On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:06:11 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Also asymptomatic. That being said, shedding of newly created virus
particles could be called a symptom of hosting the virus while not
having the full-blown 'disease' associated with it.

Asymptomatic spread percentages are not fully known (because it's
asymptomatic that's why); but many reliable estimates put it in the huge
range, as does this one:

o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms
https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/

"One of the more insidious features of the new coronavirus
behind COVID-19 is its ability to settle into unsuspecting hosts
*who _never_ show signs of being sick* but are able to spread
the virus to others."

Anyone whose plan doesn't take into account nearly half the cases,
certainly needs to consider reconsidering their plan, IMHO.
--
Usenet allows intelligent people to discuss difficult topics of import.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:21:16 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Yes, also evidence has also been scarce that wearing a mask (source
control) has helped a single individual to avoid getting infected. It
is about how large groups of individuals, not individual individuals,
respond to such schemes that matters. Some countries have fewer crazy
people per capita than the USA does, and as such can do the right thing
(whatever they think that is) in greater numbers.

I wouldn't characterize the USA as "crazy people" (although plenty do
exist, but I've been around the world, and trust me, the Japananese are
crazy in some ways, as are the Germans, as are the Italians, etc.).

What I would agree with you upon is that the USA is completely different in
terms of privacy and trust in government than many other countries, which
is what was clearly stated in the articles previously cited that compared,
oh, say, Iceland (40%) to the uptake forecast in the USA (10%).

The USA is a "melting pot" of hugely variant cultures, with a primal
history of "freedom" of both migration and of thought, and of a common
dislike for needless government and corporate surveillance.

o What Ever Happened to Digital Contact Tracing?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing

"It will be an uphill battle even to hit the 10 percent mark in America"

"Under a range of assumptions, the percentage of the population needed
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re1)
was estimated (eg, 40%-60% uptake required for Re1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75%-95% actively confirm
when they get infected"

However, in some cohesive communities, manual contact tracing has worked:
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540

They did it the "old way", which makes sense, given the inhabitants don't
all likely have great cellphone use and they're all known to each other and
they likely don't travel all that much, etc., which is to say they're a
special case.
--
Usenet allows intelligent adults to communicate and learn from each other.

"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:06:11 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Also asymptomatic. That being said, shedding of newly created virus
particles could be called a symptom of hosting the virus while not
having the full-blown 'disease' associated with it.

Asymptomatic spread percentages are not fully
known (because it's asymptomatic that's why); but
many reliable estimates put it in the huge range,

And even more don’t.

as does this one:

o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any
Symptoms
https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/

"One of the more insidious features of the new coronavirus
behind COVID-19 is its ability to settle into unsuspecting hosts
*who _never_ show signs of being sick* but are able to spread
the virus to others."

Anyone whose plan doesn't take into account nearly half the cases,

You havent established that it is anything like half.

certainly needs to consider reconsidering their plan, IMHO.

Not when they realise that apps work fine for at least half the infected.

No one who matters has ever claimed that apps are the only thing needed.

Just as true of the other things done about the virus too.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:35:14 +1000, wrote:

And even more don¢t.

Rod Speed,

If you're going to attempt an adult discourse, you have to utilize what we
would call "adult cognitive skills" in that process of adult conversation.

I completely understand your point of view, if for no other reason that it
only skims the barest depth of factual details necessary for a "plan".

But what I am trying to get _you_ to do, is delve to the 2nd level of
factual detail, which you don't yet seem to be able to comprehend in the
least.

You have to answer this question, Rod Speed.
o You can't simply ignore these "inconvenient" facts.

Adults need to agree on the facts before they can proceed to assessments.
o Facts are funny that way.

Only _after_ you agree on the facts, can we disagree on assessments.
o People are funny that way.

Assuming the world law, punishable by death, is mandatory "app".
o Now what?

Assume you have 100% app uptake in the entire world, Rod Speed...
o What exactly do those apps tell all the people exposed to...

a. infectious aerosols from people having left the room long ago
b. contaminated surfaces from people who left the room long ago
c. droplet contact with asymptomatic carriers of the disease

FACT:
What, exactly, do the apps tell the users in those circumstances?
o Your answer = ?
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to attempt adult discourse.

"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
...

Assume you have 100% app uptake in the entire world...
o What exactly do those apps tell all the people exposed to...

a. infectious aerosols from people having left the room long ago
b. contaminated surfaces from people who left the room long ago
c. droplet contact with asymptomatic carriers of the disease

I already answered this mindless silly **** more than once.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:04:15 +1000, wrote:

I already answered this mindless silly **** more than once.

Then you agree the answer to the following question is...

What, exactly, do the apps tell the users in those circumstances?
o Your answer = the apps tell you absolutely nothing

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:59:28 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

They can't, because I don't have a smartphone.

No smartphone? No problem!
o This tried-and-true contact-tracing method is the one for you!

o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540

"We developed an aggressive, integrated early-response plan that relied
heavily on contact tracing to limit the spread of Covid-19."

"More than 1600 cases of Covid-19 have been diagnosed on the reservation
served by our hospital, with only one of these patients being intubated
in our emergency department. Of some 400 patients who needed
hospitalization, nearly half have been transported to facilities that
provide higher-level care. Our community's case fatality rate so far is
1.1%, less than half the rate reported for the rest of Arizona."
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to discuss items of import.