-
Posts
554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by stone oak
-
-
7 minutes ago, Rusty Shackelford said:
USO halted for the third time today
4th time now
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, Rusty Shackelford said:
USO halted for the third time today
My USO put was up 171% in one hour earlier...what in the actual fuck.
-
2 minutes ago, mdmost said:
Yeah but not with West Texas Intermediate.Â
More of a Brent guy eh?
- 4
-
2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:
Seems like it. The Circle Jerk must have become boring.
- 2
-
9 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:
Â
"hundreds of thousands"
- 1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This thread:
- 10
-
24 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:
Head on Back to your fellow bukkake jerkoffsÂ
- 1
-
29 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:
and masks, lots and lots of masks.
In case you missed it the first time...
Surgical, Cotton Masks Equally Ineffective in Blocking COVID-19 Spread, Say Investigators
Mask & Respirators
Surgical and cotton masks are both ineffective when it comes to blocking droplets of the virus SARS–CoV-2 that may be generated when somebody coughs, according to investigators with the Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Their research letter, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, compared the 2 types of masks. Four patients coughed 5 times each into a petri dish while wearing no mask. They then coughed 5 times wearing a surgical mask, a cotton mask, and then, again, wearing no mask. The study, conducted at 2 hospitals in Seoul, found that when patients coughed into either type of mask, droplets of SARS–CoV-2 were released into the environment.
“The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively,” the research letter states. “All swabs from the outer mask surfaces of the masks were positive for SARS–CoV-2, whereas most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative.”
The study did not include the N95 masks, which are in short supply these days and which infection preventionists and other healthcare workers desperately need on the frontlines of the battle against COVID-19.Â
The masks were swabbed with Dacron swabs; the outer and inner surfaces of both the surgical and cotton masks. The researchers found SARS COV-2 on all surfaces.Â
The results come after the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently said that people should wear cloth masks in public to help contain the spread of the disease from asymptomatic carriers. The CDC thinks that the masks will help in situations where social distancing—staying at least 6 feet apart—is difficult to do; settings such as grocery stores and pharmacies. This represents a change in policy, where the CDC, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO), said that masks are not necessary for people who are not exhibiting symptoms. “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection,” the WHO still says on its website.
The research letter investigators found greater contamination on the outer surface of the face masks than on the inner surfaces.Â
“Although it is possible that virus particles may cross from the inner to the outer surface because of the physical pressure of swabbing, we swabbed the outer surface before the inner surface,” the research letter states. “The consistent finding of virus on the outer mask surface is unlikely to have been caused by experimental error or artifact.”
It’s possible that the aerodynamic properties of the masks may account for this. “A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface,” the research letter states. “Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS–CoV-2 generated during a high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks.”Â
However, the investigators say that this hypothesis works only if the coughing patient didn’t exhale large-sized SARS–CoV-2 particles. They’d be trapped in the inner mask even with a high-velocity cough.Â
“These observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks,” investigators conclude.
- 1
-
40 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
Its 26.9K per CDC.
Facts aren't relevant in this thread, only panic.
-
9 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:
3. Masks are worn until the virus has been effectively defeated.
QuoteSurgical, Cotton Masks Equally Ineffective in Blocking COVID-19 Spread, Say Investigators
Surgical and cotton masks are both ineffective when it comes to blocking droplets of the virus SARS–CoV-2 that may be generated when somebody coughs, according to investigators with the Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Their research letter, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, compared the 2 types of masks. Four patients coughed 5 times each into a petri dish while wearing no mask. They then coughed 5 times wearing a surgical mask, a cotton mask, and then, again, wearing no mask. The study, conducted at 2 hospitals in Seoul, found that when patients coughed into either type of mask, droplets of SARS–CoV-2 were released into the environment.
“The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively,” the research letter states. “All swabs from the outer mask surfaces of the masks were positive for SARS–CoV-2, whereas most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative.”
The study did not include the N95 masks, which are in short supply these days and which infection preventionists and other healthcare workers desperately need on the frontlines of the battle against COVID-19.Â
The masks were swabbed with Dacron swabs; the outer and inner surfaces of both the surgical and cotton masks. The researchers found SARS COV-2 on all surfaces.Â
The results come after the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently said that people should wear cloth masks in public to help contain the spread of the disease from asymptomatic carriers. The CDC thinks that the masks will help in situations where social distancing—staying at least 6 feet apart—is difficult to do; settings such as grocery stores and pharmacies. This represents a change in policy, where the CDC, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO), said that masks are not necessary for people who are not exhibiting symptoms. “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection,” the WHO still says on its website.
The research letter investigators found greater contamination on the outer surface of the face masks than on the inner surfaces.Â
“Although it is possible that virus particles may cross from the inner to the outer surface because of the physical pressure of swabbing, we swabbed the outer surface before the inner surface,” the research letter states. “The consistent finding of virus on the outer mask surface is unlikely to have been caused by experimental error or artifact.”
It’s possible that the aerodynamic properties of the masks may account for this. “A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface,” the research letter states. “Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS–CoV-2 generated during a high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks.”Â
However, the investigators say that this hypothesis works only if the coughing patient didn’t exhale large-sized SARS–CoV-2 particles. They’d be trapped in the inner mask even with a high-velocity cough.Â
“These observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks,” investigators conclude.
Â
-
10 minutes ago, utee94 said:
We've got subways in Texas???
Do you even IAH bro?
Â
- 3
-
3 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:
Lol FDA says there is no need to wipe down any groceries/packaging you bring back from the store
Â
Â
- 4
-
1 minute ago, GreenspointTexas said:
Welp, looks like abbott gonna start the reopening of shit
Â
we couldnt even lock down for a month.Â
- 6
-
3 minutes ago, jeevsie said:
wtf? No news, no event, this is really just market?
End of May contract. June is trading at $24-ish...not that it is much better.
-
28 minutes ago, The Royal We said:
I have a client that runs P&A spreads in state waters and on the shelf and he has told me recently that there is a big bag of nothing going on for him at the moment. And I think his rates have had very little margin in them for the last 18 months+. I hope he can hang on through this but I think it's a long shot.
Damn, that's rough. Yeah no way those guys can be making much money with low customer volume and current price environment.
I work all onshore legacy South Texas stuff with high P&A liability so it makes sense for us an operator to take advantage right now.
-
At the company I work for, we are catching up on our P&A liability this year because service companies are working for pennies on the dollar just to stay afloat.
That's the worst silver lining I think I've ever heard.
-
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
-
Gap up opening. This market dgaf.
- 1
-
Didn’t get fuck all in SA, but at least no hail/tornadoes. The humid ass spring continues. We need some real rain soon.
-
Feeling funky outside in SA. It’s been muggy and humid here for what feels like all spring.Â
The lid could finally blow off tonight...
-
-
Same for SA, we ain't getting shit out of this.Â
- 1
-
4 minutes ago, miguelito said:
I would like to know more about small rotating broads.
- 2
-
29 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:
Holy shit! Quoted to get on next page!Â
Hey Oil Barons.......
in Business and Markets
Posted
Absolutely, I'm shorting the hell out of this over the next couple of days. I think June contracts might go single digits this week.