Coronasomnia

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Marc in Calif said:

Owned by the Canadian! 🎯 

Takedown!  🎯

Match point! 🎯

So sorry. Hard facts are in the way... 😉

[Marc in Calif]

36 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

So sorry. Hard facts are in the way

I know you don't like hard facts! But please don't apologize for that. It's obsequious and not very attractive. 🙃

@Luv2playcompletely schooled you about Canada's acceptance of immigrants. This was AFTER your implication that immigrants who first cross the southern border of the US (with great difficulty) would then want to make the easy journey of up to 2400 ADDITIONAL miles to cross a border again -- into Canada! 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Marc in Calif

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marc in Calif said:

I know you don't like hard facts! ...

"I know you are, but what am I"? What are you, in Kindergarten? I would expect a 6 year-old to be able to argue more persuasively. Even if 1/3 of the immigrants to the US continued to Canada, and the numbers are absolutely much smaller than that, it would still mean that the vast majority of immigrants would suffer almost anything rather than face the prospect of a lifetime in Canada. This is a simple mathematical fact that I'd expect a 4th-grader who's mastered simple fractions to understand. And I'd expect anyone with more than 20 neurons to understand that the journey from Venezuela to El Paso, much of it slogging through treacherous jungle infested with dangerous fauna, disease, and narcotraffickers, is immensely more difficult (not to even mention the absolute distance) than simply crossing the US. 

So sorry, but this is NOT a matter of opinion. I'm right as a matter of numerical fact. I'm right, and you're wrong. QED. 

[Marc in Calif]

19 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

... the vast majority of immigrants would suffer almost anything rather than face the prospect of a lifetime in Canada. This is a simple mathematical fact...  I'm right as a matter of numerical fact. I'm right, and you're wrong. QED. 

1. Show us the formula or equation.
2. Use proper units.
3. Don't forget to show your work.  😊

[Cooper]

Administrator’s Note:

Gentlemen, The last few posts are taking this thread off-topic. Let’s keep to the subject. Remember, this is the Men’s Health Forum. 

[Marc in Calif]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:18 PM, Unicorn said:

In medical terms, being exposed to an infected agent, means the agent has gotten into your body, even if you didn't get sick, not just that you walked past someone with a contagious illness.

There is NOTHING about SARS-CoV-2 having "gotten into your body" in the following medical guidelines from different sources. It could or could not "get into" you. And with that phrase, do you mean actual transmission?

Close contact to COVID-19 occurs when you are within six feet of someone who is showing symptoms of COVID-19, for at least 15 minutes, or an infected person who shows no symptoms but later tests positive for the coronavirus. This is considered exposure regardless of whether one or both parties were wearing a mask....

Just because you were near someone who later tested positive for COVID-19 doesn’t mean you were necessarily a close contact. When we say close contact, we mean one of these things happened:

• You were within 6 feet of a person who tested positive for more than 15 minutes total in a day (this time does not need to be consecutive. Three, 5-minute periods over the course of a day is still close contact).
• You had any physical contact with a person who has tested positive.
• You had direct contact with the respiratory secretions of a person who has tested positive (i.e., from coughing, sneezing, contact with a dirty tissue, shared drinking glass, food, or other personal items).
• You live with or stayed overnight for at least one night in a household with the person who tested positive.

... In general, the longer you are around someone who has COVID-19, the more likely it is that COVID-19 could spread to you....

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Marc in Calif

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Marc in Calif said:

...

Close contact to COVID-19 occurs when you are within six feet of someone who is showing symptoms of COVID-19, for at least 15 minutes, or an infected person who shows no symptoms but later tests positive for the coronavirus. This is considered exposure regardless of whether one or both parties were wearing a mask....

Close contact is not the same thing as exposure when using medical terminology. I used references in trying to explain the difference to you. Again, these are matters of definition and fact, not matters of personal opinion. Simply having a contrary "opinion" does not change accepted definitions. Quite frankly, I find your refusal to accept hard facts rather childish. Do you still believe in Santa Claus, just because you wish it were so?

[Rudynate]

1 hour ago, Marc in Calif said:

There is NOTHING about SARS-CoV-2 having "gotten into your body" in the following medical guidelines from different sources. It could or could not "get into" you. And with that phrase, do you mean actual transmission?

Close contact to COVID-19 occurs when you are within six feet of someone who is showing symptoms of COVID-19, for at least 15 minutes, or an infected person who shows no symptoms but later tests positive for the coronavirus. This is considered exposure regardless of whether one or both parties were wearing a mask....

Just because you were near someone who later tested positive for COVID-19 doesn’t mean you were necessarily a close contact. When we say close contact, we mean one of these things happened:

• You were within 6 feet of a person who tested positive for more than 15 minutes total in a day (this time does not need to be consecutive. Three, 5-minute periods over the course of a day is still close contact).
• You had any physical contact with a person who has tested positive.
• You had direct contact with the respiratory secretions of a person who has tested positive (i.e., from coughing, sneezing, contact with a dirty tissue, shared drinking glass, food, or other personal items).
• You live with or stayed overnight for at least one night in a household with the person who tested positive.

... In general, the longer you are around someone who has COVID-19, the more likely it is that COVID-19 could spread to you....

 

As above, health care workers can be careless with terminology as well as the lay population. 

[SirBillybob]

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. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by SirBillybob

[Marc in Calif]

4 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Close contact is not the same thing as exposure when using medical terminology. I used references in trying to explain the difference to you.

Where are the references and the precise definitions? Do all of the references agree on the same definition?

Edited October 1, 2023 by Marc in Calif

[Marc in Calif]

1 hour ago, SirBillybob said:

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.

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. 

[SirBillybob]

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. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by SirBillybob

[Marc in Calif]

3 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

You do a search and summarize if you like.

That's exactly what I posted earlier today in black, white, and red! They're definitions and explanations from three different medical/healthcare sites.

If you don't agree with them, can you please supply others?

Edited October 1, 2023 by Marc in Calif

[Marc in Calif]

17 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

That's exactly what I posted earlier today in black, white, and red! They're definitions and explanations from three different medical/healthcare sites.

If you don't agree with them, can you please supply others?

There is NOTHING about SARS-CoV-2 having "gotten into your body" in the following medical guidelines from different sources. It could or could not "get into" you. And with that phrase, do you mean actual transmission?
____________________________________

Close contact to COVID-19 occurs when you are within six feet of someone who is showing symptoms of COVID-19, for at least 15 minutes, or an infected person who shows no symptoms but later tests positive for the coronavirus. This is considered exposure regardless of whether one or both parties were wearing a mask.... [University of Texas MD Anderson Center]

Just because you were near someone who later tested positive for COVID-19 doesn’t mean you were necessarily a close contact. When we say close contact, we mean one of these things happened: [Public Health Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin]

• You were within 6 feet of a person who tested positive for more than 15 minutes total in a day (this time does not need to be consecutive. Three, 5-minute periods over the course of a day is still close contact).
• You had any physical contact with a person who has tested positive.
• You had direct contact with the respiratory secretions of a person who has tested positive (i.e., from coughing, sneezing, contact with a dirty tissue, shared drinking glass, food, or other personal items).
• You live with or stayed overnight for at least one night in a household with the person who tested positive.

... In general, the longer you are around someone who has COVID-19, the more likely it is that COVID-19 could spread to you....
[Minnesota Department of Health]

Edited October 1, 2023 by Marc in Calif