Is a 2021 season going to happen?

[pcowlax]

All of the hysteria about myocarditis is based on garbage science. Everyone, including many people on here, need to stop looking for the loudest voice screeching the worst possible news and latching onto it, gleefully in at least one case. You don’t need to be a physician to have common sense. The mortality rate for college age kids with COVID is probably something around 0.01% or possibly even less. OBVIOUSLY 30-35% of them are not having a serious cardiac complication and yet presenting with that mortality rate. It was obviously a garbage number yet people jump on it, scream it out and then when it comes out that it is not 35% but apparently 0% say, well that’s better news! A little humility. Even if it was 35%, myocarditis found via MRI on an asymptomatic patient is likely a meaningless incidental finding. You would find this if you did this in other viruses, it is just that no one does. Same for the pulmonary CT findings on asymptomatic patients. Garbage.

[MDlaxfan76]

Are you a cardiologist ?

I’m not, so forgive me for calling a report that 35% of athletes who tested positive bad news and then a report refuting the earlier # as good news.

Of course, if you are telling us myocarditis is not actually a serious issue for an athlete I’m going to want to know what your medical bona fides are for that one.

As just a layman, my understanding is that an athlete needs to not push their heart, not exercise hard, until the problem has resolved. Do that and most would be ok, no cardiac event. But stress the heart? Not a good idea.

Now here’s what I do know, based on being an athlete, playing ball full speed puts a strain on ones heart.

[harflax]

https://www.outkick.com/david-chao-md-t ... -unneeded/

Pretty telling article here. The NFL has had 171 Covid-19 cases with ZERO cases of myocarditis found.

[bauer4429]

Does anyone think the Big10 or any other NCAA division program give honest information to athletes on this? They are out to make money, and exploit football and basketball players for gain. They’ve been doing it for years with these two sports in particular. My point is, the initial percentages reported came from somewhere. How long before this physician is replaced? I recall Penn State had issues years ago with a fired physician claiming he was pressured to return injured players to the field. Not sure how that lawsuit ended.

[flyerfan17]

You would think by now most everybody in this country and on these boards would realize almost every "report" is written by somebody with an agenda...we aren't reading or seeing anything other than editorials

[Farfromgeneva]

Agenda?

[viper]

Agenda?

Well there was a time when there were just a handful of "major" stations and they provided news as a service, not as a profit making entity. It was limited in time and scope and usually only had time to report events without much perspective. With the growth of 24 hour news - there are two major changes - the push for ratings (i.e., sensationalism) and the need to fill 24 hours with blather - since reporting events will only take up so much time. Now adding social media to the mix where ANYONE can seemingly be a provider of "news" and it's beyond comprehensible.

This goes for both ends of the spectrum, left and right.

[Kismet]

Agenda?

Well there was a time when there were just a handful of "major" stations and they provided news as a service, not as a profit making entity. It was limited in time and scope and usually only had time to report events without much perspective. With the growth of 24 hour news - there are two major changes - the push for ratings (i.e., sensationalism) and the need to fill 24 hours with blather - since reporting events will only take up so much time. Now adding social media to the mix where ANYONE can seemingly be a provider of "news" and it's beyond comprehensible.

This goes for both ends of the spectrum, left and right.

Actually not the case. The major networks that had news divisions were exclusively for-profit corporations except PBS. Nevertheless, you are correct that their missions have changed as they have to compete with 24 hour cable news/opinion entities.

[bearlaxfan]

Agenda?

Well there was a time when there were just a handful of "major" stations and they provided news as a service, not as a profit making entity. It was limited in time and scope and usually only had time to report events without much perspective. With the growth of 24 hour news - there are two major changes - the push for ratings (i.e., sensationalism) and the need to fill 24 hours with blather - since reporting events will only take up so much time. Now adding social media to the mix where ANYONE can seemingly be a provider of "news" and it's beyond comprehensible.

This goes for both ends of the spectrum, left and right.

Actually not the case. The major networks that had news divisions were exclusively for-profit corporations except PBS. Nevertheless, you are correct that their missions have changed as they have to compete with 24 hour cable news/opinion entities.

At one time news divisions were strictly segregated from marketing, sales, entertainment depts etc, almost their own company, and still there were issues. Now it's just a mishmash of potential conflicts of interest.

[viper]

Agenda?

Well there was a time when there were just a handful of "major" stations and they provided news as a service, not as a profit making entity. It was limited in time and scope and usually only had time to report events without much perspective. With the growth of 24 hour news - there are two major changes - the push for ratings (i.e., sensationalism) and the need to fill 24 hours with blather - since reporting events will only take up so much time. Now adding social media to the mix where ANYONE can seemingly be a provider of "news" and it's beyond comprehensible.

This goes for both ends of the spectrum, left and right.

Actually not the case. The major networks that had news divisions were exclusively for-profit corporations except PBS. Nevertheless, you are correct that their missions have changed as they have to compete with 24 hour cable news/opinion entities.

I agree that the networks themselves were for profit corporations - however there news divisions were shielded from that and provided as a service. There was no profit motivation to improving the ratings of the evening news.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.outkick.com/david-chao-md-t ... -unneeded/

Pretty telling article here. The NFL has had 171 Covid-19 cases with ZERO cases of myocarditis found.

good news

[MDlaxfan76]

Agenda?

Well there was a time when there were just a handful of "major" stations and they provided news as a service, not as a profit making entity. It was limited in time and scope and usually only had time to report events without much perspective. With the growth of 24 hour news - there are two major changes - the push for ratings (i.e., sensationalism) and the need to fill 24 hours with blather - since reporting events will only take up so much time. Now adding social media to the mix where ANYONE can seemingly be a provider of "news" and it's beyond comprehensible.

This goes for both ends of the spectrum, left and right.

Actually not the case. The major networks that had news divisions were exclusively for-profit corporations except PBS. Nevertheless, you are correct that their missions have changed as they have to compete with 24 hour cable news/opinion entities.

I agree that the networks themselves were for profit corporations - however there news divisions were shielded from that and provided as a service. There was no profit motivation to improving the ratings of the evening news.

minor point, that was a choice being made by management in an era of coordinated oligopoly, an era in which there was also a private public censorship monitor, in which all networks thrived. It wasn't that there was no profit motive associated with news ratings (they did have ads after all) they just all signaled to one another a common view that the news was a service that came with the right to broadcast at all. Such 'signaling' is quite illegal in other contexts, but was made possible through government regulation.

That changed because of both technological disruption and an anti-government regulation environment from 1980 forward to today.

Our reality now is one of those situations in which there have been unintended consequences of hyper-capitalist competition.

Where I disagree slightly with the overall statements above is the notion that all reporting today is based on an 'agenda'. Yes, there is editorial as to which news to screen or write, but this does not mean that all reporting is necessarily untrustworthy. Actual journalism and the ethics required, remain alive and well, though under siege, and can be distinguished from "agenda".

In many cases, it is possible to distinguish between hard reporting and editorial perspective, including with institutions with a strong editorial 'perspective'. As a for instance, I find the WSJ reporting to be highly credible. The opinion pages are quite different, indeed they actually have a different editorial staff for the bulk of the paper than for the opinion pages. The NYT similarly has very strong editorial and journalistic practices despite a quite different and strong "perspective. The papers don't report identically, as one is a business oriented paper and one is a general public paper, but generally speaking they report credibly, with purposeful processes, and correct errors when made.

Some outlets have gone grossly further in letting their editorial 'perspective" define not just what they report, but downright let in 'news' that has not been vetted at all, just for effect. Those outlets greatly diminish our trust.

[pcowlax]

Are you a cardiologist ?

I’m not, so forgive me for calling a report that 35% of athletes who tested positive bad news and then a report refuting the earlier # as good news.

Of course, if you are telling us myocarditis is not actually a serious issue for an athlete I’m going to want to know what your medical bona fides are for that one.

As just a layman, my understanding is that an athlete needs to not push their heart, not exercise hard, until the problem has resolved. Do that and most would be ok, no cardiac event. But stress the heart? Not a good idea.

Now here’s what I do know, based on being an athlete, playing ball full speed puts a strain on ones heart.

This is long, skip if you wish. I have spent the last 6 months gritting my teeth while being surrounded in all walks of life by extraordinarily ill-informed yet dogmatically assured conversations and opinions about COVID. I just can't take it any more.

My sub-specialization is not cardiology but I am board certified in Internal Medicine which covers cardiology. I also have a PhD in epidemiology, biostatistics and clinical investigation so, yes, my bona fides are bona fide. The problem isn't you as a laymen not understanding the science, the problem is you and everyone else immediately trumpeting sensational trash studies so that this one would have been tweeted hundreds of thousands of times and then when the inevitable retraction comes out it is re-tweeted about 500 times. This has happened over and over and over to the extent that now the hysteria has become ingrained and casually accepted. COVID is a serious disease and should be taken seriously. It is stupid to be out right now in bars without masks. It would be incredibly stupid to stage an indoor concert right now. It is also stupid however to wear a mask on a beach or while walking on hiking trails or when you are walking through the parking lot at Stop and Shop. This isn't cautious or prudent, it is stupid and ignorant. You do not catch respiratory viruses walking past someone outside but in this era, and not specific to COVID, the most extreme or outrageous take or advise gets the most attention. This leads to the myocarditis garbage.

The problem is people who don't know what they are talking about OR who do but who are looking for attention or publications conflating myocarditis, the clinical disease, with myocarditis, the histopathologic finding. Myocarditis is diagnosed in clinical medicine via serologic tests, echo, or MRI. Those are ordered when a patient is having symptoms. When they have symptoms of myocarditis and have confirmatory tests, then they receive the diagnosis. It is NOT diagnosed via blanket MRI screening in asymptomatic patients. Someone pasted a study looking at this with influenza above. It is very likely (and indeed has been shown) that is you were to start screening asymptomatic influenza patients with MRI you would see widespread evidence of myocarditis. If you screened patients with Coxsackie, which along with other enteroviruses is the most common cause of viral myocarditis and cardiomyopathy, adenovirus, EBV, etc., you would see thousands of college athletes with "myocarditis" every year. They likely would have sat out practice a day because they felt sick (from the virus in general) and then returned without issue.
The definition of myocarditis is histological, the inflammation of myocytes, the predominant cell type in the heart. That may sound scary (and what "sounds scary" is as deep an analysis as way too many people are looking for with COVID) but by no means necessarily need be so. The idea that dire associations are necessarily attached to this is due to doctors sloppily (or intentionally) trying to translate nuanced medical discussions into a vernacular for widespread consumption. Whenever someone is describing these MRI findings as "damage to the heart", that is what is happening. True injury to myocytes results in the leakage of enzymes. This most commonly happens when that area of the heart is ischemic, when it has too little blood flow from the blockage of a vessel (such leakage can indeed also happen with myocarditis). This is why, in the small number of cases where they actually have seen elevated cardiac enzymes someone inevitably says it is "the same type of damage as with a heart attack!". Cue the sturm and drang. Cancel the season for safety! Except, if you were to measure these in most college lax players after they finished their pre-season conditioning runs you would see little elevations as well. The test is extraordinarily sensitive and small elevations are worth noting only when they are in the proper clinical context. There is recent data suggesting 90% of patients who have tested positive for COVID are not contagious due to their extremely low levels. That may well be an exaggeration but a huge number of positive cases are only testing positive due to massive amplification cycles (beyond what is done in looking for other viruses) with PCRs. When you apply exquisitely sensitive tests, be they cardiac MRIs, troponin measurement or 40-cycle PCRs, you are going to come up with massive numbers of clinically meaningless "positives". It is again OBVIOUS, requiring no medical training, that there is no wide-spread serious cardiac effects of COVID on the young or else they would be dying and, from a epidemiological perspective, they just are not.

So. Yes, having asymptomatic, barely detectable histopathologic myocarditis on an MRI is in fact likely not a serious issue for an athlete. Anyone who is having chest pain, easy fatigue-ability, dypsnea on exertion, shortness of breath when laying flat or fevers should not practice. The same would hold regardless of what infection they had. I understand that once it is seen and documented there will be a very strong pull to hold that athlete out, even if complete asymptomatic. Anyone who seeks to do so though should understand what they are talking about.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pcowlax,
Thanks for the thorough response.

Great to get some more expertise on this forum!
Glad I asked.

Just understand that I didn't tweet a darn thing, just commented that a % like that would obviously be alarming and likewise a report that reversed the original report was good news.

It sounded very, very high and it would be good to know that getting the virus doesn't dramatically change an athlete's ability to compete post recovery.

We're on that topic here, not the political ramifications of all the disinformation and bad advice that gets spewed.

Your counsel on masks, distancing, hand washing is all appreciated and yes, some common sense about when a mask is actually necessary is appropriate too.

I'd just say that if we are to err on one or the other the side of unnecessary mask wearing vs mask wearing rejection, please forgive me for wanting us all to err to being overly rigorous.

I'll confess to being a bit perplexed, and certainly interested in learning more, about the notion that 90% (or some lesser but still high #) of those who test positive not being ever contagious...if that's what you mean. Or do you mean that their contagious period may well have passed?

Seems to me that we know 1) that asymptomatic spread occurs and 2) the tests have quite high fail rates in detecting the virus...strong on being correct when positive, big % of misses when returned as negative.

So, I'm a bit perplexed that we think that a lot of these positives returned (which look to be perhaps 1/3 of those actually infected) are not transmitters of Covid.

Could be, but doesn't seem to line up...just as that 35% # on myocarditis didn't sound right.

[Matnum PI]

It is also stupid however to wear a mask on a beach or while walking on hiking trails or when you are walking through the parking lot at Stop and Shop. This isn't cautious or prudent, it is stupid and ignorant. You do not catch respiratory viruses walking past someone outside.

But you could catch a respiratory virus when, for example, playing a soccer game? Also outside but there's physical contact. What about an outdoor cocktail party? Outside but standing, facing each other, while talking.

PS PCow, that post was great.
PPS I fully understand that you are simply posting a post and not giving me medical advice.

[pcowlax]

Pcowlax,
Thanks for the thorough response.

Great to get some more expertise on this forum!
Glad I asked.

Just understand that I didn't tweet a darn thing, just commented that a % like that would obviously be alarming and likewise a report that reversed the original report was good news.

It sounded very, very high and it would be good to know that getting the virus doesn't dramatically change an athlete's ability to compete post recovery.

We're on that topic here, not the political ramifications of all the disinformation and bad advice that gets spewed.

Your counsel on masks, distancing, hand washing is all appreciated and yes, some common sense about when a mask is actually necessary is appropriate too.

I'd just say that if we are to err on one or the other the side of unnecessary mask wearing vs mask wearing rejection, please forgive me for wanting us all to err to being overly rigorous.

I'll confess to being a bit perplexed, and certainly interested in learning more, about the notion that 90% (or some lesser but still high #) of those who test positive not being ever contagious...if that's what you mean. Or do you mean that their contagious period may well have passed?

Seems to me that we know 1) that asymptomatic spread occurs and 2) the tests have quite high fail rates in detecting the virus...strong on being correct when positive, big % of misses when returned as negative.

So, I'm a bit perplexed that we think that a lot of these positives returned (which look to be perhaps 1/3 of those actually infected) are not transmitters of Covid.

Could be, but doesn't seem to line up...just as that 35% # on myocarditis didn't sound right.

Here is the story on the 90% (i think they undersell the significance of the finding in the first half of the story and somewhat oversell it in the second half). I think that number is too high. However whatever the number is, it is very large. To test someone for a bacteria, you typically take a sample (blood, urine, sputum..) and put it on a growth plate with a media based on what you are expecting to grow. You then see if live bacterial colonies grow. With a PCR test for a virus, you are taking a sample and then applying a process that would amplify/replicate any RNA of that virus that is present. Aside from spurious/testing errors, this will not detect the RNA if it was not there in the first place regardless of how many cycles you run it through (each cycle should double the target sequence). However, unlike bacteria, the virus need not be alive to detect it. If you run a sample through enough cycles with a minuscule amount of RNA fragments left over from a dead virus, it will test positive. To be contagious you need live virus and it needs to be at least a certain amount to provide a sufficient inoculum for transmission. COVID is not nerve gas where one molecule will take you out. If 90% (or 70 or 60) of positive tests were positive after 40 PCR cycles but not 30 it likely means those people were not contagious because they did not have a sufficient viral load to spread (saying nothing of whether it was even alive or dead). That does not mean of course that they might not just be early in the disease and 3 days later might in fact be contagious. It does speak to the problems with relying simply on overly sensitive tests without any follow-up or clinical context.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/heal ... sting.html

[pcowlax]

It is also stupid however to wear a mask on a beach or while walking on hiking trails or when you are walking through the parking lot at Stop and Shop. This isn't cautious or prudent, it is stupid and ignorant. You do not catch respiratory viruses walking past someone outside.

But you could catch a respiratory virus when, for example, playing a soccer game? Also outside but there's physical contact. What about an outdoor cocktail party? Outside but standing, facing each other, while talking.

PS PCow, that post was great.
PPS I fully understand that you are simply posting a post and not giving me medical advice.

Thank you. I do not like hijacking a lacrosse thread with all of this but this is just about the extent of my online presence and I need to vent. The cocktail party yes. Usually you need to be in a contained space, and for a certain amount of time, to transmit something that is respiratory (it varies somewhat whether it is a droplet pathogen, which travels on microscopic bits of saliva, or truly airborne, which means it is free-floating (verdict still out on the for COVID, I think more likely than not airborne but its a close call)). This is why in the CDC recommendations for who should gets tested (and there is certainly stuff to disagree with in there) one of recs is:

If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above.
You should strictly adhere to CDC mitigation protocols, especially if you are interacting with a vulnerable individual. You should adhere to CDC guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals with whom you live.

Look not at the caveats after they say don't get tested but look at the first line. All of what follows is only if you have been in contact for at least 15 minutes. They don't even bother talking about passing contact. You DO NOT catch this walking past someone on the street or on a trail. You do catch it if you are inside, especially in a small room, with someone who is contagious and it is lingering in the air you are breathing. If you catch it at the grocery store it is not because someone walked past you in the produce isle but because they touched the zucchini after touching their mouth, leaving traces, and then you touched the zucchini and touched your eye. If you stand in front of someone talking for a good while, even if outside, absolutely yes, you could get it. Sports are frankly a tough call from my perspective. The proximity itself, because it is fleeting, isn't the issue (the second baseman isn't catching it from the runner running past him). It is the exchange of sweat, spit, etc that gets wiped around. The more of this, and teh more you are panting into each other's face (O and D linemen), the greater the chance of transmission.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pcowlax,
Thanks for the thorough response.

Great to get some more expertise on this forum!
Glad I asked.

Just understand that I didn't tweet a darn thing, just commented that a % like that would obviously be alarming and likewise a report that reversed the original report was good news.

It sounded very, very high and it would be good to know that getting the virus doesn't dramatically change an athlete's ability to compete post recovery.

We're on that topic here, not the political ramifications of all the disinformation and bad advice that gets spewed.

Your counsel on masks, distancing, hand washing is all appreciated and yes, some common sense about when a mask is actually necessary is appropriate too.

I'd just say that if we are to err on one or the other the side of unnecessary mask wearing vs mask wearing rejection, please forgive me for wanting us all to err to being overly rigorous.

I'll confess to being a bit perplexed, and certainly interested in learning more, about the notion that 90% (or some lesser but still high #) of those who test positive not being ever contagious...if that's what you mean. Or do you mean that their contagious period may well have passed?

Seems to me that we know 1) that asymptomatic spread occurs and 2) the tests have quite high fail rates in detecting the virus...strong on being correct when positive, big % of misses when returned as negative.

So, I'm a bit perplexed that we think that a lot of these positives returned (which look to be perhaps 1/3 of those actually infected) are not transmitters of Covid.

Could be, but doesn't seem to line up...just as that 35% # on myocarditis didn't sound right.

Here is the story on the 90% (i think they undersell the significance of the finding in the first half of the story and somewhat oversell it in the second half). I think that number is too high. However whatever the number is, it is very large. To test someone for a bacteria, you typically take a sample (blood, urine, sputum..) and put it on a growth plate with a media based on what you are expecting to grow. You then see if live bacterial colonies grow. With a PCR test for a virus, you are taking a sample and then applying a process that would amplify/replicate any RNA of that virus that is present. Aside from spurious/testing errors, this will not detect the RNA if it was not there in the first place regardless of how many cycles you run it through (each cycle should double the target sequence). However, unlike bacteria, the virus need not be alive to detect it. If you run a sample through enough cycles with a minuscule amount of RNA fragments left over from a dead virus, it will test positive. To be contagious you need live virus and it needs to be at least a certain amount to provide a sufficient inoculum for transmission. COVID is not nerve gas where one molecule will take you out. If 90% (or 70 or 60) of positive tests were positive after 40 PCR cycles but not 30 it likely means those people were not contagious because they did not have a sufficient viral load to spread (saying nothing of whether it was even alive or dead). That does not mean of course that they might not just be early in the disease and 3 days later might in fact be contagious. It does speak to the problems with relying simply on overly sensitive tests without any follow-up or clinical context.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/heal ... sting.html

That makes sense, the detection may be before on has enough viral load to be contagious (virus replicating in one's body) or later after the virus is done or reduced so much that viral load is low...so, on either side of the contagious period, a person may nevertheless test positive.

Another possibility is that they never got a heavy viral load, the virus never took hold and got out of on'e own body's control...but is nevertheless detectable.

If I also understand correctly, if a person never had a heavy viral load, yet did get some virus, this may also mean that the immune system did not develop much if any future resistance to a new, heavier exposure...

Am I thinking this through logically?

[MDlaxfan76]

It is also stupid however to wear a mask on a beach or while walking on hiking trails or when you are walking through the parking lot at Stop and Shop. This isn't cautious or prudent, it is stupid and ignorant. You do not catch respiratory viruses walking past someone outside.

But you could catch a respiratory virus when, for example, playing a soccer game? Also outside but there's physical contact. What about an outdoor cocktail party? Outside but standing, facing each other, while talking.

PS PCow, that post was great.
PPS I fully understand that you are simply posting a post and not giving me medical advice.

Thank you. I do not like hijacking a lacrosse thread with all of this but this is just about the extent of my online presence and I need to vent. The cocktail party yes. Usually you need to be in a contained space, and for a certain amount of time, to transmit something that is respiratory (it varies somewhat whether it is a droplet pathogen, which travels on microscopic bits of saliva, or truly airborne, which means it is free-floating (verdict still out on the for COVID, I think more likely than not airborne but its a close call)). This is why in the CDC recommendations for who should gets tested (and there is certainly stuff to disagree with in there) one of recs is:

If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above.
You should strictly adhere to CDC mitigation protocols, especially if you are interacting with a vulnerable individual. You should adhere to CDC guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals with whom you live.

Look not at the caveats after they say don't get tested but look at the first line. All of what follows is only if you have been in contact for at least 15 minutes. They don't even bother talking about passing contact. You DO NOT catch this walking past someone on the street or on a trail. You do catch it if you are inside, especially in a small room, with someone who is contagious and it is lingering in the air you are breathing. If you catch it at the grocery store it is not because someone walked past you in the produce isle but because they touched the zucchini after touching their mouth, leaving traces, and then you touched the zucchini and touched your eye. If you stand in front of someone talking for a good while, even if outside, absolutely yes, you could get it. Sports are frankly a tough call from my perspective. The proximity itself, because it is fleeting, isn't the issue (the second baseman isn't catching it from the runner running past him). It is the exchange of sweat, spit, etc that gets wiped around. The more of this, and teh more you are panting into each other's face (O and D linemen), the greater the chance of transmission.

No worries about 'hijacking', we're talking about ramifications for sports and athletes in this thread.

I'm not so sure we can be quite so definitive about the amount of exposure required to become infected, though it certainly makes sense that the more one is exposed the higher the likelihood. Just makes common sense that lasts of breathing in of particles bearing virus, or touching such to eyes, nose, mouth, would increase chances.

There's also a theory, not yet entirely validated, that heavier viral load exposure is correlated with response. A little virus exposure, maybe our system handles, a lot of exposure our system can be overwhelmed...again, makes sense to avoid lots of exposure.

On the CDC guidelines, it's become clear that reading such with a bit of jaundiced eye makes some sense as some of their recommendations appear to include unstated rationales that are not purely medical, ala the early mask recommendations. It would seem that they were prioritizing where the scarce masks should go when they were recommending against the necessity for the general pop to wear a mask. The unspoken aspect was the limitations on PPE, not enough to go around.

These recommendations against the need for testing (in some cases based on exposure level and personal risk factors) appear motivated to preserve testing capacity for those most acutely at risk, rather than to address the interest of a person to find out whether they may be a carrier and thus need to go into isolation. It runs quite contrary to how an effective test, trace, isolate program would need to be run. But does make some sense given that virus incidence is so high and testing has not been able to expand sufficiently to meet that incidence level. So, prioritizing resources.

Again, make sense?

[jersey shore lax]

It is also stupid however to wear a mask on a beach or while walking on hiking trails or when you are walking through the parking lot at Stop and Shop. This isn't cautious or prudent, it is stupid and ignorant. You do not catch respiratory viruses walking past someone outside.

But you could catch a respiratory virus when, for example, playing a soccer game? Also outside but there's physical contact. What about an outdoor cocktail party? Outside but standing, facing each other, while talking.

PS PCow, that post was great.
PPS I fully understand that you are simply posting a post and not giving me medical advice.

Thank you for the post PCow, I also found the one part a bit troubling, why say it is Stupid? maybe say not needed or an overabundance of caution. I do not think that anybody that puts on a mask in the car and walks through the parking lot at Stop and Shop is stupid, maybe over cautious.