Well, outdoor line, unless spacing is tight, masks really are not absolutely necessary.
Line at our major downtown testing center is now a massive grid, although with colder weather, the line is now largely virtual.
1 Like
What is the line…if youre frustrated at how increased lockdowns will curtail your activities, then you are the reason we will need the additional locks down.
Friend of mine lives in Charlotte and messaged me last night about saving he date for his upcoming birthday because he’ll be in town. He has business here and drives in about 1 weekend a month so didn’t initially have a negative reaction. He then proceeded to tell me that he and 12 of his friends are flying in, making a reservation in a restaurant that has no outdoor seating and then going to a bar downtown that has already been cited twice for covid violations and is always packed. It is just incomprehensible to me how people can act this way, but it goes back to the thing people fight about on here - if it’s allowed people will think it is safe and reasonable to do. Lukewarm, late in the day public statement from the CDC will not even register compared to the permissive signals people get from what is open and what restrictions are in place.
2 Likes
Maybe its just me but no way I’d be working at one of those sites knowing that 80-90% of those lining up are in fact infected and not be in PPE regardless of whether its outdoors or not. I am sure the risks are much lower in outdoors environments but I personally wouldn’t be taking that risk.
1 Like
No question, staff should be masked up and probably with visors too. I was referring to people standing in line outdoors.
1 Like
I think one of the things that has become evident is that being outside is so much safer that you can approximate normal activity as long as you keep it outside. However, the risk is not zero, and when you couple a high risk population with the number of potential exposures the testers have, you’re playing a dangerous game being maskless. Beyond that though, it is awful optics. And I dont mean that from the virtue signaling perspective, but behavior modelling is a critical element of fighting these public health battles.
2 Likes
In that case, a distance of 1,50 meters between each person while in the waiting line is enough to avoid contamination. However, during the process of testing, they should of course wear a mask, and the staff not wearing masks is beyond strange! 
1 Like
Our public health people say 1.5 meters is not enough unless there is a noticeable air current, so enforce 2 meters - so the line is spaced to 3 meter boxes.
2 Likes
And I dont even know what a meter is
is this far enough? Shrug
2 Likes
These kind of meters? Hardly seems enough to me unless they’re able to count virus particles
3 Likes
Oh hardly - for US purposes, about the distance you need on 3rd and 1.
2 Likes
Funny how this coronavirus isn’t the same according to which country he visits… 
2 Likes
1 Like
I can’t see Liverpool going for the 2,000 supporters limit. Firstly, it will be an enormous headache, determining which fans receive match tickets. Also, the club will probably lose money on each home game, as additional staff inside the ground will have to be paid, plus a certain number of Police and staff outside the stadium.
In the Bundesliga (before our new ‘lockdown light’) they had different numbers of fans allowed for each city/region with some clubs not being allowed any fans at all. Bit of a mess. In Cologne for example they were planning for a certain (low) number, just to be told the evening before the match that they couldn’t have any, because the infection rate had gone up in the city.
1 Like
I think the club should anyway. Make it lottery based. Just seeing and hearing some fans will make a difference for all of us. Could anything be more dreary than watching a televised match like yesterday’s in a silent, empty stadium?
4 Likes
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
It turns out the more effective half dose plus full dose booster dosing regimen was a complete accident. A manufacturing error produced some lots with lower concentration and so the research sites thought they were giving a full dose the participants who received doses from these lots. The fact this wasnt planned for meant there was not random allocation of who got this lower dose resulting demographic (age) differences between treatment groups that might actually be the main explanation for the increased effectiveness.
2 Likes
Didn’t they already make that public when they released that press statement a few days ago?
1 Like
It’s possible, but I hadn’t read it until today. However, I also didn’t read the press release itself, only second hand coverage of it. I find that quite disconcerting though given how much coverage I saw querying what might explain the better effect of this dose.
2 Likes
Nah, didn’t read the press release either, just had heard about the accident in the initial reporting about it - though it was mainly portrayed as a ‘lucky’/‘happy’ accident.
Here’s an example:
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-can-be-90-effective-results-show-idUSKBN2830HC]
2 Likes
Last night i saw someone highlight several articles critical of the AZ/Oxford handling and wasnt aware of this latest bit. This is really disappointing news. It is starting to look like we are going to be more reliant on the Pfizer and Modena vaccines, unless better and more reliable news emerges from the Oxford camp or the other companies working on stuff.