Corona Virus Updates Part 6

a reply to: anonentity

I don't think the cranial protection would help much. The face shield might.

Has anyone been following the flooding in China? The Yangtze river is flooding major cities including Wuhan. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not to far from the river. Any reports on the safety of the bio lab?

Numbers Update for Europe and Elsewhere :






BNO :




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

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

You can see that pattern in every nation that’s allowed the virus to get out of control;

What is hilarious is people like you who actually think there is anything we can do about it.

It is here. Now we just need to grit our teeth and see it through.

As someone else pointed out, all 'flattening the curve' does is stretch things out much more than they need to, and results in more deaths from the lockdowns than we'd have from the virus.

Just stfu and let it run its course.

originally posted by: asdfas
Masks protect wearer.

Thats bull#. They don't protect either the weare or others, they only lower your own immune system (when worn long term).

The CDC was forced to lie early on

No, they just lie. Period.

Fauci admitted that recently.

Fauci is a deep state lying sack of #.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z

I'm saying that the primary intent of going masked in public is not to protect the maskee, but others.

I thought everybody knew that.

I knew that this was the argument, but it is fallacious.

The virus particles are much much smaller than the cloth 99% of these masks are made of. It goes right through.

So, no thanks, I'll not damage my own immune system just to give you and others a false sense of security.

a reply to: tanstaafl

In about nineteen hundred in America they were using Mercury as a cure all, it really does kill a lot of things including the patient in the end. The saying was "One night with Venus and a lifetime with Mercury"

Common sense says masks work. Any barrier is better than no barrier. The virus rides on spit droplets, so the size of the actual virus is irrelevant. Masks don't work is the same argument as walls don't work. Do they work 100%? No. Do they stop a certain percentage of whatever it is you are trying to prevent from entering? Yes.

Then there's the science of viral load and inoculum. If someone sneezes right in your face, sans masks, you're going to get the full dose and will most likely get sicker quicker and more severely than if you got half the dose. That could be the difference between dying and surviving.

Not sure how you can argue with common sense combined with science, unless you've already committed to your position and no amount of common sense and science will change your mind. That's called willful ignorance.

Talking face masks - Has anyone theorised the likely timescale for how long we are expected (either enforced or by social shaming), to wear face masks in public now? Months, years? Is there likely ever to be a point when its no longer required?

a reply to: doorhandle

3 waves at least, so propably 2 years.

a reply to: doorhandle

As Dollukka says, quite some time.
At least until next summer.
Probably the Summer after that, we'll see.

It all depends on how well we shut down the transmission of the Virus.
Currently, we are still in the increase of the 1st wave, just gaining strength in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/N+S America.
Its generally going down in Europe, but increasing almost everywhere else.

I personally don't think it will go away, anytime soon.
(Mainly because Humans will be Humans...)
People still travelling the Globe, having parties, it only takes one to set it off.
It'll just keep going round and round until we're either lucky or unlucky.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

That vocal Brooklyn doctor, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who lamented that standard ventilator training given to physicians did not seem to be the right approach for COVID-19 patients, and a group of other involved doctors all agreed on a youtube video they didn't want to use anything less than PAPR for working with their COVID-19 patients. How widespread that usage is in general, I don't know, but I see Fowlerstoad noted "positive pressure respirators are indeed what they are using at my hospital at least in the COVID unit". There are multiple designs for PAPR, the unit in the photo in my prior post is just one example.

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.

I read it the same way you do. The total is actually 35.1%, not that I'm arguing your ~34% is incorrect, rather, I note that a 35% reduction means that the chances of transmission are 65% as great as they are without such measures. That is clearly NOT what Dr Blumberg is quoted as saying since he's talking about a 65% reduction, so it's not a good answer, but that's the only way I can see to come up with 65% from that meta study, which is not the right answer, it's 14% as you say. So maybe he got 65% from a different source, but if not, something really got garbled if that's really the source.

And as I said, 65% reduction sounded optimistic, I was very skeptical of that claim, and still am even if he got it from another source. 14% sounds much more realistic.

a reply to: asdfas

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Seems cloth masks Don't work and do make things worse.

Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

As it was a controlled randomized trial that produced the results doesn't that mean it is conclusive cloth masks are bad for you?

originally posted by: doorhandle
Talking face masks - Has anyone theorised the likely timescale for how long we are expected (either enforced or by social shaming), to wear face masks in public now? Months, years? Is there likely ever to be a point when its no longer required?

Best to get in the mask making business.

originally posted by: doorhandle
Talking face masks - Has anyone theorised the likely timescale for how long we are expected (either enforced or by social shaming), to wear face masks in public now? Months, years? Is there likely ever to be a point when its no longer required?

The Spanish Flu took about 2 years to run its course. I wouldn't expect it to take longer than that for COVID-19. It could still spread after that time but the worst should be over after 2 years. The SARS pandemic only took 8 months to run its course, but COVID-19 will take longer.

originally posted by: puzzled2
As it was a controlled randomized trial that produced the results doesn't that mean it is conclusive cloth masks are bad for you?

Yes it was controlled, but the control wasn't "no mask", the control was medical masks. There was something in a conflict of interest statement about 3M and of course 3M makes medical masks, so read the fine print.

I don't really have any reason to doubt that the filtration properties of a 3M medical mask are superior to a cloth mask. But in a situation of mask shortages, i also don't have any reason to doubt that using a cloth mask provides more protection to other people, than using no mask at all. Using no mask at all is not something that was looked at in the referenced study as far as I can tell.

Another point is the venue of hospital settings, which might make the findings more relevant to you if you work in a hospital, in which case I'd say, yes use medical masks instead of cloth masks or no mask. For the general population though and to limit spread of a contagion, I think it will spread faster with no masks, than with cloth masks. But if you have access to medical masks, those are even better. During the mask shortage they didn't want the general population hogging the medical masks which were needed by medical workers.

Seems cloth masks Don't work and do make things worse.

It does not say that.

Owing to a very high level of mask use in the control arm, we were unable to determine whether the differences between the medical and cloth mask arms were due to a protective effect of medical masks or a detrimental effect of cloth masks.

bmjopen.bmj.com...

a reply to: puzzled2

There’s a HUGE variation in cloth masks.

There’s no way you can lump them all together.

Mine are 2 layers 100% cotton. 2 layers Pellon, with a PM2.5 insert.

Plus, I’ve worked on the cut to make them tight fitted under the chin and no gaps on the side. (I only make them for family).

a reply to: tanstaafl

Do you wear a seatbelt?

Do you drive a vehicle with ABS?

Do you drive a vehicle with airbags?

May I suggest that you stop these absolute expressions of tyranny ASAP!!!!!!

They are, after all, nothing more than mitigation pieces for an accident. They can no more prevent deaths 100% of the time than a mask can protect from 100% of illness'.

Mitigation measures work, which is why smart people use them. If you wish not use them, don't! Slimming of your gene pool won't hurt anyone.

Keeping things in perspective when you hear media hysteria.

twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust
You must have meant to link something else.