J.C.MacSwell

They've been suspect since the earliest cruise ship epidemics. Do you have reason to believe they don't affect the spread of Covid 19?

Not familiar with the term, but similar in effect to a cyclonic filter? I'm actually working right now on some swirl separators (for liquids but work similarly to some extent)

Canada's 2 most populous provinces are taking very different approaches to reopening, Ontario signalling intent to be much more cautious than Quebec. Both have been hit fairly hard, but Quebec more so. Quebec plans to open schools back up fairly soon. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-ontario-take-different-paths-to-reopening-provinces-from/

So as you reduce the intensity and/or frequency, is there potentially a point of more good than harm before it becomes simply negligible in effect either way? Presumably the expectation is that this would be unlikely? What effect would a relative drying out of the lungs have? This doesn't necessarily have to fight the virus directly but if it reduced the conditions promoting pneumonia (viral or bacterial) that would be a potential benefit. I'm not arguing for it but just trying to understand it. I have no reason to expect it to be beneficial other than it would create different conditions (generally this is likely to be detrimental), and that it has had some limited success with lung cancer.

I've wondered if part of the problem in elderly care facilities is that the most vulnerable are more likely sitting or prone during interactions with others who are most often standing. (like the 6 foot rule should be 8 feet for these interactions whenever possible, or somehow have the more vulnerable "upwind") Having said that, shouldn't it work with gravity and draw the air downward? Taking it upward will suspend the larger droplets longer.

He "called it" first and they refused to comply. Hard to blame him for taking his ball and going home... Did you guys skip grade three?

Thanks CY. Radiation does penetrate below the surface to some extent (extent depending on wavelength), but I expect your thinking is correct.

It isn't an easy one. Unless you believe (and I'm sure you don't) that current measures are optimal for every place state/province/county until such time someone deems sufficient to remove every restriction that is put in place. It is necessary to strike a balance based on current information, erring on the side of caution due to the asymmetry of the risk, and strive to constantly do better. I don't see any of that as straight forward or obvious. Everyone takes risks of some type. They aren't entitled to the removal of all of them. Those aren't the only options.

Presumably radiation from whatever part of the spectrum could be introduced to the surfaces of the lungs or upper respiratory tract... It (higher end of spectrum) has been used to combat lung cancer, I expect with the intention of damaging cancer cells more than healthy ones to gain benefits, and of course we all have essentially black body radiation in our lungs "centred" at somewhere between ambient temperatures and 37C, or slightly higher with fever. The physical placement of any emitting device can't be any more invasive than intubation for ventilation. (the air is also sometimes heated during ventilation) Has this ever been attempted as a therapy for any flu like disease? Any reason to expect more benefit than side effects for the most beneficial regimens? (the fact that Trump's "spitballing" made me think of this is irrelevant to the questions) I doubt it would help produce melatonin or vitamin D, as does sunlight exposure to the skin, but are there any plausible benefits that could be expected?

There are laws in the World that most of us here would consider unjust. Respect for the law generally is important, but it will never be 100%.

First of all good post and graphics gib65. Keep in that your second graphic, while far less ideal, is still orders of magnitude better than a third one where everyone was free to contact anyone and freely move anywhere they like.

I've just seen highlights. Proud to report my brain damage has been only minimal.

2 of our 3 less populated provinces, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, have eased some restrictions after holding new cases to a minimum. No doubt parts of Ontario that have done similar could do the same.

He certainly holds up Democrat agenda. Arguably more than Trump.

He might just be promoting one of his investments:

It's all I have on this one... I think it's more his willingness to be blunt, to the point of often being rude, than being any kind of mastermind. He's not always wrong, and when he isn't, or isn't completely wrong, he comes off as possibly "insightful" against a background of much of the media automatically assuming he is.

I don't know what to believe anymore, or what to do with that second bottle of Lysol...I guess I could always use it for cleaning surfaces.

I think he's onto something...given enough light and disinfectant and your chances of dying from Covid 19 drop dramatically...

Thanks. Has anyone read it, and agreed with the conclusion that it, specifically the 60 day suspension of immigration with all the exceptions, will hurt the economic recovery? Or just agree that it's politically motivated, and/or intended as a distraction?

It's behind a paywall.

Also baiting the Democrats to over complain about something that, net effect at least, most Americans would be on board with. Most would agree that the borders should be for the most part closed due to Covid 19 (as they already are), and in the mind of the Public this reinforces it. (in actuality not much...as you said...no practical reason) This should be mocked as a redundant measure. When vilified the talking point goes to Trump. He's probably already writing ads pointing out how Dems want to "open the borders" during the height of the pandemic, while wrapping himself in the flag and putting Americans first.

Doesn't that particular isobaric process require an addition of a certain amount of heat, enough to to maintain the pressure as well as enough to compensate for the work done? (so the temperature would rise)

I wonder how many discernible factors could potentially correlate with the viral loads sufficient to trigger incubation, and stretching those, getting an idea how those viral loads affect outcomes for those that become known cases? Obviously no one's going to due any proper double blind testing of this, especially for vulnerable individuals within populations. Also, If you are never symptomatic, test negative for the virus, but test positive for antibodies, does this count as a known case?