SirBillybob

3 hours ago, LFABWC said:

Last time I searched the amount of antibodies to the spike protein was irrelevant in order to decide when to get vaccinated. Is this still the case? Of course there are a lot of variables implicated in the equation….(intensity of exposure, circulating variants, lab doing the test, how is your immune system doing etc etc etc) but I am just curious.

I have been getting antibodies level tests regularly every so often and never got reinfected until when the levels went lower than 1000….(I forgot the units)

Of course I am not going to decide about when to get vaccinated based on this number, I am just curious about it.

 I think that the research wisdom is that any antibody level gives some protection; higher antibody levels give more protection; and previous infection adds more protection from re-infection than the protection infection-naïve get against first infection, assuming antibody level is classified/binned the same way, where S antibodies are induced by infection, vaccination, or both.

At an individual level, remaining infection free or re-infection free theoretically rests on antibody level (controlling for other risk factors, as you already indicated is important), but breakthrough infection is possible for anybody. Your acquiring re-infection at what you think was a lower if not lowest personal antibody level does not substantiate the theory any more than a person’s non-infection over time at a negligible antibody level refutes it. 

I think that vaccination (re)uptake timing is arbitrary, that is, erroneously suggestive of the irrelevance of antibody levels because the relative hazards of infection risk predicated on antibody levels are extremely difficult to translate into a time-stratified model for vaccination. Moreover, it would be cost-prohibitive to repeatedly assess everybody’s antibody levels for the sole purpose of determining acceptable deviations in any direction from arbitrary vaccination timelines.

1 hour ago, SometimesBi said:

At a routine doctor visit just last month, they gave me a booster. They told me it was the latest, but a week later I heard reports from others going in for theirs, that the clinic in fact did NOT have the latest.

So, is there any concerns if I get another booster (this time the latest) only 3-4 weeks later? 

Please check with your physician what you received. Do not go on hearsay. The updated mRNA vaccines were approved Sept. 12th. That said, you likely received the now outdated bivalent booster, and providers were calling it ‘the latest’ at the time (even recently) as the updated vaccine news was gradually getting on the news radar, and product typically not yet supplied for general consumption. But they were supplied in trials. Slim slim slim chance your physician had trial subjects, though study supply would/should be deployed strictly for them. Confirm anyway, I suggest. Always be clear about what was injected. 

If you need the updated version a bit sooner than 2 months (see below), for example a trip abroad given the current variant, it probably won’t hurt you, but you should seek formal consultation about such a move. The delay is as much to enhance immune response as to avoid adverse reaction. In fact, some people with a booster history will receive two consecutive updated doses to maximize protection. It’s not necessarily overdoing it to go off-label for a good reason and your provider is on board. 

The official USA guidance is minimum 2 months delay between the last bivalent booster and the updated vaccine. This suggests that you are certainly not alone in the timing of your latest booster (likely what you assume you got). Some folks simply hit the timing for a summer booster due to their particular (ie, 6 month) lapse from the previous dose.

Again, upcoming and in fact already available doses are called updated, not booster, in order to line up the current reality and associated language terms with, say, annual influenza vaccination. 

Good news. I was incorrect in my forecast of approval timeline for the new Novavax candidate. The lag time has been 3 weeks. It was given Emergency Use Authorization today based on non-clinical data. I will likely consider this option eventually if approved in Canada.

Novavax 2023-2024 COVID-19 Vaccine Now Authorized and Recommended for Use in the U.S. - Oct 3, 2023

IR.NOVAVAX.COM

---

This Emergency Use Authorization and CDC recommendation makes Novavax's vaccine the only protein-based...

15 hours ago, Vin_Marco said:

This is what they have done without notifying me. I didn't move those seven explicit photos into a "premium" gallery . It was done by RM: 

As you can see, the first vid’s opening frame still image is not blurred. In fact, when See More is activated, the two first vids in the collection do not have the still image blurred out. It is only when All Videos is activated that all of the opening frame still images, including the first two, are blurred out.

Therefore, as a Basic Client I detect that I have seen a few robust erections (or other more x-rated images) sometimes one and sometimes two, likely by accident and not design, as the Escort (I believe whether he has either Basic or Gold status) simply coincidentally had that representation at the very opening of a vid scene. Obviously, if done by design some tweaking may be necessary given the vid dimensions on the platform. Also mindful of dimming features relative to your baseline still, and the positioning of the encircled play button relative to the image content. 

Or simply create a video with the desired opening play frame. 

Actually, a video of any length can be created from a still photo. Using iPhone video feature that screenshoots, or iMovie. Again, the position and framing strategy applies. This may amount to a potential workaround that the site may sabotage and eventually blur out according to their agenda. Or perhaps they will sort out such content with their human assessment team or AI, whatever method is being employed. In which case the one or two videos with which you aim for stealth mode would be deployed lower in the video cluster, if not an across-the-board blurring for all advertisers’ vid collection.

Actually, one’s second video exclusively depicting the desired image might be most applicable strategically because the hall monitors would need to engage the See More step. 

1 hour ago, Marc in Calif said:

I'm still waiting to see exactly what the "literature" says is the definition of the term exposure. Is it all of that literature or only the sources that you consulted?

If you "understand it," please explain precisely what the literature told you, as well as what literature that was. 

Erm, no. Let it go, or take a solitary path.

You do a search and summarize if you like. This thread is rife with antipathy and the minutiae of definitional criteria of transmission terms are secondary to the topic question. I have no need or desire to cling to the coattails of Waterloo battle enactors. I have gone as far as I can to neutralize the discord by weighing in with what I perceive to be accurate data.

Start a new thread if you will. I may circle back around the Day of the Dead, but that is the actual term with which I would describe the current status of this topic in the water. 

Such impasses are not uncommon. No shame, no blame.

it’s been fun, but COVID is in my rear view mirror. I need to bone up again on prostate cancer surveillance and intervention decision trees. I have awareness of the diligent manner in which some contributors here attempt to offer insight in that domain. 

Some of the literature conflates contact with exposure, or is inherently contradictory about how either is distinctive from infection. As I understand it, if exposure occurred the pathogen entered the host. Similarly, if sunlight is implicated in skin cancer then something intermediary happened between being in sunlight and dermatological malignancy, because we all get sun. It seems to me that a tripartite distinction is in order regarding being surrounded environmentally by a pathogen, that pathogen having made a true runway touchdown onto a host, and whether it crashes and burns within the host at a minimal, barely observable or a benign level, or worse. 

If I went to my physician and told him that I thought I had HIV-related physiologically induced symptoms as a result of a verified receptive anal intercourse exposure to a trick’s jizz, without PrEP uptake on my part, also let’s say verifiable vis-a-vis the trick’s viral non-suppression (aka NOT undetectable), all in the context of my own historical HIV-negative status, I would have had HIV bouncing off my rectal wall for a period of time, [let alone seminal particles flying around and breathed in depending on the encounter; of course I jest absurdly]. However, the chances of infection seroprevalence in testing follow-up would be approximately 1.5%, as already referenced in other threads. That would be an exposure with low likelihood of infection and one might assign a relativistic value of robustness versus wimpyness to HIV transmission compared to other pathogens. PEP would be applicable but the manifestation of my reported symptoms, whatever their source, would likely be latent and fall beyond the PEP option window, so its role is moot for purposes of the example. 

The clinician would likely use ‘exposure’ nomenclature, based on my behavioural description, not say I had an HIV contact or was in contact with the virus, though neither of those is semantically outrageous. The clinician would inquire about interactive contacts. If diagnosed, public health would label a person as a contact in management terms. 

The assessment would obviously call for the conventional procedure for such STI testing. In this example HIV exposure is not infection because not all exposures result in infection. The relationship between exposure risk and the culmination of infection hinges on both exposure episode quantity and chance, and in many cases host variables, eg, other STIs on board, or for example inoculation in the case of CoV. 

CoV has low contagion wimpiness and exposure rates are high because it’s much harder to avoid infected human transmission vectors than to keep cum out of your asshole, for most. It is also unlikely that a single genuine exposure poses a mere 1/72 transmission probability of actual infection. 

However, like for HIV, CoV exposure does not guarantee infection (and subsequent manifestation of nucleocapsid antibodies that verify true infection seroprevalence). Obviously, infection denotes that exposure occurred, from a contact or from being in contact with the virus to such a degree that exposure ensued. 

Immunity surveillance data support the reality that the cumulative pandemic infection escape rate across all age groups put together is in the 15-20% range, yet higher for older folks. That metric diminishes over time as would be expected. There is no established arbitrary clinical or colloquial term for the breadth of that metric. It is simply an estimated absolute number between 0 and 100. It is reasonable to assume the exposure escape rate is less, and the contact escape rate is negligible and applies to lighthouse keepers and the like. 

If I pilfered 8 jelly beans from my little niece’s stash of 50 jelly beans, and claimed it to be negligible, a few, a handful, &c, consensus would be lacking as we stared each other down. Aspersions might be cast upon me, by other adults present, much to my protest, about my attempting to gaslight her. Her dentist might side with me regarding the amount significance. It would be far easier to purchase my own candy. 

The trend for infection escape among older folks may be attributable to more assiduous public health prevention adoption among older folks and their contacts’ sensitivity to illness severity vulnerability. That is a good thing if it is actually a central basis of lower infection rates because morbidity, mortality, and health system burdens are associated with this age subgroup’s infection incidence. 

Beating a dead horse, the query about SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced insomnia would prompt verification of infection that naturally proceeded in linear fashion from viral exposure. 

8 minutes ago, labro85 said:

Can you get off in the private rooms? Or are you not able to touch yourself? 

150 to the house and no self-stim? In Montreal we call that Bastille Day. 

30 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

 

One time, I hired a guy in Vancouver.  I paid in loonies and the exchange rate was extremely favorable to the US dollar.  Since I was thinking in terms of exchange rates, it seemed to me like he was working for peanuts and I offered to pay more than his rate in loonies.  He said no, that was fine. It didn't occur to me that he could care less about the exchange rate - that a loonie was a loonie and still had the same buying power, whatever the exchange rate was. 

That, along with pay range, in Brazil multiples of the above. I can feel like a skinflint even with the occasional more opportunistic provider upsell trends. 

The Vancouver condom wrapping would itself have been predictive of the apologist battle …

Again, impossible to establish a ‘going’ rate, but related discussion keeps the board lubricated I suppose.

This summer in Montreal a bilingual Brazilian that straddles both sides of the border. 400USD in north-east USA quadrant listed. Offered 200CAD(150USD). Fun enough but would not repeat; nothing to do with the choreography and my sense was I didn’t get a ‘half-portion’ (the withholding or upsell attempt type of dynamic) based on amount, but just didn’t click. Yet possess the historical capacity to click at a repeat rate of 150-200 same guy bookings at 300CAD here. But sealing that recent deal by old-timey verbal phone convo took all of 2 minutes and I arrived on foot at the exact appointed time. So no time where for him time is money squandered. He earned commensurate with an upper price tier lap dance sesh.  I merely sucked up 60 minutes of what seemed to be otherwise his late afternoon chill time. 

Next slide Toronto summer visit. OF dude lusted after for some years. Only ever profile earning more than 1 month ponied up by me among some half dozen or more total hottie inventory platform purchases over past few years. Ad-negative. 400CAD(300USD) of an early evening; and same deal the following mid morning. Rating; Top 5 spanning over 3 decades.

An experience like that can tide me over for several weeks, months even. Moreover, embedded 1:1 memories supplementing cache of images. No problemo with forking over 400CAD regularly in Montreal for someone like that. As I already suggested, the unique option that may actually have the flavour of hen’s teeth level incidence can earn the equivalent of a single faithful punter’s provincial or federal income tax, tax-exempt for the other. That said, the fickleness of enthusiasm may come into play in unpredictable fashion. 

Market value is often illusory. It be like all meals would run at equivalent to St-Hubert tab for typical chicken dinner combo. Say what?

2 hours ago, newatthis said:

The "Raphael" on this list is definitely not the one I wrote about (who may not, as I said, have been called Rafael).  My "Rafael" had already stopped dancing by the time Alfie and Mam showed up at Stock.

You are likely quite right. I cannot place “R” although I was very regularly at the 2 clubs from 2004 and on. Alfie was exactly age 20 fifteen years ago. I am pretty sure that Alfie had rolled in to Stock with a buddy, also from Hungary, in their early 20s. In any case the friend danced for 2 summers and was in university, but Alfie stayed.

52 minutes ago, socurious said:

Maybe Toronto is a better market compared to Montreal? I get impression Quebec is more conservative than Ontario (or even than the rest of the Canada). I don't know. I'm just speculating. 

In The Village, illegal semi-public transactional sex is facilitated for dozens of punters weekly within a few block radius. Doesn’t get much more liberal than that. Frottage+ is a cottage industry. Some circulating gatekeepers may come across as abrasive in keeping the house party afloat but that yard guard dog-grade village hyper vigilance tracks in this context. 

I finally watched RRR and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a wild ride. 

It was on my radar but I forgot to tune in. I should get in the habit of downloading at least 1st episodes of shows that I think could be good. Then there would be a list easier to keep track of and jog memory right within the app. One thing I like about Netflix and Apple is the option to speed through boring parts aimed at stretching out the length. My TV service has cut out Netflix viewing option on the set and I am reduced to my iPhone. 

On 9/3/2023 at 2:32 PM, Marc in Calif said:

RentMen: What are your hobbies, what do you like to do in your spare time?

JoeBiden: Travel,shop, read books I love anything about Hostory. 

So then, he’s keen on client background including mine. 

The history of stings in the area has been the targeting of hetero male johns and female sex workers, sometimes operationally distinct, other times overlapped. The concept of controlling human trafficking and dissuading men from hiring women seems to have been central to the police activities. While communication may be with a bogus that is male undercover yet posing online as female, it seems that in-person female undercover officers posing as escorts for the most art are finalizing the bust. No indication of charges related to MSM sex trade. 

Speaking of which the location brings to mind the Cape-located recent TV/streaming crime drama series Hightown. The main actor also had a small role as Tina in the movie Bros. 

Heck, in Colombia this year I texted a strip club host with whom I had already had back room fun time. I cryptically entered a number I thought he would automatically grasp as generous yet befitting, and representative of cash, given the previous club transaction, and expected a response of OK or 👍. He responded: “Did you write that you will pay me [X]?” Perhaps he wished to simply clarify denomination currency. Nevertheless, I shut it down and would have circled back to the club to keep communication about a hookup offline, but for the limited club opening nights  and a more secure established connection with a Theatron Pelicula gogo. 

No point closing the barn stable door for this unfortunate lot.

Living here I am not surprised. With ubiquitous strip club options I would estimate having had max 3 ad-based appointments with providers weighed against dozens (likely approaching 100 or more) of private on-site club interaction, to climax, over the past decade. And those very few non-club arrangements were associated with solid recommendations. 

Most recent private dance hook-up sub-90USD and intensely satisfying. He just had to be pried away from a customer talking him up for a good chunk of time, with perhaps a high-yield basis such as being a known regular or making arrangements for a lucrative off-site date. Can’t blame the cock-blocker. What a doll. Ideally, a drink and chat would precede the back room. 

And many more club visits on top of that for face-to-face scanning and vetting, as it is also a viable social outlet for older gay men.

There have been a few top-notch one-time weekend strip club performer visitors over the years that could make good bank if here more permanently. I myself would certainly have repeated. 

You could consider a transient strip club gig, likely requiring some kind of stage audition (non-sexual), eg, with the Campus DJ Gerry (Jerry?), as short-term talent even for a few weekend nights is generally welcome. Complete stage nudity is optional at Campus. Slick dance moves and pole use not essential. My observation this year so far is that most Campus dancers are engaged in some profit for at least part of the weekend 21:00-0:300 shifts. Because they tend to be busy in privates and Campus keeps the stage occupied with the roster cycle the more the roster the merrier. 

Most ad providers would ordinarily not consider private dance customer expectations beyond the scope of comfort. You could fit ad-based trysts into afternoon and early evening. Several local dancers do both. You would not be hassled by club management using your phone pretty much at your leisure. 

Since most clients and scorts get mutually hard, it seems counterintuitive that official feedback is hard to acquire and ramp up.

Where I engage abroad I find reviews as tantalizing for their content as much as they are questionable regarding true provenance. But in the main locations outside of NorthAmer the predominant ad sites seem not to impose barriers or paywalls for service recipients willing to sketch out their experiences. 

What limits do ad platforms impose regarding photo content? It seems to me that some advertisers toss in supplementary photo content not representative of their appearance but might be symbols of various types of interaction or depict verbal summations the content of which is to dissuade time-wasters or cost-quibblers, and so on. One thing that surprises me is the dearth of images related to activities and interests that put a provider into broader relatable context. The fitness buff with a gym photo along with a bookstore-browsing photo will likely get my juices going. 

Therefore, I might be thinking too much outside the box, but it seems to be that a few screenshots of brief client testimonials from a selection of your bona fide clients may be permissible, indeed advantageous, to include in your photo montage. This may be as simple as acquiring a text from a client, redacting if and where necessary, ensuring permission, and screen-shooting. You might in your ad text simply reference that you do this because it can take time to acquire critical mass for what seems the conventional formalized review playbook. 

Readers take it all with a grain of salt anyway and tend to impute unreliability to the advertiser in the absence of formal reviews. Making a concerted attempt to cover that gap in some fashion may set you apart. I don’t see how it would down-regulate client interest even if the yield is minor. 

15 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

Regardless, whether the insomnia is or isn't from a virus, diet, stress, or age, just learn to adapt to it.  Set a going to bed routine, waking up routine, and enjoy life.

Right. There does not seem to be anything particular about the problem source being CoV infection or not, in terms of sleep disturbance management, unless one is really stuck on the etiology of insomnia and the knowing part might be psychologically helpful in some fashion, in turn possibly mitigating the disturbance. Otherwise, the management strategy transcends presumption versus verification. 

7 hours ago, Buddy15 said:

I want to thank everyone for not hijacking this thread to snipe at each other and instead answering my original post about insomnia!🤣

Blame me, though I think I’ve tried to refrain in this thread from digging rabbit holes, planting land mines, lighting gas lamps, remotely flying arms-loaded drones, and standing on tall buildings with telescopic lens hoisted up to my face.😏

I spearheaded the convo about the estimates of true SARS-CoV infection to date because if you were never infected so far you cannot have COVID-specific sleep disturbance, physiologically that is. Pandemic stressors are another matter. And because the likelihood of never having been infected is surprisingly high, particularly among older persons. 

Well, what information do you (OP) have that could corroborate the hypothesis you put forward here? ?? There is typically a threshold of added information that assists other platform members to enter productive responses.

There is nobody in my family or social network that, if uncertain about actual infection but experiencing new symptom presentation that COULD be a signature indicator of lingering COVID morbidity, wouldn’t be dragged by me to the venipuncture lab with a requisition in hand for assessing infection-induced antibodies. I would happily pay the mid-2-figure amount myself.

The test will cover both types of antibodies:

1. the quantitative volume of spike (S) protein antibodies that inevitably resulted from infection alone, inevitably resulted from vaccination alone, or from both infection and vaccination (hybrid immune response), the test therefore accurately signifying past infection on its own only if not at all vaccinated with any dose because of the common feature of both infection and vaccination creating S antibodies. 

2. the categorical binary (yes detected vs no not detected) of nucleocapsid protein (N) antibodies (not quantitatively depicted) that would be represented by having had SARS-CoV-2 infection or the disease COVID (terms used interchangeably) irrespective of vaccination uptake.

The S volume is a bonus in the 2-for-1 procedure if one wishes to triangulate immunity information around trip-planning and booster or reboot formulation vaxx uptake timing. If my recent infection had been asymptomatic and not spurred infection testing I would have pursued, in the absence of knowing infection history to date, yet another N test before queuing for the Fall rollout. Similarly, I was in an early vaccination trial fraught with deficiencies and unblinded myself at 10 months at the point early trial data were reported regarding the percentages of poor levels of antibody titres for vaccine recipients. They had 10 months of follow-up and my data were not discarded because infection incidence rates are collapsed across total study cohort person-years. They only eventually got as far as 6-month immunogenicity for the study cohort anyway. Sure enough, my S antibody levels sucked, N antibody negative, and S levels then soared at the point a few days prior to boost dose of 2-dose mRNA primary series. Hit the road travelling abroad with a sense of solid artificial immunity yet realization of risk of infection.

I would not have opened this can of worms but for the fact that a very sizeable proportion of the population assumes not having been infected when they actually have been infected and do possess N antibodies and, more to the point, approximately half of that proportion in volume terms among older folks have never been infected irrespective of their second-guessing assumptions about infection status … some 99%-100% of that population component would not know they don’t harbour N antibodies and it would not be front of mind anyway outside of the context of a clinical reason that renders expedient knowing the specifics of antibody status. Most are understandably fine with knocking over the hurdle bar while assuming infection immunity status, yet circumventing the high bar of definitive awareness. 

Since long-COVID morbidity is not dissimilar from unrelated disease or pathogens, any clinician assessing such in the context of unconfirmed past infection might be deemed to be out to lunch. The imperative of a simple N antibody test is greater among older folks because their past infection rates are the lowest for adults (estimated at 70-75% cumulatively in Canada, for example) and older folks are more likely to possess morbidity that resembles COVID symptom sequelae yet is truly unrelated if infection did not occur.

Similarly, any adult person, particularly not older group, doggedly putting forward the logical fallacy that they have not been infected (we already know those subjective estimates fall short of reality) but claiming to have extended vaccination-induced morbidity should have the nucleocapsid antibody assay in order to possibly disabuse them of the claim, depending on the N binary result, that vaccination alone fucked them over.

12 hours ago, LFABWC said:

Omg……this Covid stuff!! 

well the important thing however is that now everybody that wants to get the extra vaccinations and new boosters will be able to get it.

and that all the people that do not want to get those extra boosters and vaccinations will be able to stay booster free.

by the way I am wondering when is the CDC or whoever is in charge going to finally approve the Novovax booster in the US?

the only ones available here so far are the Moderna and Pfizer ones.

Interesting and important question. Short answer: A lot of complex variables are involved in second-guessing timeline for the Novavax formulation. I will touch on a few. 

Note that none of the 3 are technically boosters. They are designed as if the ancestral CoV strain in well behind us. Therefore, the standards of viability are as stringent as a few years ago for the initial candidates. That said, track records and vaccine platform preferences are likely ‘unofficially’ folded in to authorization decisions.

Novavax is historically plagued with being bridesmaid, option of last resort, go-to choice of mRNA hesitancies, &c. I don’t need inoculation now but I would have no problem choosing Nuvaxovid re-boot. That said, I am Team Whatever Is Approved.

All 3 companies presented to CDC’s immunization advisory committee on 12 Sept, a day following FDA approval of both Pfizer and Moderna. So the two mRNA options already had it in the bag.

Moderna is recently approved in Canada while Pfizer awaits disposition. The two are essentially viewed as interchangeable. 

My sense is that the trajectory of non-clinical or pre-clinical (ie, animal models of immune response) progressing to human data confers an edge. Novavax has presented macaque immunogenicity data. As I put elsewhere they are still recruiting for their human immunogenicity trial and all subjects (N=330?) will get the new vaccine.  If desired, I can steer those interested but it helps to know if study site location will fit, and a few attendances and solid follow-up commitment are required. But no older than age 54. 

I think another hurdle for Novavax is the added demonstration of legitimacy for cross-platform, or what is called heterologous dosing. Most folks have had within-mRNA sequential dosing, termed homologous. The CDC meeting threw a question to Novavax regarding the introduction of heterologous dosing for a greater number of people having previous exclusive mRNA uptake. Homogolous and heterologous dosing are generally considered mutually non-inferior but there may be sticklers peppering authorization entities around this question.

In sum, I would venture to forecast that Novavax access, although likely quick at getting from authorization to table, will not precede Turkey dinner or be stuffed into mantle stockings. In fact, it could be initially restricted to previous Nuvaxovid recipients. Its other two potentials are the heterologous model as described above with single-dose series or a 2-dose series for those completely unvaccinated to date.

Let’s unpack this a bit more. In the absence of 2023 USA data, what immunity research might one draw on to estimate ongoing cumulative infection-induced N-antibody seroprevalence subsequent to the latest CDC slice some 9 months ago?

I don’t have time to search global regional  trends. 

In Canada we see a relative levelling off of increase in infection immunity rates by time throughout 2023. If it weren’t for a 10% increase among older folks, always in fact lagging behind in evidence of infection acquisition, the plateau or relative flattening trend would be more pronounced. I might dare to put forward that a similar increase to, say, 85% in USA trends will be borne out in the next analysis iteration. But none of us is a crystal-ball gazer. 

Geographic population density has been assessed a little but seemingly only in Quebec, with no difference in infection immunity between the two urban centres and the dozen or so less populated regions. In fact the sparser areas to date have higher rates of infection immunity but when looking at confidence intervals for the smaller sample sizes those differences are essentially nullified. 

I append 2 specific province graphs, and an age-based graph representing all of Canada for the N-antibody component.

It doesn’t seem off base to assume that a substantial minority of board members, given age demographics, remain infection virgins, notwithstanding that both under-the-radar infection and spidey-sense are poor predictors of type of immunity. 

I am not an immunologist but I thought that over time, and given re-infection in terms of this disease, the residual minority of uninfected are not particularly low hanging fruit for first infection. Moreover, the extremely high rate of population artificial immunity in concert with ever increasing hybrid immunity would be a protective factor transmission-wise for the as yet infection-spared.

That said, I am hacking through a sinus cold superimposed on a recent initial SARS-CoV infection characterized by transient high fever and now remitted aggravatingly itchy abdominal trunk flank rash of 2 weeks. I tracked my infection status microbiologically over the past few years and made the decision to defer a Fall Europe trip pending re-vaccination (now moot), so pandemic OCD sometimes pays off with respect to circumventing illness abroad. I am sleeping marvellously. 

Last year I came across a few cross-affiliated fellows, at 50-ish in Thermas yet 150-ish via ad sites, the latter obviously more the full hour. Not surprising that some degree of gap closure would evolve. 75 in a structured environment with an expanded array of choice seems reasonable. What I am currently curious about is how much the apparently large volume of visiting providers with site ads might be supplementing in this manner, as some work in Spain seasonally, temporarily, even in cycles.