Corona Virus Updates Part 6

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: puzzled2

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Do you have a link to prove that?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Hey Agit8dChop,

Can you check out the below from SCMP very reputable news source. If true we are screwed!!!

‘Unknown pneumonia’ deadlier than coronavirus sweeping Kazakhstan, Chinese embassy warns

www.scmp.com...

The Chinese embassy in Kazakhstan has warned of a deadly “unknown pneumonia” after the former Soviet republic reported a spike in pneumonia cases since June. “The death rate of this disease is much higher than the novel coronavirus.


The country’s health departments are conducting comparative research into the pneumonia virus, but have yet to identify the virus,” the embassy said in a warning to Chinese citizens in the country.

IMO and If ANYONE reports this as if its true... Say......like drudge or the other nut cases we should ignore it completely. By the way whats up with all the red covid warnings ? a reply to: celltypespecific

On the topic of testing, yeah, we (the USA) might be doing alot of tests, but I can tell you the results are taking a REALLY, REALLY long time to come back. My wife I were tested on July 1, 2020, mid morning. Still no test results as of this posting...

originally posted by: surfinguru
On the topic of testing, yeah, we (the USA) might be doing alot of tests, but I can tell you the results are taking a REALLY, REALLY long time to come back. My wife I were tested on July 1, 2020, mid morning. Still no test results as of this posting...

What do you think the chances are that your specimens have been stored at -70°C or below? That's the recommended storage temperature if the delay between sample collection and performing the test is expected to be more than 72 hours:

www.cdc.gov...

Store specimens at 2-8°C for up to 72 hours after collection. If a delay in testing or shipping is expected, store specimens at -70°C or below.

Equipment that can store samples at 2-8°C is common, but equipment that can store samples at -70°C is less common. I would expect if the test takes too long to perform and it's not stored at -70°C, it might be possible to get a false negative if the virus just doesn't last that long in the sample container above -70°C.

Numbers Update for Europe, and Elsewhere :






BNO (They have added a new "Daily Record" Colour) :




www.worldometers.info...
bnonews.com...

originally posted by: celltypespecific
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Hey Agit8dChop,

Can you check out the below from SCMP very reputable news source. If true we are screwed!!!

‘Unknown pneumonia’ deadlier than coronavirus sweeping Kazakhstan, Chinese embassy warns

www.scmp.com...

The Chinese embassy in Kazakhstan has warned of a deadly “unknown pneumonia” after the former Soviet republic reported a spike in pneumonia cases since June. “The death rate of this disease is much higher than the novel coronavirus.


The country’s health departments are conducting comparative research into the pneumonia virus, but have yet to identify the virus,” the embassy said in a warning to Chinese citizens in the country.

Wouldn’t surprise me. I know a woman who works as a hazmat cleaner for victims of we’ll say: things.

She recently told me Covid still claiming lives, with according to her a slight drop. She did say she was seeing a lot of suicides (she said it shocked her).

This is the most important question right now. The first time you get it, yeah, you will probably be OK, but say the 8th time?

a reply to: KTemplar

That goes all the way back to “first death” of Dr. Calhoun and his “mice utopia”... the ‘first death’ where the population looses “the spirit of living” and chaos ensues (parents eating their new born, rampant homosexuality, rapes, murder, random acts of violence, and a group that segregates itself from society and all interactions, kind of like the Covid lockdown, and do nothing but groom all day and were called “the beautiful ones”.

First death, the death of spirit, always leads to physical death in the mice/rat population (they have a rigid social structure and we vary by race).

So keep your eye on suicides because it is important to overall health of our society (and why I am crushed be Canada’s First Nation rates going up... even before Covid! We (they) deserve more from society than that! )

-Peace

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z

I guess this is a long winded way of answering "I don't know" to my question.

Actually not.
You did not seem to understand that the primary intent of wearing a mask in public is not to protect the maskee.

It seems that you still do not understand that without full PPE, protection from an unmasked infected person is minimal at best. That is why medical folk don full PPE, and not just masks when dealing with infected patients. Surgeons do not wear just a mask to protect themselves, they wear it to protect their patient.

And YOU still do not seem to understand my question.

"So tell me, why would a mask being worn by someone with the virus protect someone in their company, but not protect that someone else NOT having the virus but wearing a mask instead of the infectee? Discounting those goofy masks with the one way valves built in, of course. The virus will be stopped by a mask from being exhaled from an infectee, but not be stopped by a mask worn by someone standing nearby? How does that work, if you don't mind me asking? "

In short, why is the virus less infectious on the way OUT of a mask than it is on it's way INTO a mask?

One mask, two people. One infected, the other not. It appears you are saying that the mask placed on the person infected would be better for the person not infected instead of the mask placed on the person not infected. So how is that so?

a reply to: Rich Z

In short, why is the virus less infectious on the way OUT of a mask than it is on it's way INTO a mask?

It is not less infectious on the way out. The mask has no effect upon the virulence of the virus.

What a mask does is limit the number of viral particles emitted and the distance over which they are spread. This reduces the chances of others receiving an infectious dose of viral particles.

This is why surgeons wear masks in surgery, to reduce risk of infection to their patient. The same reason they scrub before surgery.

Numbers Update for Europe, and elsewhere :






BNO :

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z

In short, why is the virus less infectious on the way OUT of a mask than it is on it's way INTO a mask?

It is not less infectious on the way out. The mask has no effect upon the virulence of the virus.

What a mask does is limit the number of viral particles emitted and the distance over which they are spread. This reduces the chances of others receiving an infectious dose of viral particles.

This is why surgeons wear masks in surgery, to reduce risk of infection to their patient. The same reason they scrub before surgery.

So wouldn't that same mask "limit the number of viral particles" on the receiving end by some non infected person wearing an equivalent mask?

a reply to: Rich Z

Ejected particles don't only end up on the mask, on the "receiving end." They end up on your face, eyes, hands, and clothing as well.

But there is apparently recent evidence that masks do offer protection, as far as inhaling particles goes. All the better.

Wearing a facial covering not only curbs the spread of the coronavirus but reduces a mask wearer's risk of catching the virus by 65%, said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children's Hospital.

Blumberg, speaking on a college livestream about the coronavirus, said that a “standard rectangular surgical mask ... will decrease the risk of infection to the person wearing the mask by about 65%” and that homemade masks also “should work quite well.”

N95 masks are the most effective but should be reserved for medical personnel, he added.

The masks mainly provide a physical barrier to respiratory droplets that are about one-third the size of a human hair, he said. Those drops are one of the major ways the virus is transmitted.

“People who say 'I don't believe masks work' are ignoring scientific evidence,” Blumberg said. “It's not a belief system. It's like saying, 'I don't believe in gravity.'

“You're being an irresponsible member of the community if you're not wearing a mask. It's like double-dipping in the guacamole. You're not being nice to others.”

65% is pretty good , not great. But, if both are going masked, the chance of infection is reduced even more, for each of them. I'm all for reducing risk for everyone.
www.webmd.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z

“N95 masks are the most effective but should be reserved for medical personnel"
www.webmd.com...

If I was a doctor working in a hospital with COVID-19 patients, I wouldn't be satisfied with an N95 mask.

The 65% sounds optimistic but there are reasons it's not higher. Look at the principle of how the virus can transmit without the masks.

Someone coughs and little spray particles of saliva are ejected. They are small (though large compared to the tiny virus) but as they travel through the air, they can evaporate and get smaller and smaller as the moisture evaporates, until all that's left is the airborne virus, which is an incredibly small thing compared to the larger moisture droplets.

So because the moisture droplets coughed out are relatively large (compared to the virus), even a mask which doesn't filter very tiny particles can stop the larger moisture droplets, so masks work pretty well to stop outgoing particles from a cough or just from the normal "spray" that can happen when we talk.

For incoming particles, even the N95 mask which is pretty good, has difficulty filtering out all the virus particles after the moisture has evaporated, because they are so small, and that's if you get a perfect seal between the mask and the face which is almost impossible, so some contaminated air containing the virus can sneak between the mask and the face when we breathe in. So you might ask, couldn't that happen with exhaling too? The answer is maybe, but the factors against that are that just the normal air we breathe out isn't going to be that contaminated, it's the moisture particles expelled from coughing or talking which will almost always tend to be expelled in the direction of the mask, and even if the mask doesn't capture all of the moisture droplets expelled, it probably captures most of them.

What physicians should probably use when coming into close contact with highly contagious covid-19 patients is something with "positive pressure" that pumps filtered air into the space in the mask, which means that even if the seal between the mask and the face isn't perfect, the "positive pressure" means the virus won't slip past the gaps in the seal between mask and face since the airflow will be out through those gaps, not in. Something like this should probably be used.

PAPR-Powered Air Purifying respirator

The caption on that photo is a little scary. The researcher is working with the 1918 Spanish flu or something like it which had a much higher fatality rate than COVID-19. At least that's in a BSL-3 lab, more secure than the BSL-2 lab in Wuhan which allegedly leaked the COVID-19 virus.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for that post A … that is the best simple description I have seen so far of the overall mechanics of masks and this virus, and the positive pressure respirators are indeed what they are using at my hospital at least in the COVID unit.

Phoenix Mayor: Maricopa County Medical Examiner at 96% capacity, adding refrigerated trucks

“The City of Phoenix participates in meetings with the Maricopa County Unified Command Center. It was reported this week that morgue space is nearing capacity in some cases here in Arizona. An Abrazo liaison reported their morgue is at capacity.

The command center has also reported that the Maricopa Office of the Medical Examiner is at 97% capacity and is working with the Maricopa Department of Emergency Management to secure a contract for refrigerator trucks."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Something like this should probably be used.

Fine in a lab setting, I'm not sure how practical it would be in an actual health care setting. In lieu of that, they do use face shields, of course. Oh, I see that it's a portable, self-contained thing. A blower, basically.

In an article about Dr. Blumberg's statements was a reference to this metastudy. I can't find that 65% figure though, specific to masking. It looks to me like masks have a risk difference of -14%. Am I reading that right? Or does some other factor have to be applied to that number? Maybe he's including the RD of an infected person also wearing a mask? Or maybe he's referencing something else all together.

The total (of distancing, face masks, and eye shielding) seems to be about -34%. That's seems pretty dismal. I'm obviously interpreting it incorrectly. Help, please.

Numbers Update for Europe, and Elsewhere :






BNO :




www.worldometers.info...
bnonews.com...

a reply to: Phage


A full face crash helmet would be the thing, good luck going into a bank wearing one though.