Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,922
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way


@gardenman wrote:

The virus is clearly not as easily spread as initially feared. If the virus was easily spread and each infected person spread it to just one other person each day, in 34-35 days the whole world would have it. Day one, one person has it. Day two, two people have it and spread it to two others. Day three, four people then have it and spread it to four others. Day four, eight people now have it and spread it to eight others. Day five sixteen people have it and spread it to sixteen others. Keep doing the math and when you hit day 34-35, over eight billion people have it.

 

At this point about one in five hundred people have been infected that we know of in the US and probably half of them are no longer infectious which makes the odds of you even coming into contact with someone with the active virus one in about a thousand. What are the odds that you'd then catch the virus from them? Pretty slim if you're wearing a mask, washing your hands, not touching your face, avoiding unnecessary social gatherings, etc. Even if you did, nationally about 95% of the people recover.

 

The hardest-hit area is New York City where we cram 8.398 million people into just 302.6 square miles for a population density of 27,755.3 per square mile. Then we add in a few million commuters and tourists each day just to spice things up a bit. And don't forget that 7.6 million New Yorkers (and visitors) ride the subway each day where they're essentially packed in like sardines in a can, touching the same surfaces and breathing the same air. Workers tend to spend their days not in open fields with fresh air and sunshine, but in office buildings with recycled air and shared facilities.

 

Now, New York State (not just NYC) has a total of just 236,732 confirmed cases despite all of that. If this was as infectious as many like to think, that number would be much, much higher. NYC on a daily basis probably has over ten million people (commuters and residents) crammed into those 302.6 square miles.

 

Some will argue that we don't really know how many people were infected because we haven't tested everyone. That's true. But we do know the number of people who have died or been in the hospital. If the number of infected is higher than we know then the severity or risk posed by the virus is lower. New York's 236,732 confirmed cases with 17,671 dead is a death rate of 7.4% for those with confirmed infections. If the number of infected is ten times higher, the death rate drops by ten times to 0.74%. That's a much better number. If the number of infected is a hundred times higher then the death rate drops to 0.074%. Not too scary a number. Give me a 99.926% survival rate any old day and I'll be pretty happy.

 

Talk to any epidemiologist in the world and they'll tell you that the more people you cram into a tighter space the more likely the spread of disease is. That's what we're seeing in NYC. Despite cramming people in like sardines in a can, the number of infected and the death rate is not nearly as bad as many had presumed it would be. It's not good, but it could be, maybe should be, a lot worse. The fact that it isn't, indicates that either the virus isn't nearly as easily spread as many had presumed, or that the virus isn't nearly as deadly as many had presumed. If it's spread is wider, then the death and complications rate is lower. The two numbers are linked.

 

Assuming no one's hiding tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead and hospitalized patients, the numbers right now are kind of encouraging. People are still going to get sick and people are still going to die, but if you take the right precautions and aren't horribly unlucky, you should come through this just fine. The numbers right now, when put into perspective, aren't so bad. Do the right things, take care of yourself, and you should be fine. This really isn't the Mother of all Pandemics that many had forecast. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as it had looked like it might be.


No offense, but I would like a fact check on the conclusions in this post.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 14,864
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

Only 67% recovered from a recent retirement community. NOT 95 %.

Anyone can downplay the severity of this all they want, until you have someone you know and love die from it or you do yourself.

Every single life matters here!

And no one is absolutely sure of anything with this virus.

So no use trying to make numbers or statistics fit whatever anyone wants or hopes it to be.

"If you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you'll learn things you never knew. Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains? can you paint with all the colors of the wind?"
Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

Stuck at home for a while? 

 

It could be worse. You could be in Italy. 

 

But even there, viral videos show the country's’ “gioia di vivere,” singing operatic national anthems in unison. And mind you, the glorious voices aren’t muffled from inside cloistered apartments with the windows closed but rather with windows ajar and residents crooning on balconies. 

 

What’s the lesson here? 

 

In Self-Quarantine? Get Plenty Of Fresh Air

 

We must follow regulatory guidelines but even in the midst of a mandatory lockdown, exposure to fresh air and sunlight is therapeutic and necessary. Why? Because being exposed to sunlight and fresh air makes you happier. Being happy supports healthy immune function. And the oxygen in fresh air helps strengthen the body’s immune system.

 

Also, exposing some skin to sunshine can boost your blood’s vitamin D levels. Having adequate levels of vitamin D is associated with a more positive mood and a more robust immune function. 

 

As the sun passes the spring equinox, it’s only a matter of time before stronger, more direct sunlight starts eliciting its happiness effect. 

 

It’s a simple equation. The sun makes people happy. Happiness boosts immunity. Happiness, along with sleep and superfood nutrition are the magic trinity of healthy immune function. 

 

Both the current state of affairs and weather may appear somewhat gloomy (as of this writing in late winter). It’s grey, dreary, dark, rainy and depressing. Depression and sadness suppresses immunity. As does anxiety and fear and other distressing emotions that almost everybody around the world is currently feeling. 

 

But happiness, and hence, enhanced immunity will come soon; it’s right around the corner. So in the meantime, try to be happy. Watch lots of comedies; don’t watch too much news. Get outdoors for some fresh air if you can and soak in the sun, even for a few minutes. 

 

How To Get Vitamin D If It’s Still Cold Where You Live

 

What if you live in Seattle instead of San Diego or Minneapolis instead of Miami? Can your skin synthesize enough vitamin D to boost immunity? 

 

Almost everywhere in North America, the sun is too weak from the beginning of November to the end of March to boost levels of serum vitamin D. And because of sedentary lifestyles, trapped in home and office, even many people who live in San Diego and Miami are deficient in vitamin D. 

 

Unfortunately, there are few foods that are naturally high in vitamin D. And if you’re vegan, your choices are even scarcer. But there is one food that’s high in dietary vitamin D and that’s vegetarian- and vegan-friendly: mushrooms

 

Here’s a fungal fun fact from a study titled, “A Review of Mushrooms as a Potential Source of Dietary Vitamin D,” published in the journal, Nutrients: “Mushrooms have the potential to be the only non-animal, unfortified food source of vitamin D that can provide a substantial amount of vitamin D2 in a single serving.” 

 

(For more information on how mushrooms can support the immune system, read our blog post.)

 

The good news is you don’t have to go to the supermarket to buy mushrooms. 

 

Instead, you can get the immune-supporting and health-boosting benefits of 20 therapeutic mushrooms in one delicious powder, Super ‘Shrooms! 

(Just make sure you're taking a Vitamin D3 supplement because mushrooms alone aren't enough to optimally raise your serum levels of vit. D; 'shrooms are rich in vitamin D2, the plant form of vitamin D, which is not as beneficial for health as vitamin D3.) 

 

Sunlight: Friend or Foe?  

 

Vitamin D is known as “the sunshine vitamin.” That’s because being exposed to the sun on your bare skin is the best way for your body to synthesize vitamin D. 

 

But wait a second… isn’t the sun bad for your skin? Doesn’t it cause skin cancer? To explore the answer, this research sagely poses a provocative question in the title: “Sunlight Effects on Immune System: Is There Something Else in addition to UV-Induced Immunosuppression?” 

 

In the article, the researchers acknowledge that thousands of experimental papers have been published on UV-induced immunosuppression and its role in the development of skin cancer. 

 

But the researchers also recognize that there’s more to sunlight than ultraviolet rays. And also, exposure is essential to ensuring proper levels of circulating Vitamin D. Furthermore, vitamin D has positive effects on the immune system. 

 

For these reasons, the researchers argue, “Sunlight exposure cannot be considered only as a carcinogen nowadays.” The researchers also suggest that there is abundant evidence showing that sunlight is indeed beneficial and not only due to Vitamin D synthesis. 

 

For example, sunlight boosts serotonin levels. This explains the mechanism behind how being exposed to the sun makes us happy. If you’re currently depressed either because of seasonal affective disorder (SAD; perhaps the most appropriate acronym ever created) or because of what’s going on in the world, or both, research shows that sunlight decreases the risk for depression. 

 

At Home All Day? Maintain Normal Circadian Rhythms For Mental Health, Sleep & Immunity

 

If you’re sequestering yourself in your man cave all day, that’s bad news. You see, it’s vital that you get sufficient daylight exposure to maintain normal circadian rhythms. 

 

Not getting enough light in your home can interfere with sleep patterns and make your mood worse; you’ll be more at risk for depression. 

 

So to conclude, make sure you get outside a few times a day for fresh air and sun exposure. Even if it’s raining, go outside and take a few deep breaths of therapeutic fresh air. 

 

We can learn the lessons of past health crises, in which fresh air and sunlight were used to heal the sick. (For an excellent article on the potential of outdoor therapy, check out this article.)

 

Conclusion

 

Although being stuck at home for days on end may feel like an eternity—especially if you have young kids or moody teenagers—sunshine, happiness and enhanced immunity are right around the corner.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

(Reuters Health) - Leaving a bedroom door or window open may help people sleep better, a study from the Netherlands suggests.

Open windows and doors helped reduce carbon dioxide levels and improve ventilation and air flow, which was related to better sleep quality for the healthy young adults in the study.

“We spend nearly a third of our life in the bedroom environment, but the air quality in our sleeping environment is often overlooked,” said study author Dr. Asit Mishra of Eindhoven University of Technology.

“Imagine this - you are in a confined space and have limited ability to adjust the situation (since you are asleep) while you are possibly surrounded by pollutants,” he told Reuters Health by phone. “This is how things are in bed, covered under duvets or a blanket.”

For one night of the study, 17 volunteers slept with an open window or internal door. On another night, the windows and door to the room were kept closed. In the meantime, Mishra and colleagues monitored carbon dioxide levels, temperature, background noise and humidity. The study participants were asked not to drink alcoholic beverages or caffeinated drinks, which could influence sleep. They each slept alone, and the bedroom layout with furniture arrangement was kept consistent.

For measuring sleep quality, participants wore an armband that measures skin temperature, heat flux, bed temperature and skin moisture levels. They also wore a sensor that tracked their movements at night, including indications of restlessness.

Closed environments tended to have less background noise – but they also had significantly higher carbon dioxide levels, which indicated lower ventilation levels.

Open conditions were slightly cooler than closed, although humidity levels were similar across settings, according to the report in the journal Indoor Air.

 

Notably, carbon dioxide levels were lower when windows or doors were open.

Overall, skin temperature and the bed temperature were higher in closed conditions than open conditions. The number of awakenings and sleep efficiency improved as carbon dioxide levels decreased.

“Opening an internal door can be a reasonably good alternative if you don’t want to open windows, either for noise concerns or security concerns,” Mishra said.

A limitation of the study is that the motion sensor often slipped off the sleepers at night.

“Sleep quality is affected by many factors, such as health and emotional states, bedding conditions and different environmental conditions, including noise levels and temperature,” said Dr. Nuno Canha of the University of Lisbon in Portugal. Canha, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches indoor air quality and sleep during different ventilation patterns. He is also part of LIFE Index-Air, a European research group that focuses on human exposure to pollutants.

Advertisement

 

In a recent study, Canha and colleagues found that closed doors and windows led to higher levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other substances such as formaldehyde.

“Sleep is essential to our life in several areas: health, well-being and productivity,” Canha told Reuters Health by email. “The exposure we are under while asleep is continuous . . . and we should play it safe in order to breathe better air during sleep.”

SOURCE: bit.ly/2BOsgOd Indoor Air, online November 21, 2017.

 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,775
Registered: ‎07-09-2011

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way


@jonbon wrote:

@gardenman wrote:

The virus is clearly not as easily spread as initially feared. If the virus was easily spread and each infected person spread it to just one other person each day, in 34-35 days the whole world would have it. Day one, one person has it. Day two, two people have it and spread it to two others. Day three, four people then have it and spread it to four others. Day four, eight people now have it and spread it to eight others. Day five sixteen people have it and spread it to sixteen others. Keep doing the math and when you hit day 34-35, over eight billion people have it.

 

At this point about one in five hundred people have been infected that we know of in the US and probably half of them are no longer infectious which makes the odds of you even coming into contact with someone with the active virus one in about a thousand. What are the odds that you'd then catch the virus from them? Pretty slim if you're wearing a mask, washing your hands, not touching your face, avoiding unnecessary social gatherings, etc. Even if you did, nationally about 95% of the people recover.

 

The hardest-hit area is New York City where we cram 8.398 million people into just 302.6 square miles for a population density of 27,755.3 per square mile. Then we add in a few million commuters and tourists each day just to spice things up a bit. And don't forget that 7.6 million New Yorkers (and visitors) ride the subway each day where they're essentially packed in like sardines in a can, touching the same surfaces and breathing the same air. Workers tend to spend their days not in open fields with fresh air and sunshine, but in office buildings with recycled air and shared facilities.

 

Now, New York State (not just NYC) has a total of just 236,732 confirmed cases despite all of that. If this was as infectious as many like to think, that number would be much, much higher. NYC on a daily basis probably has over ten million people (commuters and residents) crammed into those 302.6 square miles.

 

Some will argue that we don't really know how many people were infected because we haven't tested everyone. That's true. But we do know the number of people who have died or been in the hospital. If the number of infected is higher than we know then the severity or risk posed by the virus is lower. New York's 236,732 confirmed cases with 17,671 dead is a death rate of 7.4% for those with confirmed infections. If the number of infected is ten times higher, the death rate drops by ten times to 0.74%. That's a much better number. If the number of infected is a hundred times higher then the death rate drops to 0.074%. Not too scary a number. Give me a 99.926% survival rate any old day and I'll be pretty happy.

 

Talk to any epidemiologist in the world and they'll tell you that the more people you cram into a tighter space the more likely the spread of disease is. That's what we're seeing in NYC. Despite cramming people in like sardines in a can, the number of infected and the death rate is not nearly as bad as many had presumed it would be. It's not good, but it could be, maybe should be, a lot worse. The fact that it isn't, indicates that either the virus isn't nearly as easily spread as many had presumed, or that the virus isn't nearly as deadly as many had presumed. If it's spread is wider, then the death and complications rate is lower. The two numbers are linked.

 

Assuming no one's hiding tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead and hospitalized patients, the numbers right now are kind of encouraging. People are still going to get sick and people are still going to die, but if you take the right precautions and aren't horribly unlucky, you should come through this just fine. The numbers right now, when put into perspective, aren't so bad. Do the right things, take care of yourself, and you should be fine. This really isn't the Mother of all Pandemics that many had forecast. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as it had looked like it might be.


No offense, but I would like a fact check on the conclusions in this post.


@jonbon 

 

I agree, like to see verification myself. 

Require facts, and creditable sources.

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras
Honored Contributor
Posts: 24,215
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way


@Drythe wrote:

@jonbon wrote:

@gardenman wrote:

The virus is clearly not as easily spread as initially feared. If the virus was easily spread and each infected person spread it to just one other person each day, in 34-35 days the whole world would have it. Day one, one person has it. Day two, two people have it and spread it to two others. Day three, four people then have it and spread it to four others. Day four, eight people now have it and spread it to eight others. Day five sixteen people have it and spread it to sixteen others. Keep doing the math and when you hit day 34-35, over eight billion people have it.

 

At this point about one in five hundred people have been infected that we know of in the US and probably half of them are no longer infectious which makes the odds of you even coming into contact with someone with the active virus one in about a thousand. What are the odds that you'd then catch the virus from them? Pretty slim if you're wearing a mask, washing your hands, not touching your face, avoiding unnecessary social gatherings, etc. Even if you did, nationally about 95% of the people recover.

 

The hardest-hit area is New York City where we cram 8.398 million people into just 302.6 square miles for a population density of 27,755.3 per square mile. Then we add in a few million commuters and tourists each day just to spice things up a bit. And don't forget that 7.6 million New Yorkers (and visitors) ride the subway each day where they're essentially packed in like sardines in a can, touching the same surfaces and breathing the same air. Workers tend to spend their days not in open fields with fresh air and sunshine, but in office buildings with recycled air and shared facilities.

 

Now, New York State (not just NYC) has a total of just 236,732 confirmed cases despite all of that. If this was as infectious as many like to think, that number would be much, much higher. NYC on a daily basis probably has over ten million people (commuters and residents) crammed into those 302.6 square miles.

 

Some will argue that we don't really know how many people were infected because we haven't tested everyone. That's true. But we do know the number of people who have died or been in the hospital. If the number of infected is higher than we know then the severity or risk posed by the virus is lower. New York's 236,732 confirmed cases with 17,671 dead is a death rate of 7.4% for those with confirmed infections. If the number of infected is ten times higher, the death rate drops by ten times to 0.74%. That's a much better number. If the number of infected is a hundred times higher then the death rate drops to 0.074%. Not too scary a number. Give me a 99.926% survival rate any old day and I'll be pretty happy.

 

Talk to any epidemiologist in the world and they'll tell you that the more people you cram into a tighter space the more likely the spread of disease is. That's what we're seeing in NYC. Despite cramming people in like sardines in a can, the number of infected and the death rate is not nearly as bad as many had presumed it would be. It's not good, but it could be, maybe should be, a lot worse. The fact that it isn't, indicates that either the virus isn't nearly as easily spread as many had presumed, or that the virus isn't nearly as deadly as many had presumed. If it's spread is wider, then the death and complications rate is lower. The two numbers are linked.

 

Assuming no one's hiding tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead and hospitalized patients, the numbers right now are kind of encouraging. People are still going to get sick and people are still going to die, but if you take the right precautions and aren't horribly unlucky, you should come through this just fine. The numbers right now, when put into perspective, aren't so bad. Do the right things, take care of yourself, and you should be fine. This really isn't the Mother of all Pandemics that many had forecast. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as it had looked like it might be.


No offense, but I would like a fact check on the conclusions in this post.


@jonbon 

 

I agree, like to see verification myself. 

Require facts, and creditable sources.


The numbers used are all readily available. The math is very easy to perform. If you doubt the population of NYC, it's a very easy thing to check. The same with the number of commuters, subway users, etc. The number of infected and the number of deaths were accurate when I posted it, but they're an ever-evolving number. This is all pretty simple basic math I used. Feel free to repeat it. You'll get the same answers. 

 

If each infected person infected just one other person a day on day one there would be one infected person. Day two you'd have two, Day three there would be four. (Each of the two infected one other person.) Day five, eight. Day six there would be sixteen. Day seven there would be 32. Day eight there would be 64. Day nine there would be 128. Day ten the number would be 256. Day eleven the number would be 512. Day twelve the number would be 1024. Day thirteen the number would be 2048. Day fourteen the number would be 4096. Day fifteen the number would be 8,192. Day sixteen it would be  16,384. Day seventeen it would be 32,768. Day eighteen it would be 65,536. Day nineteen it would be 131,072. Day twenty it would be 262,144. Day twenty-one it would be 524,288. Day twenty-two it would be 1,048,576. Day twenty-three it would be 2,097,152. Day twenty-four it would be 4,194,304. Day twenty-five it would be 8,388,608. Day twenty-six it would be 16,777,216. Day twenty-seven it would be 33,554,432. Day twenty-eight it would be 67,108,864. Day twenty-nine it would be 134,217,728, Day thirty it would be 268,435,456. Day thirty-one it would be 536,870,912. Day thirty-two it would be 1,073,721,824. Day thirty-three it would be 2,147,483,648. Day thirty-four it would be 4,294,967,296. And finally, on day thirty-five we'd crack the eight billion mark which would be more people than are on the planet. That's if each infected person infected one other person per day.

 

The death rate is calculated by taking the number of deaths, dividing it by the number of infected, and multiplying it by 100. If there are ten dead and 100 infected the ten divided by 100 is 0.10. Multiply that by a hundred and you get a death rate of 10%. If there are 23 dead out of 200 then the 23/200=0.115X100 would give you a death rate of 11.5%. If there are 23 dead out of 500 the death rate is 4.6%. As the number of infected increases, relative to the number of dead, the rate of death drops. We know the number of dead. I'm pretty sure no state is hiding tens of thousands of deaths. The official number of infected is likely an underestimate at this point, so the death rate we see now is arguably a worst-case scenario.

 

People say we don't know the number of infected due to not everyone being tested. But if the number of infected goes up ten-fold the death rate drops ten-fold. Let's go back to the original example of 100 infected and ten dead. Let's say the number of infected is off by a factor of ten and there are actually 1,000 people infected. There are still the same ten dead. 10/1000=.001 and when you multiply that by 100 you now get a death rate of 1% instead of the earlier ten percent. This is basic math. If we start testing lots more people and find lots more people are infected, we get a much lower rate of death and rate of serious complications. If we're off by a hundred-fold in the number of infected the rate of death drops a hundred-fold. It's pretty basic math. 

 

Feel free to find your own numbers and do the calculations yourself. You'll get the same results. 

Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,999
Registered: ‎10-04-2015

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

@gardenman  Thank you.  A Voice of Reason Heart

 

hd00:13Young girl hand holding red paper heart against nature ...

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,736
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

@gardenman if we do all your math and find what you are saying we find, it would mean that even all the measures being taken are not enough to stop people from getting infected at that rate.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Valued Contributor
Posts: 798
Registered: ‎07-17-2019

Re: Where will I encounter the covid 19 virus if I am outside...no link just pointing the way

@gardenman @You are very good at statistics but you are not allowing for an important variable. The statistics on who dies are not equal. This virus does not affect the young as  viciously as it does the older population.

 

In Italy, as of April 17th172,000 positive. 20,531 deaths. 
Under 50 years old, 1001

Over 50,19,530

 

More like 95% over 50 died after contracting this disease.

 

Until there is a vaccine, no one is immune, but some more susceptible than others.

 

Stay safe.