just when you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse NASA reveals asteroid heading towards Earth in November Jasmin Bull 12 hrs ago please log in to view this image Sentencing hearings to start for New Zealand mosque shooter please log in to view this image © Getty NASA data shows it's unlikely the cow-sized asteroid will collide with Earth. An asteroid on a collision course with Earth is expected on November 2, one day before the US election, NASA data has revealed. Dubbed 2018VP1 by NASA scientists, the asteroid is 2 metres in diameter and 16,000kg. NASA says there could be three potential impacts "based on 21 observations spanning 12.968 days". Fortunately, the asteroid has a 0.41 percent chance of hitting the planet, according to data from the Centre for Near-Earth Objects Studies at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The asteroid was first spotted at Palomar Observatory in California in 2018.
Thanks for the heads up Kiwi. I'm owed 2 weeks leave so will book this on Monday. Will be a staycation.....
I’ve studied your unoriginal sheeplike moronic input on here, and concluded that Cologne is wasting his time in attempting to argue with a nasty piece of evil **** like you. Pure abuse is much more fun and much more appropriate for the alt right Qanon twat that you are. Bet you rarely leave your bedroom except when your mum insists that she need to wash your sheets because the stink is so awful. Economist my arse. And bet you think that George Soros and Bill Gates are also responsible for you being a virgin. Incel works with your online persona, Buttfucker. Beautiful use of the passive aggressive ‘mate’, your English is improving.
FFS can everyone just chill.....it's Sunday night with all had a drink and tbh I'd rather be watching the football than reading some of the bollox posted on here...... Butthuber give it a rest...... Stan also chill.. .....
Well. if Kiwi's asteroid does hit, I think we will have our Great Rest but in a way no one saw coming
Interesting figures coming in from most European countries at the moment. Whilst there appears to be a second wave happening (stronger in some countries than others) there has not been a parallel rise in deaths, and the numbers classified as being serious or critical has dropped from the original 5%+ to well under 1%. Docters in Italy, in particular, have noticed that the experience of the disease is becoming milder - the numbers of those experiencing only flu like symptoms is rising. Though it is far too early to say that the disease may be mutating into a milder form. I have always thought that this scenario would be more likely than that a vaccine would be found ie. it just mutates into another flu form - just as infectious but not as deadly (it would be in the interests of the virus to do this). So the most likely ending is that it just mutates into something akin to the seasonal flu - but how long will this take ? At any rate a second wave would probably need no more than local lockdowns - which would be a great disappointment to the conspiracy theorists who want this crisis to go on as long as possible to fulfill their prophecies. It is important to remember this - conspiracy theorists do not want this to end !
Welcome news, but it doesn't really come as a surprise to me. As I said a while back, an increase in positive tests should only be of concern if hospitalisations and deaths also increase, which they have not. This could just be increased testing identifying positives that would have previously gone unnoticed due to mild or no symptoms. I strongly believe that many more people have already had this virus than is generally thought.
You’ll like the fact that the Swedes reckon that they have built up a bit of immunity and that there is increasing evidence that having had the virus does indeed give you some temporary immunity as well. I hope the Swedes are right, I really liked their bloody mindedness. A big proportion of their deaths were in care homes, which they admit to ****ing up entirely (isn’t it refreshing when people fess up), but with much lower proportions in the general population despite the lack of mask wearing, 2 metre social distancing etc etc. We still know very little about this thing it seems. The place by place variation is massive.
What masks protect against As pharmacists know, masks are used in the health sector to protect people and products. For example, they protect patients in the operating theatre from germs (not viruses!) coming from the doctors, or they protect doctors during treatment from germs coming from the patients, or during aseptic production the products from germs coming from the people who manufacture them. There are also countless other uses for masks outside the health sector. Standards repealed Independent of the field of application, all masks had to meet individual standards up to now. These standards aim on the one hand to ensure the functionality of the protective masks and on the other hand to protect the user from inhaling respirable substances and dusts that may come out of the masks and to reduce the impairment of breathing to a minimum. Since March it has been completely irrelevant which masks we use (even in the pharmacy) to protect against infection, whether we take them from the workshop, buy them from the fan club or sew them ourselves - the main thing is the mask! From this alone it can be deduced that the protection of all these different masks against viruses and their effectiveness in transmitting infections is doubtful. You only have to use common sense, no need to study scientific literature. Viruses in droplets and aerosols I assume that you know all this. So let's say that viruses are not expelled individually, but in droplets and possibly also in aerosols, with the air we breathe and when we cough (even when we sing). With these droplets and aerosols, the following must now be considered. Firstly, it is important to consider the size of the particles, which determines not only their persistence and lifespan, but also how deep they can penetrate the airways. Secondly, the viral load is of great importance when assessing the risk of transmission of infection. Based on the data available so far, we can assume that a certain viral load is necessary for the transmission of an infection. This viral load concerns viruses capable of replication and cannot be determined by the mere measurement of viral RNA in aerosols. Question of particle size The smaller the particles are, the longer they float in the air and the deeper they can penetrate the airways when inhaled. However, (very) small particles in particular are not retained by so-called everyday masks or surgical masks! Only masks that meet at least the so-called FFP2 standard, or better FFP3, filter very small droplets or aerosols from the air that is inhaled or exhaled. Larger aerosol particles and droplets can also be retained by surgical masks and, if necessary, by so-called self-manufactured everyday masks. With increasing size, the probability increases that, when inhaling or exhaling, the aerosols come so close to the fibres of the mask that they touch them, they can then adhere to the fibre. This becomes more efficient as the particle diameter increases. However, such larger particles can hardly be transmitted over more than one metre, they sink to the ground very quickly. We do not really need masks to protect us from such particles if we do not get too close to other people. All this is especially true in enclosed spaces. In the open air, aerosols usually do not persist for very long and, according to all we know, the corona viruses do not survive there for long either, which is why masks are not really needed here, or are of no use, because aerosols are only more durable if the particle sizes are very small and then there is no protection with "normal" masks. The question of effectiveness In addition to the properties of the materials used for the masks, the effectiveness depends on a variety of other factors, such as tributaries passing by the mask, the fit and handling of the mask, the type and frequency of mask cleaning, and others. However, the deposition of aerosols at the mask also means that they are then contained in the fabric of the mask. So when we look at infected people, viruses accumulate on the fibres of the masks. An increasing number of studies are now being published which, in the above context, aim to show which masks are how effective in terms of infection protection. However, much of the data from such studies is hardly suitable for investigating exactly this question, even if the title of the studies or the interpretation of the results obtained by the media's at best half-educated "fact checkers" suggest it. Everyday masks with risks One risk of everyday masks suggest an alleged safety. Another (scientifically unproven but plausible) risk is that the risk of transmission increases rather than decreases! Why is this so? When we breathe out through wool or cotton (which is often used in masks we make ourselves and is recommended in countless forums), for example, the moisture in the air we breathe condenses on the fibres. This is due to the microstructure of the fibres. A film of water forms on them (anyone can try this out). To a greater or lesser extent this also happens with textile fabrics. In this habitat, viruses can survive very well, it is almost optimal for them. In contrast to professional masks, the masks you make yourself are not disposed of after use, but people put them away somewhere and thus possibly contribute to the spread of the viruses. In schools and restaurants, the authorities also prescribe that people have to wear a mask when coming and going and then no longer - what nonsense! In my opinion, the use of self-made masks can therefore be associated with a danger for others. All this applies if you are infected yourself. Anyway, all these masks offer only limited protection against infection - if at all (see my explanations above). This is also true because you touch your face more often when wearing masks. Professional masks require professional handling Protection with professional masks also only works if you use them professionally. This includes taking the mask off properly (touching it in the right places) and changing it regularly and disposing of it properly, and then cleaning your hands thoroughly, disinfecting them better. This requires training, even for qualified personnel! After all, it also depends on the type of mask, whether it has the quality to catch droplets adequately and, above all, to retain no moisture. After all, masks - depending on the type of mask - may only ever be worn for a certain period of time. What else is important Masks only help when there is a risk of infected and non-infected people meeting. Anyone can work out how great such a risk is based on the daily updated figures. We do not know whether masks also pose a health risk. For sales and order personnel, in the catering trade, on long-haul flights and in many other areas, there is currently an officially prescribed obligation to wear masks for the entire working time without suitable masks being made available. In the medical sector, masks that have been tested and certified exclusively for their intended purpose are used for such long periods of time. In this respect, the authorities have ordered us to carry out a large-scale field test with which we will evaluate the risks that may emanate from so-called everyday masks. It is very likely that there are risks! This is especially true for children in day-care centres and schools, who often suffer from ENT infections during the cold season, the course and aggravation of which are certainly not unaffected by masks. Conclusion Every day we are taught masks of half-truths by the media, self-appointed "fact-checkers" and politicians. Due to the insecurity stirred up by politics and the media, I now even see people wearing masks alone in the car or on the bicycle, even when walking and hiking ... sic! In my view experts must take an appropriate stand on this issue. If one day it turns out that the risk-benefit ratio for "everyday masks" is actually worse than assumed, at least we cannot say that we could not have known! Nota bene: When dealing with risk patients or groups, we always need masks. But then certified and tested and not everyday masks!
Some very good points.....is anyone on here honestly concerned about touching cash and getting COVID ?
I was advised by a friend who's a retired medical consultant to wash coins in detergent when received. I do this and I also coat notes with hand gel when I receive them. No idea whether it makes any difference, but, as I've said all along, I just try to do what I think is best for me and mine.
Second wave or local spikes ? Which one would you say is happening ? Genuinely interested as I’ve always been quite certain that there would probably be the latter but not the former.
The problem is that one can very quickly turn into the other Staines. We are certainly seeing clusters of infections in Germany, all of which could become the epicentre of a second wave if no action is taken. It was to be predicted as soon as the summer holidays came to an end and the schools opened. They should have either prevented all unnecessary foreign travel or delayed school opening - relaxing both of these together was lunacy.
