Riobard

99.86% of the horses world-wide remain stalled in the barn, for now. Sure, there may be equitable case rates comparing Brazil with USA, the epidemiological mirroring figures seeming to justify reciprocal or even unilateral transplantation. As well, folks from ‘downcurve’ places may pose less contagion risk. However, incoming visitors are among the least likely to follow local protocol because they are not cloistered in isolated monastery retreats. They simply add to the segment of the population that defies protective compliance or that cannot accommodate their country’s recommendations for mitigating spread. A foreign national tourist from a place with less disease prevalence is as bad as the non-adherent Brazilian that stimulates case incidence, wilfully or by default. Importing more of those is not a strategy to be found in the infection control handbook. Better to send hay there than make hay there.

The airlines in Latin America seem to be going Humpty Dumpty one by one, implications for flights in context of bankruptcy, rendering the prospect of reliable in-country air travel unstable even if you can get to a hub. And Aeromexico now in bankruptcy ... I am not sure if bankruptcy = absolutely grounded for any of these carriers, but that workaround option for entering/leaving Brazil from North America may close. Bus travel arrangements for shorter distance, or just-in-time booking for longer domestic hauls once there, may be realistic if one is determined to be in Brazil.

I think this media article breaks down and critiques fairly well the incipient research on natural (viz exposure) immunity viability and durability mentioned by @Latbear4blk here or in another thread. Sobering. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/asymptomatic-covid-19-1.5629172

Not! Squad gone mad!

Since I would be fairly hazmat-grade on a current big-head directed medium-distance flight, staying window-seated and isolated, I am a poor candidate for success in a small-head directed trade venue where the risks are comparable.

Correction: People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% when weighing risk or ignore percentages close to 100% for non-risk. This human trait applies to both loss and gain.

I used the word ‘minimal’ to refer to at least one infected passenger because, other than residual presence of virus on surfaces, a minimum of one contagious passenger on any flight is the primary reason for full cleaning as well as all in-flight precautions. Based on current Brazil infection rates, the probability of at least one passenger on a departing flight with 200 passengers is 99.53%, almost guaranteed. This is predicated on ‘under the radar’ boarding, that is, undetected on fever-screening (because true estimates are proportional to asymptomatic / non-febrile presentation), as well as circumvention of nasal-pharyngeal testing or recent confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 negative status. The bottom line: if you travel to Brazil you will be returning on a flight housing a likely contagious passenger. In contrast, a flight containing an equal number of passengers out of Montreal, based on epidemiology 2 weeks ago, posed a risk of 67.5% that minimally one flyer has this coronavirus, but that is now less due to a steady decline in local prevalence. I prefer this approach in calculating probability because absolute community infection percentages of total populations are very low. People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% or 100% when weighing risk because a difference between .1% and .01% or a difference between 99.9% and 99.99% is considered negligible. A gradient of 0-100, albeit impossible to reach either extreme, is more realistic and is responsive to seemingly small overall population changes that actually yield bigger differences on that gradient in terms of a minimum of one hazardous event. Similarly, occupants in a brothel don’t really need to factor the probability of crossing paths with at least one fellow national (even if they have data about relevant tourism patterns). However, walking through a cloud of infected human aerosol particulates may impel one to seek awareness of the likelihood any of that phenomenon at all exists. I provided those probabilities earlier.

Addendum: Rio de Janeiro state is trending twice as high as the national figures, at 17.2% new case tallies with a population share of about 8.1%. Therefore, my calculations above are very conservative. If anybody wants to give me a number of state-representative people in a gathering (and any multiple of presumed prevalence different from my estimate: 10-fold the official count), I can likely do a new risk calculation.

How innovative! I raise you the typical glory-hole 2 to yield 5: giving head, nipple stim receipt, getting sucked while fucked, and erotic feet tickle. (Pass ... won’t feel a thing is bang on, inn’t?)

LOL. I didn’t say higher or lower. I thought the reserved tone in my qualifying ‘but ...’ conveyed the realization that coronavirus loves these venues as preferential breeding grounds. See my recent sobering calculations for Rio.

Brazil today: Number of people in a random grouping to reach 50% likelihood of 1 undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 contagious infection: 26; to reach 90% likelihood of same: 85 ... the calculation includes an exponent, the probability of no infections [to the power of the number of events], so deviates from linear proportionality. You cannot achieve 100% probability of 1 infection based on this equation. You can approach it, say 99.9%, and round up. If you are less risk averse (eg, you think it’s pussy-minded at less than a theoretically guaranteed minimum of one case in your “bubble”) and want to know, for example, the group number for that level of chance of infection present, it is 258 people. I have not broken out state or metro RJ, but I assume a lesser number of individuals is needed to reach the three arbitrary probability thresholds I have selected, assuming regional trends surpass national. Obviously this also holds true for the near future based on national tallies increasing. These calculations can extend to many scenarios, including a flight out of Brazil where the exponent N events is the number of passengers as opposed to the quantity of bodies in a brothel. On the plane, the imputed risk of minimal viral hosting/shedding posing transmission vectoring among 200 occupants is 99.53%. Naturally you may want to adjust for the differential in environmental enclosed space, risk of “pinch points”, and air filtration and replacement, etc, etc, blah, blah.

Tempted to fly off to Zürich and/or Barcelona but I don’t count on Paragonya and Thermas, both operational, to be representative of community prevalence and transmission risk.

Given the UK trend, considering the decision is not based on cumulative damage, take Belgium for example (though I realize it is within the EU collective that screens nations), but the selection examines recent prevalence, I’d have half-expected the green light for Brits. It is dropping close to the threshold and has a higher testing record than the majority of continental Europe. As some continental nations do not meet the defined criteria (eg, Portugal), we can anticipate a degree of discretionary exceptionalism for inclusion.

It’s already sloppy and mystifying at the get-go. Two of the 14 countries are well above the 1.16 rolling weekly average-per-day threshold based on 16 ‘allowable’ cases per 100,000 on a 14-day duration, not taking into account higher estimates based on asymptomatic / presymptomatic status or on testing uptake rates. Two countries show an uptick just short of the threshold. I wonder how much context is taken into account. Were the Balkan ones based on an assumption of epicentre isolation? Will Canada stay on the list at review time because a recent increase is attributable to migrant produce workers in a circumscribed region?

Suggestion: move the EU travel to Europe sub forum? I’m gonna try.

I have Allianz. You need to review a few factors: your coverage end date (defined, versus annual rollover as characteristic with a credit card), whether the policy has exclusion options based on events that occur during the policy cycle (most have invoked this with the pandemic), the guidance that insurers utilize to justify exclusions (some policies will backpedal or adjust exclusions if your nation formally lifts a pandemic travel advisory), and any ongoing trip that commenced prior to the exclusion date (without returning to home base and subject to the terms of single trip duration parameters) versus a trip that departs following the defined exclusion. I have a 30-day plan that allows unlimited consecutive trip coverage but I must have returned home each time to reset the period. The latest I could have had the one-month coverage in pandemic context would have been 30 days from March 12th. Departing on March 13th would have left me out in the cold because it would have been up to me to follow the news media or double-check for myself, given that the insurer did not send a notification. Also consider this: Let’s say you agree to risk travelling and acquiring SARS-CoV-2, without pandemic coverage, banking on asymptomatic or mild symptomatology that does not necessitate incurring medical expenses, but your infection and/or contagion status warrants quarantine or excludes the prerogative of returning home on your set date. If your rebooked return date surpasses the duration of insurance (eg, one month) you are uncovered for all non-Covid medical emergencies for which you have insurance in the first place. In this case it is advisable to supplement your plan with a trip-specific policy that extends somewhat beyond return date.

Our friendliest or neutral few exchanges have been DM, as Riobard, not any other of my vast array of profile aliases; we have some history of mutual emoticon props; I am on good terms with anyone I have met or communicated with privately, less two this week; and any past spicy content is water under the bridge in comparison to the occasional takedown death-blows attempted on the Board. I had jokingly referred to my experience debriefing as ‘gossip’ in order to keep it light while circumspect, but it was very off-putting. The weight of it figured prominently in suspending ‘bad blood’ considerations but did not eliminate the realization my choice could be ultimately weaponized. Perhaps I thought the worst that could happen was that it would validate your wise admonishments about intersecting off page.

4 episodes to go including finale. I should binge and move on. I am clueless about the outcome but wonder if ‘Clairrie’s’ real life husband playing onscreen role is implicated in an inauspicious ending. Hmmm ... worm-meat the two main characters? That was Juliet, and Romeo.

No, this was between me and a few educated members/friends I reached out to, 1:1, not group communication, to consult about a disturbing, to say the least bizarre, experience with a person I did not name. I did not expect it to come up. The person has not been revealed and my account of events was situational. It would serve no purpose to triangulate the players in our current little dust-up. As this is similar to, for example, a behind-scenes DM debriefing about an upsetting or ominous interaction with a provider, including you reflected my view that you have the intelligence to make a judgement about a sequence of events that was unsettling. One’s social circle for many of use precludes seeking opinion related to our stigmatized activity context. I realized the risk of impugning someone (an undefined entity) in that regard, but it turns out some time on that I was completely on track and learned something important about veracity and appearances.

Wrong. You wanted more. You understood what I wrote because you grasp and tap into the transactional variations that occur in São Paulo, Rio, Salvador. You were manipulative in this case, likely for attention. You behaved for a time following your ban. Now you are gradually escalating again because you miss the Sandbox. There has to be a you. I don’t require you to agree. It just is. It is entertaining to a point though. Would you consider expanding the pool of jury selection beyond the same ‘ol? The number of readers out of the estimated 30,000+ that pursue further clarification from me will reflect how difficult it is to follow what I wrote.

Years ago I used up two weeks of precious vacation time to work tirelessly on a compensation appeal on behalf of dozens of colleagues (non-union). I had asked for a voluntary contribution for my lost time, predicated on the result. A contract would have been very complex and wasted valuable time. The claim was successful and everybody realized a substantial raise, including a retroactive lump sum based on the underpinning legislation start up date. By the time I left the accumulated gains amounted to millions of dollars and I benefitted well from my share. However, I received a few verbal expressions of gratitude but not so much as an offer of coffee from anybody. I wouldn’t recommend getting into collections unless you are prepared to break a leg.

Teehee ... “end receiver of the webcam”, in someone’s brief post. How does that work?

Counterpart is the nasty Vern from Oz years ago. Also movie Whiplash. Great actor. Haven’t had time to commit to the series and keep up with the onslaught of new releases. Feel like Lucy wrapping chocolates on the conveyor belt. With the pandemic there should eventually be a slow down.

Haha ... yes/no? It’s a challenge to even answer unequivocally in all cases who is an asshole. What could be more confusing to readers is why somebody might accept rudeness here yet neither tolerate manipulative up-sells from providers nor lock-step on the arbitrary 30-minute programa. Anybody interested in the range of possibilities exclusively within the clubs can always read the thousands of related posts here or DM me if questions about my particular experiences. I had actually provided updated examples in the recent past and a non-troll should be able to put it together. A narrative account sometimes adds value to the spreadsheet or rate-card system. If I were new to this message board I would benefit from reading all the posts, on pain of outrageous repetitiveness, in order to avoid a rigid and narrow approach to transactions. Not so much to learn the exact way each time necessary to avoid toppling the commercial sex economy. There will also naturally be a default overemphasis on financial aspects going forward because there is no sex occurring for the foreseeable future. You will see regular update feed on currency exchanges that are easily accessible elsewhere. ——— For some of you commenting here I would add that you must definitely never, under any circumstance, deviate from the $20 per-song arrangement should you ever substitute or add Montreal strip club visits to your sex tourism. These are my strict bossy-pants orders. The tab accumulates song by song, for example over two hours, about $400 whether it is 4 private sequential dance sessions with 4 different guys or 1 stripper. No games, no exceptions. The model is one song at a time, clarifying the addition of each subsequent track with an assent to continue. Don’t fuck it up. If you later claim to get a deal you are definitely lying.