[ANTIVACUNAS] Este es el ¿razonamiento? de los antivacunas - aplicado a nadar.

Vilux dijo:

Es fácil, zoquete.

En un momento dado varios entes PCR compiten en un organismo por la causalidad de los síntomas ....

... entonces se plantea el problema: ¿como decide un Zientífrico a cual de ellos echarle la culpa?

¿Se hacen 200 PCRs, una por candidato, o se hace la PCR de moda (ahora es el el bichito) y se para ahí cuando da positivo?

Jojojojojo!

Hacer clic para expandir...

Ahora ya sí sirven los pcr para detectar bichito concretos.

Vas avanzando.

También reconoces que existen los bichito.

Otro avance más.

El siguiente paso es que dices que una enfermedad puede surgir por múltiples infecciones.

Y es verdad, eso puede pasar, por eso es necesario diagnosticar bien al paciente, pasando las pruebas que hagan falta, para saber si tiene uno, dos o 400 causas en su cuerpo y elegir que se hace: tratar los síntomas peligrosos que haya (fiebre por encima de 40ºC, por ejemplo, o deshidratación por diarrea) y que el cuerpo se defienda como pueda; o tratar los orígenes de la enfermedad. En el caso de los bichito, lo normal es tratar los síntomas y dejar que el cuerpo luche, o se use suero, como con la rabia, dado que es mortal si no se trata.

Para poder comprobar si hay uno o varios bichito que puedan causar la enfermedad, se usan las pruebas multiplex, que buscan cadenas específicas de distintos bichito que provocan síntomas comunes y dan un resultado para indicar la presencia o ausencia de cada bichito en la muestra... de hecho en otro hilo habéis usado dichas pruebas para decir que todo es la misma causa... es curioso, en unos hilos usáiss unos razonamientos opuestos a los que empleáis en otros... es muy curioso. Normalmente, cuando hay que usar un razonamiento y su contrario, es que lo que se defiende es falso.

Y eso os lo he respondido aquí:

Protocolo oficial de hacer PCRs a "ASINTOMÁTICOS" supone NEGLIGENCIA MÉDICA, ya q prospectos PCRs advierten de q test es válido sólo en "SINTOMÁTICOS"



Pero vamos, que lo vuelvo a recordar: este hilo NO va del el bichito, ni de las pruebas pcr, va de las banderillas, así en general. Así que, si no tienes pruebas de que todas las banderillas de la Tierra dan el pasaporte y envenenan a todos los humanos que las usan y que los muertos se cuentan anualmente por millones, igual que los afectados neurológicamente, con incrementos anuales en los autistas en decenas de millones en los países del primer mundo (donde se banderilla a más del 95% de los niños, destacando España, por ejemplo), o nada.

Y, si quieres hablar de datos, pones datos ESPAÑOLES, y sobre ellos discutimos... lo curioso es que yo ya he puesto dichos datos... por eso os empeñáis en hablar de eeuu, sin poner estudios, ni datos demográficos oficiales de la oficina federal de estadística, ni nada de nada, solo vuestros trozos de textos sacados de contexto que tienen entre 120 y 80 años de antigüedad, como si eso valiera para algo.

Note: A el bichito-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza bichito size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm.
*1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron (an older term)
1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 nm or 1,000,000 microns
Droplets

• bichito is tras*mitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 meter. They fall to the ground quickly. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
  • This idea guides the CDC’s advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.​
• bichito-laden small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true​

Air currents

• In air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.​
• However, ventilation — even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public tras*port and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease tras*mission despite physical distancing. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext​

Objects and surfaces

• Person to person touching​
• The CDC’s most recent statement regarding contracting el bichito-19 from touching surfaces: “Based on data from lab studies on el bichito-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get el bichito-19 by touching a surface or object that has the bichito on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes,” the agency wrote. “But this isn’t thought to be the main way the bichito spreads. cobi19 Disease 2019.​
• Chinese study with data taken from swabs on surfaces around the hospital
  Aerosol and Surface Distribution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome cobi19 2 in Hospital Wards, Wuhan, China, 2020
  • The surfaces where tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which greatly amplifies the viral genetic material if it is present. That material is detectable when a person is actively infected. This is thought to be the most reliable test.
    • Computer mouse (ICU 6/8, 75%; General ward (GW) 1/5, 20%)​
    • Trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8)​
    • Sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12)​
    • Doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%)​
    • 81.3% of the miscellaneous personal items were positive:
      • Exercise equipment​
      • Medical equipment (spirometer, pulse oximeter, nasal cannula)​
      • PC and iPads​
      • Reading glasses​
      • Cellular phones (83.3% positive for viral RNA)​
      • Remote controls for in-room TVs (64.7% percent positive)​
      • Toilets (81.0% positive)​
      • Room surfaces (80.4% of all sampled)​
      • Bedside tables and bed rails (75.0%)​
      • Window ledges (81.8%)​
      • Plastic: up to 2-3 days​
      • Stainless Steel: up to 2-3 days​
      • Cardboard: up to 1 day​
      • Copper: up to 4 hours​
      • Floor – gravity causes droplets to fall to the floor. Half of ICU workers all had bichito on the bottoms of their shoes​

Filter Efficiency and Fit
*Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for el bichito-19 not based on sound data

• HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters – 99.97 – 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm.​
• Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles)​
• N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge. An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.​
• N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. N95 Masks Explained | Honeywell.
  • But even these have problems: many have exhalation valve for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask.​
  • Surgical masks are designed to protect patients from a surgeon’s respiratory droplets, aren’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. Respirators and Surgical Masks: A Comparison​
  • Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
    • N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).​
    • T-shirts had 10% efficiency,​
    • Scarves 10% to 20%,​
    • Cloth masks 10% to 30%,​
    • Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and​
    • Towels 40%.​
    • All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.​
    • Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
      • N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.​
      • Medical masks – 55% efficiency​
      • General masks – 38% and​
      • Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.​
    • Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
      • N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control tras*mission.​
      • Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.​
      • Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 tras*mission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).​

“Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”
*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers | BMJ Open

• Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97% and medical masks 44%, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%).
  • Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.​
  • The bichito may survive on the surface of the face- masks​
  • Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may tras*fer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.​
  • Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​