Nostalgia I guess it is.Hey, its your life. Just don't endanger anybody else
Likes For skookum:
12-02-20, 10:22 AM
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times
in
116 Posts
UK becomes first country to approve Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
https://nypost.com/2020/12/02/u-k-be...id-19-vaccine/
12-02-20, 10:24 AM
#93
Society Dropout
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,977
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1536 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times
in
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by skookum
Hey, its your life. Just don't endanger anybody else
Likes For Hondo Gravel:
12-02-20, 11:11 AM
#94
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by skookum
You're risking your health just listening to those bands.
The name Poison then being truth in labeling.
Likes For livedarklions:
12-02-20, 11:22 AM
#95
Society Dropout
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,977
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1536 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times
in
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
The name Poison then being truth in labeling.
but back in 87 the girls liked them.
12-02-20, 11:25 AM
#96
I'm cross-chained
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,117
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4226 Post(s)
Liked 3,199 Times
in
1,819 Posts
Originally Posted by GadgetGirlIL
my thoughts exactly. Not sure what it will take before I’m willing to eat indoors with strangers.
I’m not a bar, concert, movie theater type of person so restaurants are about the only thing I miss. I only averaged one or two meals a month in pre-pandemic times.
I’m not a bar, concert, movie theater type of person so restaurants are about the only thing I miss. I only averaged one or two meals a month in pre-pandemic times.
I'm definitely not going to feel safe for that until I have been vaccinated. The weird time is going to be while the number of vaccinated is ramping up as there will be more people walking around without masks at that point. There won't be any way of knowing whether those unmasked people are vaccinated or not.
Is it still unclear whether vaccinated people can spread the virus?
Likes For livedarklions:
12-02-20, 05:35 PM
#97
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,141
Bikes: 2008 Scott CR1 Pro; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Liked 586 Times
in
249 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Is it still unclear whether vaccinated people can spread the virus?
And with a 95% effectiveness rate, you should be cautious for a while, even with the vaccine.
I don't plan on licking any light posts for a while. lol
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Likes For Biker395:
12-02-20, 07:13 PM
#98
Society Dropout
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,977
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1536 Post(s)
Liked 1,570 Times
in
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by Biker395
That is my understanding.
And with a 95% effectiveness rate, you should be cautious for a while, even with the vaccine.
I don't plan on licking any light posts for a while. lol
And with a 95% effectiveness rate, you should be cautious for a while, even with the vaccine.
I don't plan on licking any light posts for a while. lol
Reminds of a Christmas Story where Ralphie’s friend stuck his tongue on a frozen light post and got his tongue stuck and the FD had to come to get him unstuck.
12-03-20, 03:03 AM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times
in
116 Posts
COVID-19 hospitalizations pass 100K in US and could double soon; experts fear weary staff will be 'overrun' by patients
https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-...185857474.html
12-03-20, 03:11 AM
#100
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,998
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3154 Post(s)
Liked 405 Times
in
246 Posts
As far as I am aware, the average person probably won't get a vaccine until about May 2021. They'll do all the at-risk people first.
And then, don't forget, the indications are that the vaccine will be good for maybe up to 6-8 months.
So we'll still have to use caution for some time.
And then, don't forget, the indications are that the vaccine will be good for maybe up to 6-8 months.
So we'll still have to use caution for some time.
