Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 65628 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2100 on: June 26, 2020, 02:22:09 PM »
You can't separate out 25% of the population, that includes people with asthma, transplant patients, people with crone's disease, diabetes, and cancer patients, many of whom are young people. Unless you have adequately lowered infections, ubiquitous testing, and aggressive contact teaching, of which we have none of the above.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2101 on: June 26, 2020, 02:29:28 PM »
It's not just care providers - it is simply families.

Will 30 year old children successfully refrain from visiting their 55 year old parents?  Will 10 year olds (and their parents) be completely isolated from the grandparents?  Cousins from uncles and aunts?  And will those in the above 60 year range isolate themselves from all their relatives, but also from all their neighbours, who might have had a visit from their own grandchildren?

If you have tens of thousands of infected 30 year olds, there will be some subset of that group who will infect people outside their own cohort, requiring the complete isolation of the older groups and those at risk.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2102 on: June 26, 2020, 02:40:21 PM »
Wow.  After accusing me of being willing to vote for Hitler and something having to do with Stalin because I am willing to vote for the "less evil" of the DNC or RNC candidates, all of a sudden your principled outrage seems to have vanished.  You can't even come up with a specific thing any of them did that you completely agree with, as I asked you to do.  Instead, you don't have a problem with Carter?  You liked Bill Clinton well enough?  Obama was better than W?  Don't bother climbing back up on your high horse, because next time I won't take your pious outrage very seriously.

Your particular question was IMO specious, as asking me to cite a single thing I liked that any President has done is surely sarcastic at best and is in any case off-topic with the fact that I'm calling out your position as essentially being "vote for X because Y is worse". That kind of logic is precisely the one used in the earlier 20th century to vote in bad people to stop allegedly worse people. TheDrake is right, don't be a part of that.

The question wasn't specious and I wasn't being at all sarcastic.  You ripped me a new one for taking a pragmatic view of the candidates and offering that one is less evil than the other.  You were so strident that the only choice one could make was the purely principled one, so I offered you an opportunity to point out some President who did something that you wouldn't find fell short of your demand.  You couldn't come up with anything, so you deflected and offered that, well, some of the past Presidents were actually ok.  That was a garbage response coming from someone with such adamant views on purity.  And now you double down on backing down.  So it goes, and so it went.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2103 on: June 26, 2020, 07:04:18 PM »
Obesity, not just morbid obesity, is now being considered a factor putting people at greater risk - which in the USA means about 40% of the population.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2104 on: June 26, 2020, 11:47:29 PM »
Today's new cases - 47,341.  That's the largest daily new-case count ever (by more than 7000 cases) and the largest day-over-day increase ever.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2105 on: June 27, 2020, 01:17:22 AM »
I gotta admit I'm liking Biden on the mask issue.

He said he'd issue an executive order or something requiring everyone to wear masks, presumably indoors or when social distancing parameters couldn't be maintained.

While I agree that would help with slowing the spread of the virus while letting us still get out and about what I wonder is does the President have such authority?



ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2106 on: June 27, 2020, 01:29:49 AM »
I gotta admit I'm liking Biden on the mask issue.

He said he'd issue an executive order or something requiring everyone to wear masks, presumably indoors or when social distancing parameters couldn't be maintained.

In my state it’s been mandated, from what I can tell, universally. Inside, outside, wear a mask. It’s symbolic. A talisman that shows you’re taking things seriously.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2107 on: June 27, 2020, 02:04:03 AM »
While I agree that would help with slowing the spread of the virus while letting us still get out and about what I wonder is does the President have such authority?
Probably not, but the courts can be weird about emergency powers.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2108 on: June 27, 2020, 06:59:47 AM »
While I agree that would help with slowing the spread of the virus while letting us still get out and about what I wonder is does the President have such authority?
Probably not, but the courts can be weird about emergency powers.

It would be a helpful measure, but it's only one thing.  We need a full-blown campaign to do all the things that everyone already knows we need, but that none of the states where the cases are rising would be willing to do.  Rather than protect public welfare, they want to protect "individual freedoms".  There is no "we", only "me".  All of the countries that have successfully addressed the surge in cases and deaths have done the opposite.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2020, 07:07:00 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2109 on: June 27, 2020, 08:52:19 AM »
New proposal from Fauci to speed up the testing process using fewer tests.  Basically, they would take samples from a "pool" of people (20 is suggested) and combine them into a single test.  If the result is negative, they move on to the next group.  If positive, they test all of the people in the pool.

It's not clear to me how effective that approach will be given that the percentage of people in each test area who are infected may end up requiring all members of the pool to be tested anyway.  For example, if 5% or more of people in an area are infected and 20 people are tested, the pool result will be statistically likely to be positive, so they'll have to do the individual tests most of the time anyway. 

For this approach to work, they will have to pick a pool size for each area that is projected to be small enough that the likelihood anyone in the pool is infected is very low.  TheDeamon mentioned the other day that in his state the positive result rate is under 3%.  If the state rate is used as the guideline, they might be able to use a pool with as many as 50 people.  Florida is seeing positive results in as many as 15% of tests, so this approach probably won't work at all.

The approach can be pretty effective at reducing the number of tests. Its not exactly a new idea in testing. I used to assign this exact problem as a combination of probability and calculus when I taught. It ends up being a reasonably straight forward problem to stagger the number of tests to minimize runs as long as you have enough material to do multiple runs from a sample if one does come back positive.

This can work in environments where lots of people are brought together, like large workplaces and public schools.  For example, if every classroom in an elementary school is tested every week, I can see schools staying open and operating with protections but more or less as they did before.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2110 on: June 27, 2020, 11:36:43 AM »
It looks like there are new symptoms and ways to catch coronavirus.  The CDC has added coughing, diarrhea and nausea/vomiting as additional symptoms.  The new disease vector appears to be consuming misinformation from listening to conservative media, especially FOX TV and conservative talk shows.  In order to minimize your ongoing exposure, you may need to wipe down, wash or dispose of your TV, laptop or radio, or simply change the channel.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2111 on: June 27, 2020, 05:56:57 PM »
With all that's going on with the coronavirus, I have a question.

Is there a safe way to go to a fighting game tournament?

It's very crowded, you are right next to the people you are playing against, and it's for many hours over three days in a hotel convention room type environment.

Okay, if you must know, it's the Texas Showdown. A younger relative of mine wants to go badly but everyone is trying to convince him it wouldn't be safe, partly for him but mostly for the people he may bring the virus back to afterwards. You've got people flying in from all over, maybe getting into town a few days before so just enough time to become infectious if they catch it on the plane.

We're actually hoping it gets cancelled so we don't have to worry about it. Would a full on gas mask, gloves, and put the clothes in the car trunk afterward and leave them there for a month work? I'm thinking he won't be able to wear the gas mask for that many hours, won't be able to play well in gloves, and there is no guarantee a gas mask ordered over the internet will be in good enough working condition and also no guarantee the seal will hold that long especially if sweat starts getting involved. Or are we overthinking it and worrying too much?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2112 on: June 27, 2020, 07:05:16 PM »
With all that's going on with the coronavirus, I have a question.

Is there a safe way to go to a fighting game tournament?

It's very crowded, you are right next to the people you are playing against, and it's for many hours over three days in a hotel convention room type environment.

No. If he has to go, figure out a way to quarantine him for a couple weeks. Crowded, indoor, plus people traveling in is the  coronavirus trifecta.

Gloves won’t help much, N95 and a face shield would be the way to go. If he could gown up like an icu nurse and do it correctly it might be safe. I just don’t think those supplies are readily available right now.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2113 on: June 27, 2020, 07:47:47 PM »
I gotta admit I'm liking Biden on the mask issue.

He said he'd issue an executive order or something requiring everyone to wear masks, presumably indoors or when social distancing parameters couldn't be maintained.

In my state it’s been mandated, from what I can tell, universally. Inside, outside, wear a mask. It’s symbolic. A talisman that shows you’re taking things seriously.

No. It isn't symbolic. Or would you like to go into surgery and none of the doctors or nurses want to bother wearing masks?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2114 on: June 27, 2020, 09:28:04 PM »
Good news/bad news.

Good news: there were 3,800 fewer new daily cases reported today than were reported yesterday.
Bad news: That is still 3,400 more cases than the day with the next highest new daily case count, and today is a Saturday

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2115 on: June 28, 2020, 04:28:44 PM »
Uh-oh, somebody's days are numbered.

Quote
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar warned Sunday that the "window is closing" for the United States to get the coronavirus pandemic under control, as confirmed cases are surging in a majority of the country and some states are dealing with record numbers of hospitalizations.

"Things are very different from two months ago... So it is a very different situation, but this is a very, very serious situation and the window is closing for us to take action and get this under control," Azar told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

The question with this Administration is always whether the disease is a political issue or a health emergency.  If Azar is talking "health" I wonder if Pence and Trump won't be too far behind.  That, or Azar will be the one in the rear view mirror.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2116 on: June 28, 2020, 09:37:29 PM »
Today's new case count is still above 40,000 - a full 12,000 cases more than the next highest Sunday new case count, and also making each of the past 4 days' new case counts higher than every other day's new case counts since the beginning of the pandemic.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2117 on: June 29, 2020, 01:23:01 AM »
I gotta admit I'm liking Biden on the mask issue.

He said he'd issue an executive order or something requiring everyone to wear masks, presumably indoors or when social distancing parameters couldn't be maintained.

In my state it’s been mandated, from what I can tell, universally. Inside, outside, wear a mask. It’s symbolic. A talisman that shows you’re taking things seriously.

No. It isn't symbolic. Or would you like to go into surgery and none of the doctors or nurses want to bother wearing masks?

For healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others it’s not symbolic. Most everyone else, it’s symbolic.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2118 on: June 29, 2020, 06:43:10 AM »
For healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others it’s not symbolic. Most everyone else, it’s symbolic.
There is little evidence to support this opinion, and some evidence that this is simply not true:
Quote
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19

We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2119 on: June 29, 2020, 06:52:46 AM »
Quote
For healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others it’s not symbolic. Most everyone else, it’s symbolic.

Then how does the virus spread in the population?  How have dozens of people who gathered at bars, restaurants, church services, lakes, etc., caught it from each other?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2120 on: June 29, 2020, 07:33:40 AM »
Here's a sobering graph showing just how poorly the USA is doing currently with respect to other countries.

The USA is doing worse than all countries except basically latin america and Sweden for new daily deaths, and worse than latin america, Sweden and the middle east for numbers of new cases (per 1 million population)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2121 on: June 29, 2020, 07:54:49 AM »
(That should have read "worse than all other countries except latin america, Sweden and the middle east...")

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2122 on: June 29, 2020, 08:39:34 AM »
Fauci has given up on contact tracing because 40-60% of people who are infected are asymptomatic.  His partial solution is to "blanket" a community and test everyone.  That won't happen, either. He says that if a vaccine is 70-75% effective it would lead to herd immunity if 100% of people take the vaccine.  Other polling says that perhaps as many as 40-50% would refuse to be vaccinated, which would ensure that we never reach the herd immunity threshold.  All discussion about the efficacy of the vaccine assumes that the protection is long-lasting, which no scientific group can as yet promise.

The best advice remains to avoid doing stooped things: Don't throw out your mask, Don't french kiss strangers, Don't go to a Pence/Trump rally...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2123 on: June 29, 2020, 10:22:40 AM »
Fauci has given up on contact tracing because 40-60% of people who are infected are asymptomatic.  His partial solution is to "blanket" a community and test everyone.  That won't happen, either. He says that if a vaccine is 70-75% effective it would lead to herd immunity if 100% of people take the vaccine.  Other polling says that perhaps as many as 40-50% would refuse to be vaccinated, which would ensure that we never reach the herd immunity threshold.  All discussion about the efficacy of the vaccine assumes that the protection is long-lasting, which no scientific group can as yet promise.

For one of my sisters, she has Lupus and will wait to get the vaccine until the side effects are better understood, she'll self-isolate in the interim.

For another of my sister, she's just concerned about side effects in general, and as such is also intending to wait. So neither one is a hard no, but both of them are in the "I'm more concerned about nasty side-effects from the vaccine as it relates to me than I am about Covid19 itself."

And as per other discussions, if Covid19 infection outcomes only result in an immunity period of 2 to 4 months, any likely vaccine is going to have a "booster interval" within that time frame as well. If you think getting people to show up to take a handful of shots over the course of their lifetime is rough. Good luck with one that requires getting a shot several times a year.

From a social evolution standpoint, Darwin should take care of the rest at that point. It just sucks for those who are in the group who are (genuinely) medically advised against getting vaccines in general, rather than anti-vaxxers.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2124 on: June 29, 2020, 11:54:11 AM »
Quote
From a social evolution standpoint, Darwin should take care of the rest at that point. It just sucks for those who are in the group who are (genuinely) medically advised against getting vaccines in general, rather than anti-vaxxers.

Darwin isn't selective, so many anti-vaxxers may be ok, but people they come in contact with may suffer because of their exercise of their right.  I would humbly propose that anyone who refuses the vaccine should wear a little sticker, like you do after you vote, that says "I didn't take the COVID-19 vaccine. FCUK you".  The misspelling would be fitting in this case.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2125 on: June 29, 2020, 12:25:24 PM »
Current technology has undone Darwin as the understanding of 'fittest' is constantly in transition and less about a person intelligence and fitness and more about the teck they have access to. 

Quote
“Survivors aren't always the strongest; sometimes they're the smartest, but more often simply the luckiest.” ― Carrie Ryan


Quote
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind ; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 12:30:51 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2126 on: June 29, 2020, 12:48:34 PM »
Quote
From a social evolution standpoint, Darwin should take care of the rest at that point. It just sucks for those who are in the group who are (genuinely) medically advised against getting vaccines in general, rather than anti-vaxxers.

Darwin isn't selective, so many anti-vaxxers may be ok, but people they come in contact with may suffer because of their exercise of their right.  I would humbly propose that anyone who refuses the vaccine should wear a little sticker, like you do after you vote, that says "I didn't take the COVID-19 vaccine. FCUK you".  The misspelling would be fitting in this case.

I see the point was missed by you.

If a vaccine exists, and most people get the vaccine, the only people who can get and continue to propagate the disease at that point are the non-vaccinated who don't isolate themselves from the general (non-vaccinated) population.

Sure plenty of the anti-vaxxers will only experience no to mild symptoms once "their turn comes" with Covid19, but it'll kill many of them as well. And that isn't getting into the possibility of their later possibly getting the "honor" of being infected with it a second, third, or fourth time.

But as I said, it sucks for the ones who have genuine medical reasons not to vaccinate, as that means they have to continue to limit their social interactions possibly for an additional year or more while the Anti-Vaxxers go about continually re-infecting each other. It also gets to annoy the general population as that also means they need to continue getting the booster shots because eradication hasn't yet happened inside our national borders.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2127 on: June 29, 2020, 02:01:11 PM »
Quote
If a vaccine exists, and most people get the vaccine, the only people who can get and continue to propagate the disease at that point are the non-vaccinated who don't isolate themselves from the general (non-vaccinated) population.

Not if the vaccine is only 70-75% effective, which Fauci says is common.  I had the senior flu vaccine last October and I caught a bad case of the flu in February.

Quote
Sure plenty of the anti-vaxxers will only experience no to mild symptoms once "their turn comes" with Covid19, but it'll kill many of them as well. And that isn't getting into the possibility of their later possibly getting the "honor" of being infected with it a second, third, or fourth time.

I'm more concerned about who else they infect, which given the lack of perfect immunity people who are vaccinated will have, that could be me or anyone in my family.

Quote
But as I said, it sucks for the ones who have genuine medical reasons not to vaccinate, as that means they have to continue to limit their social interactions possibly for an additional year or more while the Anti-Vaxxers go about continually re-infecting each other. It also gets to annoy the general population as that also means they need to continue getting the booster shots because eradication hasn't yet happened inside our national borders.

It's not at all clear, as even you stipulate, that the vaccine will protect people for more than a few months.  So even if you did get the vaccination, it might wear off much sooner than you expect or realize.  In other words, the vaccine will help, but it's not a panacea.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2128 on: June 30, 2020, 12:33:22 PM »
Quote
For healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others it’s not symbolic. Most everyone else, it’s symbolic.

Then how does the virus spread in the population?  How have dozens of people who gathered at bars, restaurants, church services, lakes, etc., caught it from each other?

Through touching and expectoration of the virus through breathing. People seem to think that the masks being ineffective is some kind of flat earth all-in argument. It's not.

Surgical and cotton masks are great for bacterial containment but ineffective for most viruses, which can be up to 400X smaller than bacteria. It's like trying to catch plankton in a salmon net.

From a peer-reviewed study in April:

Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus

(1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission

(2). However, the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau

(3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues

(4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm

(5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.


I realize this kind of science angers the mask orthodoxy, but that doesn't make it less true. This isn't even addressing all the people I see with the mask below their nose, using loose cloth bandannas, using the same cotton mask for weeks on end, etc.

As I've said often, wear a mask whenever you want if it makes you feel better.
 
Just be honest in acknowledging that for this virus, masks out in public are likely as effective as a pouch of chicken bones or a rabbit's foot.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2129 on: June 30, 2020, 12:45:58 PM »
Then I really don't get why you think they matter "for healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others".

As for the parts you quoted, I note some significant weasel words in there. Particles "can" penetrate surgical masks, but do they ACTUALLY do so in the same frequency? Or are we using the word "can" to state the equivalent of "Since it's not perfect 100% protection, let's treat it as if it's 0% protection"?

They didn't "effectively" filter SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients -- what about normal speech and normal breathing though, rather than coughs?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2130 on: June 30, 2020, 12:50:13 PM »
From a peer-reviewed study in April:

Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus

(1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission

(2). However, the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau

(3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues

(4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm

(5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.


I realize this kind of science angers the mask orthodoxy, but that doesn't make it less true. This isn't even addressing all the people I see with the mask below their nose, using loose cloth bandannas, using the same cotton mask for weeks on end, etc.

As I've said often, wear a mask whenever you want if it makes you feel better.
 
Just be honest in acknowledging that for this virus, masks out in public are likely as effective as a pouch of chicken bones or a rabbit's foot.

I'll step in on this and point out you're conflating two things here.

The study you cited is in relation to the masks being used to protect a person from catching the virus. For which the mask is arguably useless.

The reason being given for wearing masks at this stage is to limit the spread of the virus, assuming the person wearing the mask has the virus but is unaware that they've been infected. The particles carrying Covid19 are likely to be at their largest immediately open exiting the body, so if it is going to be intercepted anywhere, it needs to happen at the source.

Edit: Of course, there is the additional issue still be resolved regarding "asymptomatic spreaders" and how their mask use relates to this situation. For someone "coughing stuff up" they're probably going to expel covid19 in addition to it being intermixed with other things, saliva, mucous, etc. While someone who is asymptomatic and breathing normally may be exhaling basically "weaponized Covid19" where it is essentially just the virus itself -- and thus able to escape the mask. Although I'd expect there would still be a fair bit of "viral load" that would be intermixed with airborne water droplets if only for a few moments, maybe long enough to get caught by the mask before the water evaporates... Of course, once the water is gone, by the next breath that Covid19 particle may be right back on its merry way.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 12:55:10 PM by TheDeamon »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2131 on: June 30, 2020, 01:33:47 PM »
The mask acts as a better method then coughing into ones elbow though perhaps you wan't to do both to protect others. 
The mask would also limit the distance droplets fly

Of the goal is to keep people as safe as possible while opening up the economy wearing a mask is the least we can do.
If Trump really cared about opening up the economy he wouldn't have contributed to the politicization of mask wearing.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2132 on: June 30, 2020, 01:43:32 PM »
As hoaxes go, this is a damn good one.  We need Crunch to come back and defend the smh ranch.

Quote
Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert, gave a dire warning Tuesday in a Senate committee hearing held as coronavirus infections surge in many parts of the United States.

“We are now having 40-plus thousand new cases a day. I would not be surprised if we go up to 100,000 a day if this does not turn around. And so I am very concerned,” Fauci said in response to questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on what the overall U.S. death toll is likely to be.

Let's hope Fauci is wrong, but he doesn't know how to head it off.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2133 on: June 30, 2020, 02:07:37 PM »
Of the goal is to keep people as safe as possible while opening up the economy wearing a mask is the least we can do.

I understand the reflex, I really do. But the science just doesn't support masks being effective out in public the way people want to believe they are. Here's about a minute on how even N95 masks don't work to filter out something as small as a C19 virus particle.

Most of the masks being worn by the faithful are not nearly as fine as the N95. Any covering will stop spit from flying, so if that's the main point being made, great. The broader point, you know, actually preventing the virus from being airborne in general, is not supported by masks

https://twitter.com/jcho710/status/1273924949162340353

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2134 on: June 30, 2020, 02:47:34 PM »
Or maybe, instead of trying to make a "common-sense" argument and hoping that your version of common sense is applicable to the problem in the real world... what do actual studies say?

New WHO study confirms face masks are effective in reducing COVID-19 spread
Quote
Researchers who reviewed 172 studies about the effectiveness of masks, eye protection and physical distancing in decreasing the spread of COVID-19 confirm what many health officials have already been saying: They work.

From the Lancet study itself:
Quote
Findings

Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

I get it - getting accurate info is hard, especially in one's twitter feed ("He (Michelle Obama) was the worst First Lady ever , retweet if you agree"  - really - you linked to such an explicitly racist thread?? That's where you get your info??)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2135 on: June 30, 2020, 02:51:35 PM »
Of the goal is to keep people as safe as possible while opening up the economy wearing a mask is the least we can do.

I understand the reflex, I really do. But the science just doesn't support masks being effective out in public the way people want to believe they are. Here's about a minute on how even N95 masks don't work to filter out something as small as a C19 virus particle.

Most of the masks being worn by the faithful are not nearly as fine as the N95. Any covering will stop spit from flying, so if that's the main point being made, great. The broader point, you know, actually preventing the virus from being airborne in general, is not supported by masks

https://twitter.com/jcho710/status/1273924949162340353

I understand the reflex but it dons't matter. Society does all kinds of things that don't make much difference to give them the illusion of being safe.
If the majority of people feel safer wearing a mask and that gets them back to work.  Lets do it.

That said much of the C19 virus droplets are being stopped by coughing into the elbow and or wearing a mask. As the larger droplets is the most likely method of coming into contact with C19 and getting infected masks makes sense.

Percentage wise the number of people infected due to contaminated surfaces is small as is the aerosolization of the virus. The data also shows that countries where wearing the masks is prevalent the infection rate is much lower. Coincidence maybe but as these countries economies also show more improvement I would again argue what have we to lose.


« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 02:54:22 PM by rightleft22 »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2136 on: June 30, 2020, 09:38:04 PM »
Daily update: today's daily new cases value in the USA makes it 6 days in a row of over 40,000 new cases - each of those 6 days having a higher new case count than any other day since the pandemic started.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2137 on: July 01, 2020, 10:05:58 PM »
Today was the first ever day with more than 50,000 new cases.  It was just 6 days ago when the USA first exceeded 40,000 new cases per day...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2138 on: July 01, 2020, 10:19:26 PM »
Today was the first ever day with more than 50,000 new cases.  It was just 6 days ago when the USA first exceeded 40,000 new cases per day...

Well, the roll backs on the reopenings didn't start for most of the country until last week, so it's to keep going up for another week or so. And given it wasn't another lockdown we went into, it's probably only manage to keep R just above 1, so it's not likely to go down unless further actions are taken.. Once it presumably levels off late next week

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2139 on: July 02, 2020, 11:56:08 AM »
More data becoming available on excess deaths.  I won't bother quoting, but will offer that many deaths *not* attributed to COVID-19 infections were nevertheless indirectly the result of the pandemic's impact on medical services.  Overall, there have been about 113,000 excess deaths so far this year that are not included in the C19 total.

If you can't read the article because of paywall restrictions, I'll post it elsewhere.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2140 on: July 03, 2020, 10:57:50 AM »
Michigan hospital study shows reduced mortality in hydroxychloroquine study

It's definitely an interesting result - I'm sure there will be much interest raised...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2141 on: July 03, 2020, 02:09:16 PM »
Michigan hospital study shows reduced mortality in hydroxychloroquine study

It's definitely an interesting result - I'm sure there will be much interest raised...

Good news is always welcome, but only after claims like these are verified.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2142 on: July 03, 2020, 02:34:06 PM »
Just got an emergency alert on my phone that by order of the Governor the great state of Texas is mando masking effective immediately. This is very good news and about time.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2143 on: July 03, 2020, 02:38:49 PM »
Quote
Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients.

Sounds like something to ignore.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2144 on: July 04, 2020, 09:20:48 AM »
Quote
Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients.

Sounds like something to ignore.

The CEO of the hospital pointed out that this observational study doesn't contradict other studies done under clinical test procedures, so, no, it's not new, it's not even news.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2145 on: July 05, 2020, 11:13:10 PM »
Hey people who think that young people who have no underlying health problems have nothing to worry about....

Quote
Nick Cordero, a Canadian actor who earned a Tony nomination for the 2014 musical “Bullets Over Broadway” and seemed on the cusp of an even more prominent career before being hospitalized with the coronavirus, died July 5 at a hospital in Los Angeles. He was 41.

His death was announced on Instagram by his wife, Amanda Kloots. Mr. Cordero had been hospitalized in late March and was subsequently diagnosed with covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. He reportedly had no underlying health conditions but, after being put on a ventilator, developed blood clots that forced doctors to amputate his right leg.

link

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2146 on: July 06, 2020, 12:34:41 AM »
41 isn't exactly young. That's beyond middle aged for many families. And there also is a difference between "can't/won't happen" and "reasonably unlikely."

Or that whole thing about aggregate numbers. Your odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are quite poor, yet people win it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2147 on: July 06, 2020, 12:39:22 AM »
41 isn't exactly young. That's beyond middle aged for many families. And there also is a difference between "can't/won't happen" and "reasonably unlikely."

Or that whole thing about aggregate numbers. Your odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are quite poor, yet people win it.

And so.... But people, not you, but a lot of people act like anybody under 50 have no risk. EVERYBODY is at risk. I'm fine with having a discussion about the level of risk, where we draw a line, etc. It's an important conversation, and a horribly difficult conversation. I'm just very sick of the people (not you), who try to claim that there isn't any risk to healthy people under 50.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2148 on: July 06, 2020, 09:48:17 AM »
The ratio of hospitalizations by age has shifted somewhat dramatically from older patients toward younger ages, from over 50% in April to about 25-30% recently.  Given the way younger people are partying lately, the trend will continue.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2149 on: July 06, 2020, 01:11:25 PM »
Quote
BBC Radio 5 Live has been hearing today from people with ongoing problems after having coronavirus. Matt, a 40-year-old teacher from Altrincham, caught Covid-19 in March. Fifteen weeks later, he is still dealing with symptoms.

“It’s been a rollercoaster journey,” he said. “The last 100 days I’ve been trapped in my own home, unable to walk more than 100m.

“I’ve had a never-ending cycle of symptoms ranging from breathing difficulties to a racing heart rate brought on by tiny amounts of exertion.

“It’s not only physically tiring and challenging. Mentally, it’s been extremely difficult coping with the isolation.”

Matt has a two-year-old son and a four-year-old daughter. He says not being able to read to his daughter has been difficult.

“I’ve been unable to speak more than a few words so things like reading bedtime stories just haven’t been an option. It’s been difficult losing that contact with her.

“She knows I’ve been ill. I’ve told her so many times I’m getting better only to be back in bed 20 minutes later. It’s been really tough on the whole family.”

That's what not dying of coronavirus can look like for a person who was not in a risk category.