Oh, you do not know the affluent meme which goes in this thread.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Viral load is always a factor as far as I'm aware.
I've missed that. Thanks for clearing it up and lowering my blood pressure before bedtime
Yes
Hmm, no. I just skirmished over it, but I thought that in 33% of the mannequins there were no traces of the virus after the mask was removed. So in a real scenario, 1/3 of people would not have been infected after being bombed with dust contaminated particles. It wasn't that the mask kept 1/3 of the particles out, but that 1/3 of the cases were not infected.
Edit: Also it would have been interesting to see the viral load of the infected compared to mannequins which were not wearing masks. As I mentioned in my previous post (and @Wibble confirmed), the viral load plays a part too.
Fair point, about summer making things harder, and yes, people with breathing problems should probably not wear them. Maybe, not mandatory, but to make them highly recommended (give a cookie or something to those that wear them).
They came in to test a patient that was living on that street according to bbc.
I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago. That if the European govts co-ordinated better in between themselves following Italy's out break, they could've 'staggered' their peaks & re-directed resources in between themselves. I'm not talking about doctors specifically but medical equipment, ventilators, masks. But now, they're pretty much all going to feel the brunt of it at the same time - apart from Italy who should be coming out of the other side in the next few weeks.
Horrific.
I’m not even in here that often and I know that this was a joke. No idea which poster it was. But a few weeks ago he said something about where he lived and the type of folks he socialises with and I believe that is where it stemmed from. Yes it was a joke
Shame they didn't use no mask as a control.
Most of this is not proven, but it's rather logical and for sure it "helps" the virus to spread faster in your body. On one hand that can lead to bigger reaction of the immune system which usually does the damage. However how your system interacts with the virus and how the virus replicates itself in your system is very individual matter and usually people with underlying conditions and weaker immune system are more susceptible.
That doesn't mean that if you do get it in smaller volume it won't develop itself in the same way, albeit for a prolonged time.
Yep, I think he has disappeared since. His justification was more or less that he was going to not give a shit about the pandemic until Boris Johnson says that now it is time to take it seriously, in which case, he would start applying social distancing.
Ideally, that should have happened, but too hard to implement such things, unfortunately. Even US that has a stronger federal government has totally failed to coordinate states (though I believe that with any other president, things would have gone much better, except perhaps the travel ban which bought some time to the US, but was not followed by swift actions), the EU was always going to fail at it.
No
That would mean the efficiency in those cases would be 100%, whilst the highest efficiency shown was 45% and in some cases less than 30%.
the 33% is the mean of how much particles the filter(mask) stopped in those three cases, but in no case it stopped 100% of the virus.
If BoJo told me it was dark outside at night I'd have a look to make sure.
100% disagree with you, to the point that I think you are sharing a dangerous point of view.
Whats more, any issue you raise would be solved by a simple but mass public health messaging campaign.
Eric Weinstein Says Mask Misinformation is "Deadly Nonsense" | Joe Rogan
This is where you may not understand what happens in Asia. They always wear masks and treat anything with suspicion. When this happened in Wuhan the masks came out immediately and that contribute to the control of it getting out of hand out of Hubei.
The same way they controlled it in Taiwan and South Korea.
If the west had taken the same actions even in January things would have been under control. Even now there is no quarantine or forced isolation as they still have in China and even South Korea.
I believe it would have been 100% 'infected' mannequins. Poor mannequins, RIP!
But surely, the viral load on those with masks, and those without masks should have been tested too.
As I've already said - if people follow the instructions of how to wear a mask. Don't contaminate the mask, replace it every hour or two (with clean hands), don't touch their face trying to fixate it, replace it when it's damp, don't let it to be damp on the outside too, because that would build up bacteria on the inside too - it would be much better.
But, there is a huge but, it won't stop the virus aerosols to come in contact with your mouth and nose, it just simply doesn't have that particle filter.
If you guarantee that wearing one doesn't have side effects and stops the virus 100% then I would gladly follow suit, but as of now there is plenty of evidence it doesn't offer that protection, simply because the filter isn't done to offer it.
You can consult with pretty much every doctor and he will tell you how long these masks are good for and whether or not they build up bacteria and other viruses.
But then, it had only a 90% efficiency. Which makes it kind of useless (even if only 10% of droplets get in, you'll get infected). Which means, why the doctors are using them in the first place (if that is the case)?No
the 33% is the mean of how much particles the filter(mask) stopped in those three cases, but in no case it stopped 100% of the virus.
Dunno, I don't know much about this topic, so for me it was more common sense rather than anything (and well that South Korea's doctor saying so, in addition to now WHO and Fauci reinforcing the point).
Well, I made a caricature of the situation. I believe it was more like 'I am respecting the government's guidelines, so I am going to the pub. When the government decides otherwise, then I start doing social distancing'. Which is kind of nuts, considering the clowns who are in the government (and the UK arguably having the worst response to the crisis from all rich countries).
I think this guideline is more for doctors, who are dealing with contaminated people. For normal people, it probably should be okay to replace it when they enter home, rather than every two hours.As I've already said - if people follow the instructions of how to wear a mask. Don't contaminate the mask, replace it every hour or two (with clean hands), don't touch their face trying to fixate it, replace it when it's damp, don't let it to be damp on the outside too, because that would build up bacteria on the inside too - it would be much better.
But, there is a huge but, it won't stop the virus aerosols to come in contact with your mouth and nose, it just simply doesn't have that particle filter.
If you guarantee that wearing one doesn't have side effects and stops the virus 100% then I would gladly follow suit, but as of now there is plenty of evidence it doesn't offer that protection, simply because the filter isn't done to offer it.
You can consult with pretty much every doctor and he will tell you how long these masks are good for and whether or not they build up bacteria and other viruses.
The bacteria should not be a problem if you regularly replace them. If you start reusing them, then yes, it would become risky.
At the end of the day, even if it offers 0 protection to the wearer, but it reduces (to a large degree) him from spreading the virus to the others, then people should wear them. Especially considering the large number of asymptomatic infected people.
Which is my point
Medical staff shouldn't be using these masks(surgical ones). There is a reason why we have so many health workers sick with the virus. Bear in mind that 80% of the people that get it doesn't have any symptoms at all, yet the numbers of infected doctors and nurses is staggering.
What has been done in many places is equip nurses and doctors with proper masks and even full kit protection that eliminates even 1% of getting infected. The problem is - the shortage of such equipment as it is a global pandemic.
There are also practices for every health worker of how he should handle sick patients and how they should protect themselves.
Personally - if you can - buy the N95 mask(respirators) - that should take care of normal daily activities and keep you protected. The big problem is the shortage of those masks both domestically and abroad, which also leads to catch 22 as those masks should be used first and foremost by health workers.
If you guarantee that wearing one doesn't have side effects and stops the virus 100% then I would gladly follow suit, but as of now there is plenty of evidence it doesn't offer that protection, simply because the filter isn't done to offer it.
I don't think anyone on the planet has ever suggested that masks offer 100% protection, so that's a ridiculous goalpost to measure against.
As I wrote many times already, in addition to handwashing with soap and physical distancing, wearing a face mask will further reduce chances of covid19 infection, if properly used.
Even if improperly used, it they can still reduce chances of infection.
To reduce chances of misuse, authorities simply have to issue a public health campaign.
Also, you don't have to do anything. You're welcome to be like Trump and not wear one .
But discouraging others to do so, based on whimsical google search copy/paste peer reviews is very irresponsible.
Sorry, I meant that even N95 had only 90% efficiency. And those are the masks that the nurses and doctors are wearing (when there is no shortage).Which is my point
Medical staff shouldn't be using these masks(surgical ones). There is a reason why we have so many health workers sick with the virus. Bear in mind that 80% of the people that get it doesn't have any symptoms at all, yet the numbers of infected doctors and nurses is staggering.
What has been done in many places is equip nurses and doctors with proper masks and even full kit protection that eliminates even 1% of getting infected. The problem is - the shortage of such equipment as it is a global pandemic.
There are also practices for every health worker of how he should handle sick patients and how they should protect themselves.
Personally - if you can - buy the N95 mask(respirators) - that should take care of normal daily activities and keep you protected. The big problem is the shortage of those masks both domestically and abroad, which also leads to catch 22 as those masks should be used first and foremost by health workers.
I wouldn't buy N95 in these circumstances. Those should be kept for medical staff, while us peasants should wear the others. And when the production increases (capitalist country, it will inevitably happen) then everyone should wear a N95. Until the vaccine comes.
I can only imagine myself wearing a N95 in the office when the constraints get relaxed. Near as bad as working from home.
Reading all this mask discussion begs me to ask whether people are aware of the main purpose of medical professionals wearing surgical masks? It ain't to protect the medical professional from airborne bacteria and viruses in fine particles. Mass distribution of them is just a waste of time, money and carbon, even supposing they are used with best practice and don't contribute to a false sense of security and inadvertent contamination on removal.
As a member of the public, if you don't already have a small supply of FFP2/3 masks that you know how to don and doff correctly and that can be cycled to allow natural decontamination to occur, it's too late to get meaningful protection.
As a member of the public, if you don't already have a small supply of FFP2/3 masks that you know how to don and doff correctly and that can be cycled to allow natural decontamination to occur, it's too late to get meaningful protection.
Yes, you are correct and it has been stated several times. Whether people listen on the other hand...
Where did you get the 80% from? And why would you expect it to mean less doctors and nurses would be infected?
Cant get close to imagining suffering the boy went through alone, and the suffering his parents are going through now, and in years to come.
May he rest in peace, and may his parents also find peace. Amin.
You are correct. Masks and non surgical masks especially doesn't stop the infection 100%.
What masks do for the ordinary people is stop them infecting others. If everyone wears a mask the virus doesn't get beyond the mask and get stuck in the mask. The virus is not an airborne virus that can fly from one person to another. It does by respiratory droplets. So if everyone wears a mask it's actually a lot better than even washing hands all the time. Yes washing hands is imperative if you touch your nose or mouth.
These are two complementary issues.
Mate, ask any doctor, immunologist, virologist, or someone who is in that practices how much protection those surgical masks offer you and take that decision to yourself then.
Ask him whether or not and how bacteria's are build on those surfaces and what happens if they are not properly used.
For some it might reduce the chance of infection, for others - might lead to infection.
No matter how much resources and public health campaigns you will do, people will still be misusing them because it impedes their breathing and they involuntarily act accordingly.
My point is - those masks should not be made mandatory. Everyone is free to make an educated decision after a health campaign, but you can't make it required when you go outside.
You do know how many people suffer from asthma. Do you know what will happen to those people and their breathing if they are required to wear a mask every time they go to the grocery store at 30-35C in the Summer season and wait on the long lines to buy food?
Seems to be some horrible news on my timeline. Sorry to be the bearer of these terrible tweets.
May he rest in peace.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
It's the widely accepted number from most studies that 80% of the people show mild symptoms and never know they are infected.
I didn't quite understand your second question, though, sorry.
Think about the numbers involved. There are what, 70 million people in the UK or whatever. You have to give the vast majority of them masks. Lets be conservative and say 15 million because everyone else is self isolating and not going out. You then need to manufacture several masks for each person per day because they can only be used once and you need to maintain this production everyday for the duration of the pandemic. Lets say you need 2 for every person per day. So that is 30 million masks to produce per day. This means you need to have all the raw materials available, you need to have the workers available to help make them, the factories ready and the delivery and implementation ready to get them to all the members of the public daily for the duration of the pandemic.
Regardless of your viewpoint about the masks, put that to one side. From a production and implementation point of view, even if you adjust the numbers, in my mind it doesn't seem very easy to achieve the goal you want.
It says
Which is what most studies show.
The 80% refers to the proportion of people who happen to have mild to moderate disease.
My second question was regarding the bold bit below...
which reads like you expected less doctors and nurses to infected due to the 80% figure (but it doesn't matter anyway since this isn't true).
We are going around in circles and you are also being disingenuous by continually changing the goal posts on what you are advocating.
No-one said it should be mandatory, and I pointed out in a previous post that it's not even law in mask wearing cultures like NE & SE Asia, let alone getting close to that in the west. It's still a personal choice all over the world.
But its also the choice of others to avoid you if you wont wear one: Eg - since covid19 shutdown in Phuket, 7/11 wont allow you in their store if you're not wearing one.
My point to you however is consistent: it's irresponsible to advise people not to wear face masks in this current climate. Unless you have anything new to add, let's leave it there.
PS: I've taken my advice from my 2 sisters: One is a doctor consultant and other is a physio, both currently engaged on NHS frontline right now.
Last edited:
My local tescos has made the entire store one way and blocked off certain entrances to aisles. Literally the most stupid thing going as it just forces everyone to go into the same spaces to navigate the store. Also makes doing the shop an absolute ballache and much longer than it should.
I'd like this to be true, but it doesn't seem to be I'm afraid, at least not from the report you're citing so hopefully you have other sources. What it does say in that report is that 80% of confirmed cases (100% of whom clearly know they are infected) have mild to moderate disease and that includes those suffering from pneumonia.
Here is the relevant section: