-
thanks. Twitter stuff somewhat challenging my comprehension abilities.
I'm asking because I don't really know how to calibrate my personal risk assessment stuff atm. I mean, I understand that the safest option is to interact with other humans as little as possible, but I have been working with certain guidelines starting last spring and now unsure whether they carry any use at all. I also bored of not seeing people.
For a long time now my level of comfort has been 'seeing people outside, don't get too close'. But I don't know whether the risk level of doing that has changed (to a significant degree). Should it now be 'see people outside, stay further away' or 'really don't see people'. I've also tried to space out interactions, so not seeing different groups of people on consecutive days. But, I've also started taking the train more. Maybe the answer is 'shrug - who knows?' but there might also be a consensus about current transmission I'm missing (because I'm not hugely paying attention).
hoefla-
My layperson's understanding is that the risks of outdoor contact are still massively reduced; the very few cases where there's been demonstrated outdoor transmission have involved prolonged and close contact (e.g. close face-to-face conversation for >15mins). I think the assumption is still that most transmission in 'outdoor' settings (sports matches, festivals etc.) is taking place in indoor bottlenecks.
-
Seeing people outdoors with fresh air circulating and not rubbing yourself all over each other is probably ok.
Going to a disco? Less so.
If you really want to feel calmer, Medicine balls/ Dr P Hammond from private eye/Twitter is a good place.
Thrustvector
Chalfie
https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1423597647525449728
Read this.
and this
https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2021-08-06_antibodies-produced-by-sars-cov-2-variants-vary-in-ability-to-neutralise-other-variants-of-the-virus