The Black Pill

[tokeless]

Outdoor transmission is non existent for all we know, there isn't a single covid case where it was scientifically proven that they caught it outside. We do know however that the virus dies in a matter of seconds outside of a host and in direct sunlight. I'd say it's safe to not wear masks outside unless someone is sneezing or coughing directly in your face, and if that happens a mask won't help you anyway.

I'm not sure that's true at all... if it was, there wouldn't be restrictions on outdoor gatherings would there? There wouldn't be an issue in OZ right now because it's summertime and it gets a lot of sun right now... I'm sure you can provide some net ref from some 'theorist' to support it, but any chance of an actual scientific study, because I'm sure if any of that was true, we'd have heard about it by now... that's if it's not suppressed obviously.
I see the time line had shifted to 10 years now for our deaths.... amazing how the bad guys have manufactured a killer virus with a clock type mechanism so we don't all die at the same time, to hide the dastardly plan. Quite amazing really isn't it?

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

I'm not sure that's true at all... if it was, there wouldn't be restrictions on outdoor gatherings would there?

Just because a restriction exists, it doesn’t automatically follow that there is a good reason for that restriction. There is certainly a rational, there is certainly a justification in the minds of those putting forth the restriction, but we often discover in hindsight that the rational was wrong.

And that has been the case with the outdoor transmission of COVID.

There are both studies and sufficient observations to demonstrate outdoor spread is negligible. Over the last few months we saw millions of people gather in sports stadiums, maskless, cheering on their favorite teams, yet no significant transmission of COVID.

I understand the rational that a restriction is put in place, “out of an abundance of caution” but at some point that rational begins to fail.

There wouldn't be an issue in OZ right now because it's summertime and it gets a lot of sun right now...

There isn’t an issue in OZ.

Isn’t it amazing that the “issue” in OZ is somehow restricted by political boundaries? Weird how COVID is so deadly that it requires quarantine camps in just this one part of OZ, while throughout the rest of OZ people don’t have the same restrictions. How is that possible? Does the sun shine differently dependent upon politics?

The same is happening in the USA. In some regions/cities you have politicians pushing for vax passes. Schools closed again, masks, vaccinations or lose your job. Does the sun shine differently in NYC and LA, compared to the rest of the country? Amazing how political boundaries are dictating how the sun shines.

I’m not sure when the next major elections are being held in OZ or any other country where the sun shines differently dependent on politics, but when they do happen I certainly will be interested in the results.

More importantly, I will be watching the 2022 elections here in the USA. They will be a strong sign of the direction we are headed, and it will allow me to adjust my plans.

[tokeless]

The sun doesn't shine in the UK for more than a few hours, a few weeks of the year. QV said there is no scientific evidence of transmission outside.. how could you test for that? People pick up viruses on contact with an infected person...indoor, outdoors, but you can only prove it was either if you never went out or never went in... unless you met the infected person in either.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

QV said there is no scientific evidence of transmission outside.. how could you test for that?.

The same way you can follow transmission in airports. Contact tracing.

Surely you’ve seen on the news where people were quarantined after traveling on X airline or attending Y event.

Researchers can compare rates of transmission dependent on context. Which many researchers have done. There are multiple published studies that show transmission outdoors is negligible.

At this point, with two years worth of evidence, restrictions on outdoor gatherings is not supported.

Hundreds of studies.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... &oq=COVID+

And researchers expected stadiums packed full of thousands of maskless spectators to be “super spreader” events. They weren’t.

[tokeless]

medrxiv.org
Rapid scoping review of evidence of outdoor transmission of COVID-19
Mike Weed, Abby Foad
MedRxiv, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic is both a global health crisis, and a civic emergency for national governments, including the UK. As countries across the world loosen their lockdown restrictions, the assumption is generally made that the risk of COVID-19 transmission is lower outdoors, and this assumption has shaped decisions about what activities can re-commence, the circumstances in which they should re-commence, and the conditions under which they should re-commence. This is important for events and activities that generate outdoor gatherings of people, including both participatory and spectator sport events, protests, concerts, carnivals, festivals, and other celebrations. The review, which was designed to be undertaken rapidly in 15 days, returned 14 sources of evidence of outdoor transmission of COVID-19, and a further 21 sources that were used to set the context and understand the caveats that should be considered in interpreting the review findings. The review found very few examples of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 in everyday life among c. 25,000 cases considered, suggesting a very low risk. However risk of outdoor transmission increases when the natural social distancing of everyday life is breached, and gathering density, circulation and size increases, particularly for an extended duration. There was also evidence that weather had a behavioural effect on transmission, with temperatures that encourage outdoor activity associated with lower COVID-19 transmission. Due to lack of surveillance and tracing systems, and confounding factors and variables, there was no evidence that robustly tested transmission at outdoor mass gatherings (circa 10,000+ people), which are as likely to generate transmission from the activities they prompt (e.g. communal travel and congregation in bars) as from outdoor transmission at the gathering itself.

However risk of outdoor transmission increases when the natural social distancing of everyday life is breached, and gathering density, circulation and size increases, particularly for an extended duration.

To me, this suggests otherwise. If you look at the Champions league game with Liverpool and Atletico Madrid at the start of the pandemic, which allowed 10,000 Spanish fans to attend the game in UK.. this was attributed as being one of the key incidents of large increases in transmission.
If you're sitting outside with nobody around you or a reasonable distance, then of course your transmission risk will be much lower than if you were huddled together.
Large sporting events were considered spreading... if people who attended didn't test afterwards this would skew the outcome of transmission.. no test, no covid.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

If you look at the Champions league game with Liverpool and Atletico Madrid at the start of the pandemic, which allowed 10,000 Spanish fans to attend the game in UK.. this was attributed as being one of the key incidents of large increases in transmission.

At the start of the pandemic.

And it was this thought process that continued up until September of this year. What happened in September? Millions of unmasked spectators gathered in stadiums for college football. And researchers were able to track if these events resulted in significant spread of COVID. It is very clear, transmission did not occur at any significant level.

... if people who attended didn't test afterwards this would skew the outcome of transmission.. no test, no covid.

That is not how contact tracing or research on transmission takes place. When you have a single experiment with only a sample size of 1,000 then those types of controls are necessary. But, when you have hundreds of experiments with millions of participants they are not. Researchers don’t need to test before and after to calculate transmission when you have so much data available.

[tokeless]

If you look at the Champions league game with Liverpool and Atletico Madrid at the start of the pandemic, which allowed 10,000 Spanish fans to attend the game in UK.. this was attributed as being one of the key incidents of large increases in transmission.

At the start of the pandemic.

And it was this thought process that continued up until September of this year. What happened in September? Millions of unmasked spectators gathered in stadiums for college football. And researchers were able to track if these events resulted in significant spread of COVID. It is very clear, transmission did not occur at any significant level.

... if people who attended didn't test afterwards this would skew the outcome of transmission.. no test, no covid.

That is not how contact tracing or research on transmission takes place. When you have a single experiment with only a sample size of 1,000 then those types of controls are necessary. But, when you have hundreds of experiments with millions of participants they are not. Researchers don’t need to test before and after to calculate transmission when you have so much data available.

So it's a modelling based on data and not actual transmission? You say there wasn't significant levels of transmission, so you then have to say what significant is? Where's the level when it becomes significant?

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

So it's a modelling based on data and not actual transmission? You say there wasn't significant levels of transmission, so you then have to say what significant is? Where's the level when it becomes significant?

True.

From what I’ve read studies show an increase of COVID cases post football match in the neighborhood of 4-7 per 100,000 over a 7 day period. That’s not deaths, just cases.

Some people want to achieve zero risk, zero transmission. This means no outdoor gatherings. This is not sustainable. Life comes with certain risks.

After a football match, there is most likely an increase in all sorts of things, eg drunk driving, public intoxication, and the spread of communicable diseases, whether COVID or any other. Are any of these significant enough to call for the outright ban of football matches? Where is the line drawn?

[tokeless]

True.

What is also true is these 'oppressive' countries are using modelling to predict their potential outcomes...

From what I’ve read studies show an increase of COVID cases post football match in the neighborhood of 4-7 per 100,000 over a 7 day period. That’s not deaths, just cases.

Nobody, not even QV mentioned deaths Richard, just transmission.

Some people want to achieve zero risk, zero transmission. This means no outdoor gatherings. This is not sustainable. Life comes with certain risks.

I can't speak for some people, but I agree you can't have zero risk. Life is full of risk.

After a football match, there is most likely an increase in all sorts of things, eg drunk driving, public intoxication, and the spread of communicable diseases, whether COVID or any other. Are any of these significant enough to call for the outright ban of football matches? Where is the line drawn?

Mmm, tenuous argument really. Let's stick to the point or we'll end up like David.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Mmm, tenuous argument really. Let's stick to the point or we'll end up like David.

What do you mean tenuous? These things have been studied by sociologists and criminologists. That there is a spike in any number of less than desirable events that occur around stadiums on game days has been well documented.

Do we shut down stadiums because large crowds gathering together increases overall risk to the public? No.

And now we have two years of data that show transmission of COVID in stadiums is negligible.

https://www.boston25news.com/news/healt ... GN346YXLQ/

“The study analyzed hundreds of NFL and NCAA games, comparing games with in-person fans to games without fans in similar-sized counties, and researchers found there was no significant increase in COVID-19 cases following those games with in-person attendance in those surrounding communities.” - from the article.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Here is the actual study instead of a news article…

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21251745v1

“Results The matching algorithm returned 361 matching sets of counties. The effect of in-person attendance at NFL and NCAA games on community COVID-19 spread is not significant as it did not surpass 5 new daily cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 residents on average.”

Note: this is consistent with the UK study that found between 4-7 new daily cases per 100,000 after a football match.

[tokeless]

The incidents of infection can be reduced due to reducing the number of fans as they did in football stadiums in the UK, or by introducing social distancing methods, such as every other seat was occupied. What I said was tenuous was that you changed covid infection risks to drink driving and intoxication as a way of backing your point. The facts remain that covid can be transmitted outdoors, regardless of the number per 100,000, which was not what I was saying.. it is transmitted in and outdoors

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

What I said was tenuous was that you changed covid infection risks to drink driving and intoxication as a way of backing your point.

Ah, I understand. I wasn’t changing the risk. I was pointing out that in risk management we shouldn’t just look at COVID in isolation. There are many risks associated with stadiums and the gathering of large crowds.

The facts remain that covid can be transmitted outdoors, regardless of the number per 100,000, which was not what I was saying.. it is transmitted in and outdoors

Given the track record of QV, you are probably correct. She probably believes that it literally cannot be transmitted outdoors.

My point was more about relative risk. One study shows a 18x reduction in chances of outdoor transmission vs indoors. But even 18x doesn’t mean zero transmission.

I just think we are doing a horrible job of risk management.

[tokeless]

Risk management is about looking at mitigating factors that may reduce the risk from occurring. It doesn't mean it can't because as we agree, risk is inherent in our lives and activities. With regard to the UK, I actually think the government is managing or trying to manage the risks of the public seeing in stark reality, the intentional running down of the NHS. They have been trying this everytime they gain power... they spin it is safe in our hands (Cameron's party) when it has been anything but. The NHS is a valued institution in the UK, even Thatcher knew that and she instigated the plot in 1986 but did so by introducing the internal market. That was my experience, because I remember it when there was no bed shortage, no major queues for operations and a proper aftercare with home helps and social workers organising the care on discharge. People were even taken home by ambulance... I would say the standards of care would be on par with private health care now. Omicron has been identified as less severe, but they keep pushing the vaccine because big numbers presenting to hospitals would still expose the frailty of the service. This is the hidden agenda imo.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

…I remember it when there was no bed shortage, no major queues for operations and a proper aftercare with home helps and social workers organising the care on discharge. People were even taken home by ambulance...

What changed?

Healthcare, as you described, has only been around since after WWII. And even then it has only been available in the few countries capable of creating the necessary wealth to fund such level of care.