Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 66099 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2250 on: July 23, 2020, 03:54:04 PM »
Texas crushes our previous record with over 200 deaths yesterday. And we're at 140,000 and counting. Remember all those people claiming it was "no worse than the flu"? I can hardly hear myself over the multitude admitting they were wrong.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2251 on: July 27, 2020, 11:12:44 AM »
Well the lady who tested positive a few weeks back is back in the office today. As well as her husband.  They say he never tested positive, and as far as I know no one else in the office or the plant is reporting any symptoms and the few of us who got ourselves tested have come back negative.

So while I would have thought she (and maybe he) would have stayed home another week it looks like we might have dodged a bullet.  Or the cleaning/mask wearing/social distancing efforts put into place are working.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2252 on: July 27, 2020, 11:18:25 AM »
Well the lady who tested positive a few weeks back is back in the office today. As well as her husband.  They say he never tested positive, and as far as I know no one else in the office or the plant is reporting any symptoms and the few of us who got ourselves tested have come back negative.

So while I would have thought she (and maybe he) would have stayed home another week it looks like we might have dodged a bullet.  Or the cleaning/mask wearing/social distancing efforts put into place are working.

Great to hear. Masks seem to be effective when everyone is wearing them.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2253 on: July 27, 2020, 01:44:35 PM »
Well the lady who tested positive a few weeks back is back in the office today. As well as her husband.  They say he never tested positive, and as far as I know no one else in the office or the plant is reporting any symptoms and the few of us who got ourselves tested have come back negative.

So while I would have thought she (and maybe he) would have stayed home another week it looks like we might have dodged a bullet.  Or the cleaning/mask wearing/social distancing efforts put into place are working.

Or she was one of those false positive test results.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2254 on: July 27, 2020, 02:04:04 PM »
Or, since she had symptoms, had a correct positive test.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2255 on: July 27, 2020, 06:24:51 PM »
Quote
Now Starr County is at a dangerous “tipping point,” reporting an alarming number of new cases each day, data show. Starr County Memorial Hospital — the county’s only hospital — is overflowing with COVID-19 patients.

The county has been forced to form what is being compared to a so-called “death panel.” A county health board – which governs Starr Memorial – is set to authorize critical care guidelines Thursday that will help medical workers determine ways to allocate scarce medical resources on patients with the best chance to survive.

A committee will deem which COVID-19 patients are likely to die and send them home with family, Jose Vasquez, the county health authority, said during a news conference Tuesday.

They had a model response and very few cases early on. Then the Governor forced them to reopen.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2256 on: July 29, 2020, 10:33:14 AM »
About one of those doctors on the coronavirus "cure" video that the Trump's resent...

Quote
A Houston doctor who praises hydroxychloroquine and says that face masks aren’t necessary to stop transmission of the highly contagious coronavirus has become a star on the right-wing internet, garnering tens of millions of views on Facebook on Monday alone. Donald Trump Jr. declared the video of Stella Immanuel a “must watch,” while Donald Trump himself retweeted the video.

Before Trump and his supporters embrace Immanuel’s medical expertise, though, they should consider other medical claims Immanuel has made—including those about alien DNA and the physical effects of having sex with witches and demons in your dreams.

Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.

She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2257 on: July 30, 2020, 11:06:47 AM »
Well Trump's Tulsa rally has claimed one of his supporters.

Herman Cain just died from Covid-19 that he most likely caught at the Trump Tulsa rally.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/herman-cain-dead-covid-143229190.html

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2258 on: July 30, 2020, 11:19:44 AM »
Post-infection cardiac damage found in 78% of recovering COVID19 patients

Quote
That's 78% of a cohort, average age 49, of whom 67% had recovered at home (ie. disease was not categorized as severe enough to need hospitalization). Cohort was normalized with respect to other risk factors relative to uninfected patients. Diagnosis by MRI. Looks reasonably solid, at first glance, publication in JAMA Cardiol. (Journal of the American Medical Association, cardiology). Study coordinated via a German hospital.
(...)
You don't want to get this virus.

(Found the link on the blog of another SF author, Charles Stross)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2259 on: July 30, 2020, 11:52:10 AM »
Well Trump's Tulsa rally has claimed one of his supporters.

Herman Cain just died from Covid-19 that he most likely caught at the Trump Tulsa rally.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/herman-cain-dead-covid-143229190.html

Eh can't really figure in anyone who dies from a strong cold, that's what covid is right? What they all told me.

Shoot. Conservative or not the man was an icon. Sorry he's gone.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2260 on: July 30, 2020, 12:21:25 PM »
Currently, there have been 4.6M reported cases in the USA.

Assuming, as one study did last month, that roughly only 1/6 of all cases are reported, that brings the total of likely infections to 27M, or about 8% of the population.

If herd immunity actually works for COVID-19, and if no controls had been put in place (either official, unofficial or personal - which is not a likely scenario) we would likely reach an 80% infection rate.

Given that we have seen 150,000 deaths to date (and not factoring in the recently infected who will eventually die as a result) we would expect to see a death count of about 1.5M people in the USA.  Of course, that number will drop as more effective treatments become available.  But it does look like the initial 1M-2M initial death estimates for unfettered infection was not too far off.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2261 on: July 30, 2020, 01:25:53 PM »
Well Trump's Tulsa rally has claimed one of his supporters.

Herman Cain just died from Covid-19 that he most likely caught at the Trump Tulsa rally.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/herman-cain-dead-covid-143229190.html

Doubt Trump will lose much support over this. Sadly it's pretty close to his shooting someone on 5th avenue claim 4 years ago.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2262 on: July 31, 2020, 07:35:34 AM »
New daily cases in the USA seem to have plateaued, but the 3-day average for daily deaths is now higher than at any time since May 22.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2263 on: July 31, 2020, 10:52:35 AM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/31/897429054/covid-19-hospital-data-system-that-bypasses-cdc-plagued-by-delays-inaccuracies

Quote
Earlier this month, when the Trump administration told hospitals to send crucial data about coronavirus cases and intensive care capacity to a new online system, it promised the change would be worth it. The data would be more complete, transparent, and an improvement over the old platform run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administration officials said.

Instead, the public data hub created under the new system is updated erratically and is rife with inconsistencies and errors, data analysts say.

Who would of ever thought handing out a no-bid contract to a company to update data reporting in the middle of a pandemic would cause inaccuracies in data? I'm sure it's entirely unintentional by the Trump admin  ::). If you can't make the numbers better then lose the numbers  ::).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2264 on: July 31, 2020, 09:10:01 PM »
Vanity Fair article:

Quote
But the effort ran headlong into shifting sentiment at the White House. Trusting his vaunted political instincts, President Trump had been downplaying concerns about the virus and spreading misinformation about it—efforts that were soon amplified by Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures. Worried about the stock market and his reelection prospects, Trump also feared that more testing would only lead to higher case counts and more bad publicity. Meanwhile, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was reportedly sharing models with senior staff that optimistically—and erroneously, it would turn out—predicted the virus would soon fade away.

Against that background, the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor, said one public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force.

Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.
Putting aside Trump's consistent stupidity concerning how more testing would lead to higher case counts  (although maybe if a. you don't understand what testing is for and b. he believed the virus would soon fade away, you could sorta cut him some slack) it would be mind boggling to think that they actually did the political calculus that a national plan wasn't really needed because the virus was currently killing primarily blue state voters, so the political fallout would damage Democrats more than Republicans.

I said it would be mind-boggling, except it really isn't because this administration has proven itself to be so completely amoral that planning for the deaths of blue staters is almost expected of them now.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2265 on: August 08, 2020, 04:18:08 PM »
Some thoughts by the faculty of Yale on the obsession with Hydroxychloroquine, and the resulting opportunity costs.

Quote
The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease.

They do leave open the possibility that there may be some as yet unidentified sub-group that might benefit from HCQ at some specific stage in the progression of the illness, but given the hundreds of studies showing no statistically significant benefits, it is highly unlikely that HCQ would provide any significant general benefit, and it is highly likely that any study which showed an unexpected beneficial result at this point would be found to be flawed in some significant way.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2266 on: August 09, 2020, 03:11:13 PM »
Annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.  The new motto of the USA: "Proudly keeping other countries' borders closed to the USA until 2022".

Quote
Motorcyclist Kevin Lunsmann, 63, rode more than 965 kilometres to the rally from Big Lake, Minn., with several friends. Lunsmann said he has attended the Sturgis event every year since 2003 and didn't want to miss the 80th, despite being "somewhat" concerned about COVID-19.

Still, the crowds of people and rows of bikes surprised him. He said there was no difference from previous years "other than a few people wearing masks."

Lunsmann said he was avoiding the bars and nightclubs that line the city's main drag this year, but many others were not. They were filled with revellers as the sun set Friday.

Organizers expected the overall crowd to be smaller, perhaps half the size of a normal year, when some half-million people from across the country roar into a town whose population is about 7,000.

The sheer numbers raise the prospect that this year's rally could spread COVID-19 in a state with no special limits on indoor crowds, no mask mandates and a governor who is eager to welcome visitors and their money.
250,000 people crammed into a 7,000 person town with few masks and little possibility for physical distancing, and more than enough skepticism to go around... what could possibly go wrong?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2267 on: August 10, 2020, 10:29:01 AM »
Neel Kaskari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, called for a nationwide economic shutdown for up to six weeks to get the coronavirus pandemic under control

Quote
"The next six months could make what we have experienced so far seem like just a warm-up to a greater catastrophe. With many schools and colleges starting, stores and businesses reopening, and the beginning of the indoor heating season, new case numbers will grow quickly," Kashkari wrote in a New York Times op-ed with Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2268 on: August 10, 2020, 01:24:11 PM »
Neel Kaskari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, called for a nationwide economic shutdown for up to six weeks to get the coronavirus pandemic under control

Quote
"The next six months could make what we have experienced so far seem like just a warm-up to a greater catastrophe. With many schools and colleges starting, stores and businesses reopening, and the beginning of the indoor heating season, new case numbers will grow quickly," Kashkari wrote in a New York Times op-ed with Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

The problem with the statement is the 'could make' while not address the economic impact of such a six week national shutdown that 'could make' the over all impact on people lives worse then the virus. This is not a either or problem but one that requires people to behave reasonably and as if they are 'their brothers keeper' as well.


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2269 on: August 10, 2020, 01:47:31 PM »
The problem with the statement is the 'could make' while not address the economic impact of such a six week national shutdown that 'could make' the over all impact on people lives worse then the virus. This is not a either or problem but one that requires people to behave reasonably and as if they are 'their brothers keeper' as well.
In the associated NYTimes editorial, Kaskari spelled out his reasoning, and I don't think it is particularly controversial: if the case load is not significantly reduced, the long term economic effects will be worse, his point being that "flattening the curve" to 50,000 daily cases and 1000 daily deaths for months on end will dwarf the economic impact of localized shutdowns and travel restrictions, especially not least because at that level large spikes become inevitable.

Quote
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus.

If we do this aggressively, the testing and tracing capacity we’ve built will support reopening the economy as other countries have done, allow children to go back to school and citizens to vote in person in November. All of this will lead to a stronger, faster economic recovery, moving people from unemployment to work.


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2270 on: August 10, 2020, 02:29:18 PM »
But they are economist, what do they know about public health?

Doctors say the same thing.

But they are doctors, what do they know about economics?

Someone who knows almost nothing about public health or economics says something they already agree with.

We should listen to them.

If you do not hear the sarcasm, you are not listening hard enough.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2271 on: August 10, 2020, 02:36:49 PM »
Quote
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus.

If we do this aggressively, the testing and tracing capacity we’ve built will support reopening the economy as other countries have done, allow children to go back to school and citizens to vote in person in November. All of this will lead to a stronger, faster economic recovery, moving people from unemployment to work.

How bad would the virus have to be for it to have a greater impact on the recovery then the impact of a shutdown? Where is the tipping point? How do you separate the two measurements - impact of covid-19 to recovery and impact of shutdowns on recovery?
How do we define/measure successful control of the virus?  The number of active cases are going up yet the death rate remains static is that control?

Part of the issue is that most people don't know anyone that has gone through the negative experience of having covid19 or losing a loved one to it. However many know people who have experienced the pain due to the economic cost of prevention.
At this moment in time one could argue that more people have suffered and perhaps even died (if we were measuring that) due to the lock-down then due the virus.

I work at a job were the better I do it, prevent defects from being released, the more likely my job will eventually be viewed as an unnecessary expense. Inevitably I will be asked to justify the position by measuring the cost of prevention.  I have failed more times then succeeded because we tend to forget the cost of pain when we stop feeling it and cross the tipping point where its the cost of prevention that is viewed as being painful.

So even though I know the value of prevention and the difficulty of measuring something that prevention stops from happening…. As I watch the covid19 numbers I am finding it more and more difficult not to ask the question to justify the cost of prevention








TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2272 on: August 10, 2020, 03:19:30 PM »
The problem with the statement is the 'could make' while not address the economic impact of such a six week national shutdown that 'could make' the over all impact on people lives worse then the virus. This is not a either or problem but one that requires people to behave reasonably and as if they are 'their brothers keeper' as well.
In the associated NYTimes editorial, Kaskari spelled out his reasoning, and I don't think it is particularly controversial: if the case load is not significantly reduced, the long term economic effects will be worse, his point being that "flattening the curve" to 50,000 daily cases and 1000 daily deaths for months on end will dwarf the economic impact of localized shutdowns and travel restrictions, especially not least because at that level large spikes become inevitable.

Quote
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus.

If we do this aggressively, the testing and tracing capacity we’ve built will support reopening the economy as other countries have done, allow children to go back to school and citizens to vote in person in November. All of this will lead to a stronger, faster economic recovery, moving people from unemployment to work.

So many problems with that pitch.

It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent. I highly doubt that will happen in the manner they want it to, especially in the United States. China appears to have had problems with getting their own shutdowns to work in such a manner, Covid19 still haunts them even with very intense violations of privacy and other rights we enjoy in the US.

There are no good solutions at this point, there have been no good solutions for the United States once the virus made its way within our borders and escaped what quarantine efforts existed.

All a 6 week nationwide shutdown would do is lower the infection rate, not eliminate it. After which we're still dealing with limited openings until a vaccine is developed or efforts to contain it just end.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2273 on: August 10, 2020, 03:30:10 PM »
American exceptionalism at its finest. There were plenty of good solutions when initial containment efforts failed as demonstrated by almost every other western country.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2274 on: August 10, 2020, 04:27:49 PM »
Most other countries have rates roughly 2 orders of magnitude less than those of the USA.

Now if the communities/states with high rates of infection were to successfully put in place a 6-week shutdown, and successfully restricted travel across community boundaries during that period, you would see rates drop in the same way as were observed in other countries.

Saying that the USA is so special that the citizenry would simply refuse to listen is part of what Kaskari is struggling against with his op-ed: he is trying to make it easier for the populace to accept, by being an example of an economist making economic arguments.

Are those in the USA too stupid to ever be convinced?  Maybe.  But that's a different argument.

It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent.
No, it doesn't.  It 'assumes' that the rates can be lowered to a point where contact tracing is possible, where providing test results can actually keep up with the tests being administered, and where the flare ups mean dozens of deaths instead of thousands.

The daily death rate in the USA is 20 times (per capita) that of Canada.  The number of active cases is roughly 40 times (per capita) that of Canada.  This doesn't mean that Canada's numbers are nearly non-existent - but they are manageable.  And they are such a level that front line workers don't have an existential fear of death by just showing up at work.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2275 on: August 10, 2020, 04:36:31 PM »
I'm surprised and disappointed that there still aren't enough N95 masks for everyone. That was something we could have done. Perhaps I don't understand all the logistics of getting them manufactured but hypothetically if a malignant alien race attacked the Earth and they said we need to make them a constant supply of billions upon billions of N95 masks or they would destroy our Sun I think we could do it if hard pressed enough. Sure the other masks help to keep from spreading the virus as much but as everyone knows they aren't as good as the N95s. That's something we could have done. It's something we could still do. There's been talk about the Defense Production Act. I'm not sure why it's still not happening. One problem people have with masks is they say they aren't effective. They don't do much to protect the person wearing it. The virus particles are much smaller than the mask mesh. I understand that the virus rides on droplets but even so better masks would help. I don't like the fact that I have to rely on everyone else wearing a mask, and wearing it properly, as the only hope for my own safety. If everyone could wear N95s that might solve a lot of our problems.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2276 on: August 10, 2020, 04:46:07 PM »
It's not happening because Trump really does not like masks, as he thinks they make him look weak.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2277 on: August 11, 2020, 12:22:13 AM »
It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent.
No, it doesn't.  It 'assumes' that the rates can be lowered to a point where contact tracing is possible, where providing test results can actually keep up with the tests being administered, and where the flare ups mean dozens of deaths instead of thousands.

The daily death rate in the USA is 20 times (per capita) that of Canada.  The number of active cases is roughly 40 times (per capita) that of Canada.  This doesn't mean that Canada's numbers are nearly non-existent - but they are manageable.  And they are such a level that front line workers don't have an existential fear of death by just showing up at work.

To fully reopen, you need it near zero, not just "managable" or "contact traceable" which we've already seen fail utterly time and again in communities that had it under control for weeks on end and them suddenly boom they have several dozen cases pop up in just a couple weeks--in an area that wasn't even fully open as it was.

Just watched it happen here in Idaho, the eastern part of the state has had its issues, where it would spike, then drop to a slow trickle where contact tracing should have been able to manage easily, and then suddenly we get hit with a huge wave of infections before it drops off again, rinse and repeat.

I'm pretty sure a large part of the problem we're seeing where I'm at is people going on vacation, bringing it with them, and leaving it behind them after they're gone.

Sorry, but anecdotally based on people I've talked to, I just don't see people having the patience for another shutdown, so unless you're ready to declare martial law, it isn't happening. And frankly, the fatality rate for Covid19 doesn't warrant that.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2278 on: August 11, 2020, 02:15:18 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/neck-gaiters-may-actually-increase-covid-19-transmission-study-finds-183034882.html

Neck Gaitors:

"The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add."


Now the valve masks are apparently good at protecting you up to N95 standards but don't protect those around you. I wonder if a work around might be to wear the valve mask to protect yourself and then wear another mask on top of it. I'm thinking I might try that. Just got some goggles too and the face shield too. If that seems excessive someone in my family got the full on gas mask. Went to Costco with it and it was fine.



Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2279 on: August 11, 2020, 02:54:03 AM »
I don't know if that's accurate or not in terms of the physics of it, but I can tell you that while wearing masks people end up shouting at each other to be understood properly, even in a sparsely-populated environment. I'm not saying I think masks are bad (I don't know) but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that they aerosolize water particles more than normal, and that the force of speaking loudly like that causes particles to shoot out of the sides if the mask isn't 100% sealed (which it won't be in almost all cases).

Side note, but in my anecdotal experience people who wear masks tend to believe it makes them invulnerable and they will walk right up to you. Even my wife the other day walked closely by someone, and when I asked why she didn't respect the social distance she said she was wearing a mask, so shouldn't she have been safe? The answer was, of course, who knows? But as I explained, if she knew for certain the person she walked past had bubonic plague, she would have run in the other direction, mask or no mask. That's how I treat the situation, but unfortunately many believe that masks act as deflector shields and that keeping distance is now obsolete.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2280 on: August 11, 2020, 10:08:15 AM »
Now the valve masks are apparently good at protecting you up to N95 standards but don't protect those around you. I wonder if a work around might be to wear the valve mask to protect yourself and then wear another mask on top of it. I'm thinking I might try that. Just got some goggles too and the face shield too. If that seems excessive someone in my family got the full on gas mask. Went to Costco with it and it was fine.

The valve masks were singled out very early on as being ineffective at protecting others in news reports, although they did stop harping on it for some reason(lol politics, probably decided even that was better than nothing). As air leaving through the valve obviously would bypass the valve, and would not be filtered at all. IIRC, there was concern even then about the valve actually amplifying the ability to spread germs(as they'd be concentrated, and under pressure) even as some of those masks reduce the risk factors for the person wearing it.

Side note, but in my anecdotal experience people who wear masks tend to believe it makes them invulnerable and they will walk right up to you. Even my wife the other day walked closely by someone, and when I asked why she didn't respect the social distance she said she was wearing a mask, so shouldn't she have been safe? The answer was, of course, who knows? But as I explained, if she knew for certain the person she walked past had bubonic plague, she would have run in the other direction, mask or no mask. That's how I treat the situation, but unfortunately many believe that masks act as deflector shields and that keeping distance is now obsolete.

Which is the moral hazard being demonstrated, and one of the initial reasons why medical officials were initially advising against wearing masks for the general public. It would give them a false sense of security and result in them placing themselves in positions where their improperly worn mask would result in either their getting infected, or infecting others....

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2281 on: August 11, 2020, 11:47:19 AM »
Fenring,

Quote
I don't know if that's accurate or not in terms of the physics of it, but I can tell you that while wearing masks people end up shouting at each other to be understood properly, even in a sparsely-populated environment.

 I've never seen or heard anyone shouting because they are wearing masks, even among construction crews.  I don't think that is a common phenomenon.  It might happen among the partially deaf who have been compensating by lip reading and think others can't hear them because they can no longer 'hear'' other people by reading their lips.

Quote
. I'm not saying I think masks are bad (I don't know) but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that they aerosolize water particles more than normal, and that the force of speaking loudly like that causes particles to shoot out of the sides if the mask isn't 100% sealed (which it won't be in almost all cases).

If you've turned a hose on say a bed sheet, most of the water is absorbed and drops down, very little goes through the sheet and small amounts rebound and spray sideways.  Even if everyone really were yelling because they use masks, there almost certainly will be a drastic reduction in droplets and aerosolized particles.  Also the droplets are the major concern (infectivity and severity is going to be strongly dependent on the dosing).

Quote
Side note, but in my anecdotal experience people who wear masks tend to believe it makes them invulnerable and they will walk right up to you.

Yep, which is why the health organizations were concerned about promoting masks - they are much less effective than social distancing - they are of benefit in addition to  social distancing not a substitute.  Many schools, work places, and individuals seem to think they are a substitute.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2282 on: August 11, 2020, 01:37:50 PM »
Quote
It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent. I highly doubt that will happen in the manner they want it to, especially in the United States. China appears to have had problems with getting their own shutdowns to work in such a manner, Covid19 still haunts them even with very intense violations of privacy and other rights we enjoy in the US.

New York eventually became a model for how you can control it. View the nice flat graph here, despite having made early mistakes and being one of the worst hit.

controlled

They have only 500 new cases per day, and about 10 deaths per day. They have achieved phase 4 of their reopening plan. This is not "full reopening", they are still keeping people out of indoor dining. Sports still have no fans in attendance. Businesses in violation get shut down after three warnings - including not following outdoor dining.

Italy is a similar success story. To accomplish this, they closed businesses and restaurants for 3 months. Do they have problems with compliance? Hell yes.

Quote
Masks often are missing or lowered in trains or buses, where they are mandatory. Young people are going out and doing the things young people do — and risk in that way spreading the virus to more susceptible parts of the population. Adults started gathering at the beach and for birthday barbecues. There is still no clear plan for a return to school in September.

There is also a burgeoning, and politically motivated, anti-mask contingent led by nationalist Matteo Salvini, who on July 27 declared that replacing handshakes and hugs with elbow bumps was “the end of the human species.”

Despite this, they have still been successful so far. Taking your lumps early and completely can get you back on track much better than stop-start with raging out of control hot spots.


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2284 on: August 11, 2020, 03:33:11 PM »
Despite this, they have still been successful so far. Taking your lumps early and completely can get you back on track much better than stop-start with raging out of control hot spots.
QFT

"Hotspots" based on a baseline of 500 daily cases are completely different from those that are based on 5,000 new daily cases.  It's the difference between being able to react on a personal level with contact tracing and requiring complete neighbourhoods to shut down because it's impossible to keep up.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2285 on: August 11, 2020, 03:54:20 PM »
Well by the end of the month we should be at 3 times the "good" number of dead Trump thought we would have. He thought we might hit 60,000. We will probably hit 180,000 by the end of Aug.  And still he does not set the example or lead the country.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2286 on: August 11, 2020, 04:27:54 PM »

They have only 500 new cases per day, and about 10 deaths per day. They have achieved phase 4 of their reopening plan. This is not "full reopening", they are still keeping people out of indoor dining. Sports still have no fans in attendance. Businesses in violation get shut down after three warnings - including not following outdoor dining.

Part of that is because NYC has 'partial herd immunity', antibody surveys suggest 20-25% of NYC might have been exposed (though I suspect that is probably a significant overestimate - their testing method is highly susceptible to oversampling those most likely to have caught it - because they are more frequently out and about) and the people most likely to spread tend to be those most likely to get it early.  I'm sure their measures have been effective is slowing the spread, but I think their current numbers are also benefiting from their early mistakes.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2287 on: August 11, 2020, 04:46:31 PM »

They have only 500 new cases per day, and about 10 deaths per day. They have achieved phase 4 of their reopening plan. This is not "full reopening", they are still keeping people out of indoor dining. Sports still have no fans in attendance. Businesses in violation get shut down after three warnings - including not following outdoor dining.

Part of that is because NYC has 'partial herd immunity', antibody surveys suggest 20-25% of NYC might have been exposed (though I suspect that is probably a significant overestimate - their testing method is highly susceptible to oversampling those most likely to have caught it - because they are more frequently out and about) and the people most likely to spread tend to be those most likely to get it early.  I'm sure their measures have been effective is slowing the spread, but I think their current numbers are also benefiting from their early mistakes.

So if that is accurate we should start to see the 'herd immunity' affect starting to show in Florida and California within the next few... weeks?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2288 on: August 11, 2020, 06:18:42 PM »
"seeing" and "recognizing" are different things.  If having antibodies/previous exposure does, as expected, protect people from reinfection and retransmission, then we are already seeing those effects even in Florida.  However, isolating that reduction in spread from the other factors that are driving infection rates is almost impossible.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2289 on: August 16, 2020, 04:14:29 PM »
My son's girlfriend just got diagnosed with Covid.  They went to the wedding of one of her best friends from college last weekend. The mother of the bride insisted on a large wedding with no masks.

My son and the girlfriend had/have planned to quarantine for 2 weeks after the wedding, so while he has not gotten his test results back yet, they are assuming he has it as well.

Stay in small groups and wear a mask.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2290 on: August 16, 2020, 11:59:20 PM »
I'm in a sort of pod now. I have a circle of about 6 friends and we visit each other about once every other week. It's a risk, but not too bad. Had to postpone my 50th birthday party twice for exactly that reason, msquared. Now it's planned as a 51st in June. Hopefully we get a vaccine by then. Actually volunteered as a trial vaccine subject, but haven't heard back.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2291 on: August 17, 2020, 02:35:00 PM »
New front is colleges and covid. Colleges have a freer reign in reopening (no truancy laws) and their students don't travel back home to potentially vulnerable family members. College profs have a greater ability to distance themselves from their students and be protected in that way.

Now we're seeing the early results of how they are doing, so far its not super promising.

Quote
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announced on Sunday that it had identified another cluster of coronavirus cases on campus, the fourth reported in three days.

State health officials define "clusters" as five or more cases in a single residential hall or dwelling.

Other schools I think have a more promising approach but one that would be hard to replicate on a national scale. University of Illinois is using a saliva test to test every student twice a week. Top research university with big on campus labs may be able to swing something like this for a while but small colleges and your typical local public schools aren't going to have the resources to test everyone twice a week.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2292 on: August 17, 2020, 02:46:37 PM »
The campus thing got me thinking, and I have to wonder how much of the virus transmission is purely due to sexual dalliances or relationships forming. The one thing I haven't really heard addressed here or elsewhere is the issue of how one is supposed to date during COVID times. Meeting someone in a bar - requires a bar. It also requires flirting...but with masks...and 2 meters apart? And how do you go about taking someone back to your place? Is it a return to the 80's where you show someone your 'card' (in this case a neg covid test) before sleeping with them? And what about people who are now dating, and sort of forming a two-person bubble, but then there's the issue of everyone each of them comes into contact with, and then whatever each one has they are sharing in spades due to fluid transmission. So the risks of bubble contamination are probably exponentially higher when sleeping with someone. And this doesn't even get us started on random sex or one night stands or whatever.

Say what you want for or against masks, but what on earth can manage the issues involved with people who voluntarily share fluids? I very much doubt too many Americans would tolerate actually remaining celibate until a vaccine is discovered.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2293 on: August 17, 2020, 03:02:45 PM »
But we will have the vaccine soon. So soon. And the virus will disappear on its own anyway, sometime. So don't worry about it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2294 on: August 17, 2020, 03:50:15 PM »
Gosh, it almost sounds like people will have to date and get to know each other and see each other in social settings before starting to exchange bodily fluids... How will people possibly manage to date in such an environment??

And by "date" I do mean leaving space for the Holy ghost and all that... They might even need someone close by to make sure that they are not standing too closely to one another

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2295 on: August 17, 2020, 04:40:53 PM »
The campus thing got me thinking, and I have to wonder how much of the virus transmission is purely due to sexual dalliances or relationships forming. The one thing I haven't really heard addressed here or elsewhere is the issue of how one is supposed to date during COVID times. Meeting someone in a bar - requires a bar. It also requires flirting...but with masks...and 2 meters apart? And how do you go about taking someone back to your place? Is it a return to the 80's where you show someone your 'card' (in this case a neg covid test) before sleeping with them? And what about people who are now dating, and sort of forming a two-person bubble, but then there's the issue of everyone each of them comes into contact with, and then whatever each one has they are sharing in spades due to fluid transmission. So the risks of bubble contamination are probably exponentially higher when sleeping with someone. And this doesn't even get us started on random sex or one night stands or whatever.

Say what you want for or against masks, but what on earth can manage the issues involved with people who voluntarily share fluids? I very much doubt too many Americans would tolerate actually remaining celibate until a vaccine is discovered.

We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
The important question the young person needs to ask themselves then is how likely they might be to spread covid19 within and without their bubble if they might have got infected after their encounter. (or other risky behavior) 
If they take risks for themselves that's one thing, however if they then take no mitigation actions to prevent spreading Covid19 to others they are in my opinion morally in the wrong. 

Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2296 on: August 17, 2020, 05:07:04 PM »
Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.

I guess my point is that when introducing someone new into your bubble there's a bit of hesitation and care that should come with that. But in this case the person isn't in your bubble, they're in your immune system. So any risk factor of transmission from people in your bubble from those they may have been in contact with is fantastically greater here. If the person you're sleeping with has been around people with COVID and maybe have some immune situation going on, you're getting that. It's not a chance; you are getting what they got. All I'm saying is I suspect people haven't quite come to terms with or taken seriously enough just how much of a predicament adding a new sexual partner is now. I certainly don't hear talk about this issue, and you'd think you would.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2297 on: August 17, 2020, 05:09:54 PM »

We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
The important question the young person needs to ask themselves then is how likely they might be to spread covid19 within and without their bubble if they might have got infected after their encounter. (or other risky behavior) 
If they take risks for themselves that's one thing, however if they then take no mitigation actions to prevent spreading Covid19 to others they are in my opinion morally in the wrong. 

Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.
I disagree: it's the inverse HIV hypothesis - it's not just that you're sleeping with all of your partners' partners, it's that all of your friends' friends are breathing your viruses.  So no, the risk is not just to the people in your bubble, but also the reality is that you are putting all of your friends' bubble people at risk as well.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2298 on: August 17, 2020, 05:12:14 PM »
Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.

I guess my point is that when introducing someone new into your bubble there's a bit of hesitation and care that should come with that. But in this case the person isn't in your bubble, they're in your immune system. So any risk factor of transmission from people in your bubble from those they may have been in contact with is fantastically greater here. If the person you're sleeping with has been around people with COVID and maybe have some immune situation going on, you're getting that. It's not a chance; you are getting what they got. All I'm saying is I suspect people haven't quite come to terms with or taken seriously enough just how much of a predicament adding a new sexual partner is now. I certainly don't hear talk about this issue, and you'd think you would.
Hmm... there are actually new dating sites built specifically around this challenge, and a bunch of new "dating etiquette in the time of COVID" articles out on the interwebs.  Of course, everything is on the interwebs, so take that with a grain of salt.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2299 on: August 17, 2020, 05:35:51 PM »
Quote
exchange bodily fluids

Whenever hear this phrase, it makes me think of a dystopian barter system involving mason jars.