Tiredofhumanity wrote:dtw2hyd wrote:Tiredofhumanity wrote:...
While I'm miffed with the recent CDC decision, where did these numbers/calculations come from and what assumptions are they using?
There's a reason studies go through peer review.
If I understand correctly this is from University of Calgary. Not sure.
https://twitter.com/GosiaGasperoPhD
Lancet had a publication in March on same topic
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 73-3099(21)00143-2/fulltext
Where as CDC seems to taking selective study route. When I saw Oxford University Publication, reminded be of some brand imaging company used by a large airline for these kind of studies.
After 100s of epidemiologists got puzzled by latest guidance, CNN started spinning the story that this was based on medical professionals infection/recovery data.
Epidemiologists keep saying CDC cannot use data from controlled environments like a TV studio, NFL team, School Athletics or Health Care where people are tested weekly. Cannot be extrapolated to public.
UK study model estimates worst case B1617.2 is 2.4X transmissible compared to wild type.
There is mountains of data on how to deal with this pandemic, not just locking down, CDC refuses to acknowledge.
Dr. Gaspero seems to be one of the "zero covid" proponents (never going to happen at this point), but I still see the urgency on wearing masks at this point in the vaccine campaign.
Add to that Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding is probably one of the least-respected, over-the-top, sensationalistic, disingenuous public health figures out there right now.