Page 72 of 75 FirstFirst ... 22627071727374 ... LastLast
Results 2,131 to 2,160 of 2233

Thread: Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

  1. #2131
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I've actually been tracking it fairly closely. And it's therefore evident to me that you either missed or didn't understand the reason for the early social distancing advice from the CDC.
    Social distancing is no doubt a common term in regard to respiratory illness. But I watched plenty of news throughout February, and read plenty of mainstream articles, and I never heard of "social distancing" until mid-March. My kids went into school rooms until then, and washed their hands like mad-- do you really think anyone mentioned being 6 feet apart in a classroom? Would parents really not care at all that their kids weren't placed that far apart if they knew about social distancing as being much more important than handwashing? I don't think I'm alone in that, regardless of what was on the CDC website that was not being suitably stressed.

    But what is quite clearly new in the CDC guidance is they never used to say anything about masks, unless they said not to use them. Literally no health authority ever told me to wear a mask until about a week ago. Now they say do wear masks whenever social distancing is difficult, which quite frankly, is pretty much all the time when in public. That's quite new, yes. We are even starting to see various places require mask wearing, which is also totally new. So I cannot see validity in the claim that nothing has changed except that authorities are feeling pressured to take a stance-- what I see is that they did take a stance before, and now they know more about asymptomatic spread, and they are taking a new stance that is quite different as a result. Maybe the situation is very different in the UK-- did they have places that required mask wearing (other than emergency rooms) from the start? Are there starting to be more places that require them now? Nursing homes, meat-packing plants, assembly lines? That would certainly represent a change. In the US, they are even starting to hand masks out in various places, which is also totally new. I agree it's a shame they would hand masks out without stressing the need to use them properly, but that will be the next thing that needs fixing.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-May-24 at 08:54 AM.

  2. #2132
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,824
    The mental health effects are startling to worry me. Not just lack of respect for health officials, but how it does seem the US is becoming a nation of “finks.”

  3. #2133
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    But what is quite clearly new in the CDC guidance is they never used to say anything about masks, unless they said not to use them. Literally no health authority ever told me to wear a mask until about a week ago.
    Well, that's odd. The CDC guidance, complete with a video of how to make and don a mask, was issued on or before April 3rd.
    ...
    In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.
    ...
    Page last reviewed: April 3, 2020
    Content source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases
    Indeed, I drew attention to it on this thread on April 4th.
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The CDC cloth face mask recommendation is here, and is rather more lukewarm and limited than many journalists are suggesting.

    I've just read through their entire "Recent Studies" list (revealingly not called "References"), and can't glean much that supports even the limited recommendation that's been produced. All the studies are freely available on-line and easily retrieved by a search on their titles. I'd encourage those who are interested in this to take a look for themselves.
    Again, there seems to be a distinct mismatch between what the CDC is saying and what you're hearing.

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #2134
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I donít ever recall a claim that the virus couldnít be spread by coughing or other typical person to person transmission. I donít ever recall a claim that transmission was restricted to touching the nose and eyes, only an emphasis on avoiding touching your face with unwashed hands because that made infection more likely. Washing hands was said to be important because it reduced the chances of infection, but I donít ever recall a claim that it was sufficient to stop infections on its own.

    I get the feeling you two heard arguments for doing things to make it less likely to be infected and took that to mean these were the only things necessary to avoid infection.
    Sorry, I apparently overstated the push for hand washing by saying ďall about ď. Guidance was always that coughing and sneezing could spread the virus.
    That said, I clearly remember standing in the break room at work in early March discussing flattening the curve by hand washing. We were easily within 6í. Of course, a week or so later, we were Skyping into meetings. So concerns and recommendations were changing rapidly.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  5. #2135
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The advice (in the UK, at least) has been remarkably consistent from day one, I thought. And fairly simple.
    1) Socially distance. This is your main defence.
    2) Wash your hands after touching potentially infective surfaces. This is your secondary defence.
    3) If you cannot socially distance then wear a mask and gloves. This is a fallback defence.
    4) If you have any hint of symptoms in your or your immediate family then self-isolate at once, only attending a hospital or doctor if it becomes worse than seasonal flu.

    There was a period when we were told not to wear a mask unless we had to - but that was when we were suffering pretty serious supply chain issues in PPE due to the sudden demand. So it was never "Masks are useless" it was always "Masks are currently a finite resource should be reserved for use in the environments where they have the greatest benefit". The only way the advice has changed, as far as I can tell, is that now the supply of PPE is more similar to the demand they have stopped asking people to avoid buying up every available mask online. I think they were very aware of the ability of people to deplete the supply of something after "the week without toilet paper".

    Is that wrong?
    I think it's a fair summary, though I haven't seen any advice for the public to wear gloves--putting a layer of plastic on your hands won't stop you acquiring or transmitting the virus with your hands, and they also require quite a lot of skill to don and doff without contaminating yourself and others. So hand-washing and avoiding face touching are the key elements.

    What we've had in the UK with regard to masks has been a sort of heavy sigh in the wake of the shift in the CDC advice two months ago, which produced a burst of journalism and public interest in the UK. The evolving evidence has been on continuous review by SAGE, which then feeds into government advice. Earlier this month, the UK government issued slightly self-contradictory advice, which said that the public should "consider wearing a face covering if they can in enclosed public spaces where social distancing is impossible, for example on public transport or in shops", but also saying that face coverings were not necessary "outdoors, while exercising, in schools, [and] in workplaces such as offices and retail..." The Chief Medical Officer summarizes the guidance as an "added precaution that may have some benefit".
    Here in Scotland (which has a its own advisory group in addition to heeding the SAGE reports) the current advice very much has the tone of, "Oh well, I suppose we need to mention masks now," but has been completely non-directive and strikingly non-committal
    Questions have been asked about the use of facial coverings and we address that here. Physical distancing, hand washing and respiratory hygiene, are the most important and effective measures we can all adopt to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Therefore the wearing of facial coverings must not be used as an alternative to any of these other precautions.

    The evidence on the use of face coverings is limited, but there may be some benefit in wearing a facial covering when you leave the house and enter enclosed spaces, especially where physical distancing is more difficult and where there is a risk of close contact with multiple people you do not usually meet. Examples include, traveling on public transport or entering a food shop where it is not always possible to maintain a 2 metre distance from another customer. There is no evidence to suggest there might be a benefit outdoors, unless in an unavoidable crowded situation, where there may be some benefit.
    In line with that, as I've reported before, I haven't seen more than a couple of face coverings in use locally, and those were on the East Asian girls who've been wearing them for years. Local shops are enforcing strict self-distancing measures, so I haven't been anywhere that might be considered a problem from that point of view. And of course Scots have a personal space that extends for a couple of metres anyway, so there's pretty much reflex self-distancing going on in the streets.

    I think this is all good news, epidemiologically speaking, because at the end of the year we'll have epidemiological data from compliant societies who are experienced in mask use and who have been wearing them (eg, South Korea), compliant societies who have not been using masks (eg, Scotland), and a whole range of other responses and behaviours between.


    Grant Hutchison

  6. #2136
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,491
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    ...The CDC guidance, complete with a video of how to make and don a mask, was issued on or before April 3rd....
    In the U.S., at least, CDC officials say their agency's efforts to mount a coordinated response to the Covid-19 pandemic have been hamstrung.... Why and by whom gets into politics, but the fact remains that the CDC has not disseminated information as broadly or in televised briefings like they have typically done in epidemic situations. -- source
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  7. #2137
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    In the U.S., at least, CDC officials say their agency's efforts to mount a coordinated response to the Covid-19 pandemic have been hamstrung.... Why and by whom gets into politics, but the fact remains that the CDC has not disseminated information as broadly or in televised briefings like they have typically done in epidemic situations. -- source
    Yes, I've been watching that from the sidelines.
    But if I want information on epidemics the CDC website is one of several places I check, along with the WHO website and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. I'm sort of vaguely surprised that so many people with an obvious interest in (and concern about) this disease aren't doing that. I think if you rely on political briefings, social media, and news outlets for your information (not to mention astronomy forums), you will end up being misled or confused at some point, and the information on the CDC website has been pretty clear all the way through this.

    (Having mentioned the ECDPC, I'll just commend their Rapid Risk Assessment documents as a useful source of reliable, current, peer-reviewed information on Covid-19.)

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2020-May-24 at 09:34 PM.

  8. #2138
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Since almost none of us in the general public are going to know the details of when a virus is going to stay airborne, maybe N95 masks are in order when we are close to people in public. That is how I feel anyways.
    Still a thought.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  9. #2139
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Since almost none of us in the general public are going to know the details of when a virus is going to stay airborne, maybe N95 masks are in order when we are close to people in public. That is how I feel anyways.
    Supplies are limited, act now!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #2140
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,775
    LINK
    I hope that link works. It is to a PDF digital copy of the latest issue of Chemical & Engineering News. There are several articles about or related to COVID-19.

    On PDF page 24 (print page 22) there is an article "An emerging antiviral takes aim at COVID-19"
    As the COVID-19 pandemic shut down much of the world, George Painter’s life geared up considerably. In a matter of weeks, Painter and his collaborators have seen the antiviral they were working on—EIDD-2801—go from a promising thera-peutic for influenza to a potential weapon in the fight against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. The drug candidate began a human safety trial in the UK in mid-April, and a US trial is planned to begin in the next few weeks.

    ...

    Although doctors and scientists are testing a vast arsenal of existing drugs and drug candidates in the fight against the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, EIDD-2801 stands out. It attacks the same viral enzyme, the RNA-dependent RNA poly-merase, as Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir, which the US Food and Drug Adminis-tration recently granted emergency use authorization, allowing it to be used by doctors in the pandemic. But unlike rem-desivir, which has to be given intravenous-ly, EIDD-2801 can be taken orally as a pill.
    On PDF page 26 (print page 24) is "A chemist’s guide to disinfectants", explaining how different ones work.

    And on page 30 (print page 28) is "Rethinking the role of blood pressure drugs in COVID-19".
    ACE2, the enzyme that the novel coronavirus uses to enter cells, helps regulate blood pressure in our bodies. Early in the pandemic, scientists thought that certain blood pressure drugs, taken by millions of people, increased ACE2 levels, in turn raising the risk of contracting COVID-19. But as more research emerges, this idea has been flipped on its head: scientists now wonder if these blood pressure medicines, known as ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), might help fight COVID-19. We review the existing drugs in clinical trials to test that theory and the companies developing novel treatments that target the ACE2 system.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #2141
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Well, that's odd. The CDC guidance, complete with a video of how to make and don a mask, was issued on or before April 3rd.
    Information changes rapidly these days.
    I'm talking about the information that was widely available during those critical early times in February while the disease was getting permanently entrenched.
    How long do you think it takes to undo a message that is widely circulated early in a pandemic? (Recall, the date of the Surgeon General tweet was February 29.)

    Again, there seems to be a distinct mismatch between what the CDC is saying and what you're hearing.
    It almost sounds like you are claiming the CDC did not significantly change its stance on using masks, when it has already admitted that it did do just that. You might want to read this account in a Texas newspaper (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/publ...asks-change/):
    "After months of maintaining that healthy people didn’t need to wear masks in public to prevent the coronavirus, the country’s top public health officials reversed their position last week, recommending that everyone wear a face mask in public places where social distancing is difficult."

    Clear as a bell. And I'm at sea as to how Shaula can claim that "it was never masks are useless" when I just finished repeating a tweet from the US Surgeon General that said precisely that. But in any event, this is all hindsight-- what is quite clear right now is that both the CDC and the WHO are quite unambiguosly asserting that we should all wear cloth masks in any situation where social distancing is difficult (in the US, that's everywhere in public). That is what I have called "resolved" as a result of this very clear fact. You might be unconvinced by the information they are acting on, as a scientist, you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. I have had mine all along as well, but the forum seems more interested in what is coming out of these official channels.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-May-25 at 10:10 PM.

  12. #2142
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Information changes rapidly these days.
    I'm talking about the information that was widely available during those critical early times in February while the disease was getting permanently entrenched.
    I was responding to your report that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Literally no health authority ever told me to wear a mask until about a week ago.
    As I showed, the CDC was actually telling Americans to wear masks two months ago. Nothing about that guidance has changed since, according to the edit date on the page, although the CDC has now added a master resource page with the more general message "CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings". I don't know when that went up.

    That this guidance reached me, but didn't reach you, is certainly a puzzle, but not one I'm likely to be able to resolve.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And I'm at sea as to how Shaula can claim that "it was never masks are useless" when I just finished repeating a tweet from the US Surgeon General that said precisely that.
    The US Surgeon General, I'd guess, has a fairly limited Twitter following in the UK (because of the whole "not actually relevant to us" thing), and Shaula was clear that his remarks related to the UK. Guidance hereabouts has generally been ... well, more nuanced.

    Honestly, I get that you're aggrieved about the issue of masks and the guidance you've apparently not been receiving, but it does seem to be an issue relating to your specific situation. I'm simply not going to get into that, for reasons that should be obvious.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #2143
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Masks do work for droplet, but not airborne microbes.
    I still think masks are the right solution.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  14. #2144
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And what I'm saying is, their change in stance came with such low publicity that it took quite a while for the word to disseminate. Not something you'd expect in a pandemic, but that's how it is, we have to watch where we are getting our information from and how it can change without much of a heads up. But the point I am making is not about a timeline, it is about the change that has happened, period. The change is in the guidance to wear masks, and the reason is a deeper understanding of the role of asymptomatic spread. Surely this is all a matter of record at this point.
    The US Surgeon General, I'd guess, has a fairly limited Twitter following in the UK (because of the whole "not actually relevant to us" thing), and Shaula was clear that his remarks related to the UK.
    And I was just as clear that mine was in the US. So we can leave it at that-- in the UK, there was never the claim that masks are not effective, and in the US, there was a longstanding claim that masks are not effective. Also, we have people on this thread that are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of masks, and we also have people who think it would be a bad idea not to copy the places that are getting great results. I think that's a fair rendition of the current status of the "mask debate."

  15. #2145
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    On PDF page 24 (print page 22) there is an article "An emerging antiviral takes aim at COVID-19".
    Finally some encouraging news on the treatment front. I'm not sure how much stock to put in reports on the vaccine front, too much of the information is still coming from clearly interested parties.

    Among the many public statements that perplex me is that in my state in the US, there is a lot of talk about "re-opening", and also some concerns about a "second wave in the fall." I find that odd, since the deaths in my relatively rural state are now accumulating at 100 per week, which is as large as ever in this whole pandemic. So I'm not sure what kind of "wave" shape they are talking about, I usually think of "waves" as going up and coming down. Also, the arithmetic is pretty simple, at 100 deaths per week for perhaps 50 more weeks prior to widespread vaccination (optimistically), that's 5000 deaths in a state population of 3 million. That's a death fraction of 0.2%, which is more or less what you get if you don't do anything (since the simple arithmetic supplied above says that about 0.4 - 0.5% of everyone who gets the disease dies, so at 70% herd immunity that's about 0.3% of the population, an important benchmark for comparison to any response strategy). So the only improvement achieved by all the things that are currently being done in my state is that it takes a year for that many to die, rather than a few months, so we don't overwhelm our hospitals. Thus, if it is not acceptable to have essentially the same total death toll as we'd get with no response at all, then it is essential for us to find new and more effective means of response than what we have seen in the last month. Masks and more serious social distancing might be that more effective response, but it will have to take account of the fact that the disease right now is mostly spreading in "superspreader" scenarios, incidents where the guidance is being clearly ignored or mismanaged, rather than that the guidance itself is at fault. I submit that the key missing ingredient is education and attitude-- in the US, we often see a kind of belligerent flouting of the regulations, and I don't know if that is also happening in other places.

    Of course, there are some places (like Germany and France) that have seen quite significant reductions in death rate, and have still waited before rolling back restrictions. These places have a current rate that is already more than a factor of 10 below 0.3% per year. These are very simple calculations to do, deaths data are widely available and largely don't require any interpretation. In the US as a whole, the current deaths per week extrapolates in a year to about 1/3 of the 0.3% benchmark, similar also to the current situation in the UK. So if both of these places manage to maintain their current death rate, despite relaxed restrictions and so on, they will get only about 1/3 of the deaths they would have had if they just let the disease run more or less rampant. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not that is a success, in comparison to places doing much better-- these are just the facts.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-May-26 at 12:54 AM.

  16. #2146
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And what I'm saying is, their change in stance came with such low publicity that it took quite a while for the word to disseminate. Not something you'd expect in a pandemic, but that's how it is, we have to watch where we are getting our information from and how it can change without much of a heads up.
    We certainly do. I know I do. I may even have pointed that out on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Also, we have people on this thread that are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of masks, and we also have people who think it would be a bad idea not to copy the places that are getting great results. I think that's a fair rendition of the current status of the "mask debate."
    Since we're not actually competing in a junior school debating contest, I'll let the dubious rhetorical devices in that one slide by unremarked.

    This seems to be all about your personal experience, and I do sympathize. I'm just not going to engage.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #2147
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And what I'm saying is, their change in stance came with such low publicity that it took quite a while for the word to disseminate. Not something you'd expect in a pandemic, but that's how it is, we have to watch where we are getting our information from and how it can change without much of a heads up. But the point I am making is not about a timeline, it is about the change that has happened, period. The change is in the guidance to wear masks, and the reason is a deeper understanding of the role of asymptomatic spread. Surely this is all a matter of record at this point.
    And I was just as clear that mine was in the US. So we can leave it at that-- in the UK, there was never the claim that masks are not effective, and in the US, there was a longstanding claim that masks are not effective. Also, we have people on this thread that are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of masks, and we also have people who think it would be a bad idea not to copy the places that are getting great results. I think that's a fair rendition of the current status of the "mask debate."
    Please note this is in Moderator purple.

    Enough! This endless argument about what agency may or may not have said what two or three months ago is pointless and disruptive. It will stop now!
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #2148
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Here are the latest figures. It rose to over 3%, but then has gone back down to under 2% per day. The last figure is dodgy, because there are no cases or deaths reported from the US (presumably some reporting glitch), and France recorded a minus death count, so it must have been a recalculation of some type.

    108 2.6%
    109 2.1%
    110 2.5%
    111 3.2%
    112 1.7%
    113 1.5%
    114 1.5%
    115 1.6%
    116 1.7%
    117 1.8%
    118 1.8%
    119 1.4%
    120 1.4%
    121 0.8%
    And a few more. The growth seems to be pretty constant now at about 1.4% per day.
    122 14%
    123 1.4%
    124 1.7%
    125 1.3%
    126 1.3%
    As above, so below

  19. #2149
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,204
    And last night, the government here lifted the state of emergency. It seems that people are still being fairly cautious about social distancing and stuff, so hopefully we won't see a spike, but who knows.
    As above, so below

  20. #2150
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Actually I have little interest in who said what when. My interest is in the fact that both the CDC and WHO are giving guidance that says people should wear masks in all situations where they are not social distancing. What's more, that was the attitude from the outset in some nations, and not others, and those that had that mindset have done much better. I think it's time this thread stressed these facts, unless someone would dispute that those are indeed the facts here. There are few things more important than the issue of what works against COVID-19, in a thread about COVID-19.

  21. #2151
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,775
    Closed for moderator discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #2152
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,304
    Thread reopened. Please, folks..."stop now" means stop. Now. If you need to respond to such a warning, please do so in the Feedback forum.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  23. #2153
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    [...] the fact that both the CDC and WHO are giving guidance that says people should wear masks in all situations where they are not social distancing.[...]
    is in fact a blatant quote-mine in this post, as this WHO page explicitly advises mask wearing if you have symptoms and cannot stay at home. Here is the full quote,

    Quote Originally Posted by WHO
    Stay home and self-isolate even with minor symptoms such as cough, headache, mild fever, until you recover. Have someone bring you supplies. If you need to leave your house, wear a mask to avoid infecting others.
    (bold mine) If course it seems so much more ominous if you leave out the first two sentences as Ken did. It is only changed advice in so far that earlier the WHO advised not to go out at all when having symptoms.
    Last edited by slang; 2020-May-27 at 04:32 PM. Reason: added "in this post" to clarify that link
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  24. #2154
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    In that, Ken G was referring back to this earlier post of his:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It also looks like the WHO website has some recent changes about masks, just as does the CDC website, because the WHO site (https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...ice-for-public) states
    " If you need to leave your house, wear a mask to avoid infecting others."
    But an article (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...rne#prevention) about the WHO position asserts that it states people only need to wear a face mask if they are treating a person with COVID-19 or if they are coughing and sneezing! So it sounds like the way websites can change overnight makes it a little hard to track the changing landscape, but the CDC and WHO seem to be in agreement at this point, and the changes cannot be about new information about masks, so must be because of the new stress on asymptomatic transmission.
    So it was definitely a reference to the same page you link to.
    The "Medical News Today" page (Ken's second link) is actually a font of conflicting information. Just above the paragraph stating:
    The WHO advise that people only need to wear a face mask if they are treating a person with COVID-19 or if they are coughing and sneezing.
    it claims that the WHO advice includes "Wear a face mask in public places." These are clearly inconsistent with each other. The WHO has never given blanket recommendations about "public places"; that seems to come from the CDC instead.
    The "coughing and sneezing" quote comes, I think, from an infographic that is still available from the WHO, on their When And How To Use Masks page. And you'll see that it says "taking care of" rather than "treating" a person with suspected Covid-19, which is a subtle but important distinction, apparently lost on the compilers of the "Medical News Today" page.

    Again, this highlights the theme I keep banging on about, which is to go to primary authoritative sources, and never to trust media outlets that purport to tell you what the primary sources are saying.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2020-May-27 at 12:45 PM.

  25. #2155
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,176
    This seems like a good reason to wear masks. https://physicsworld.com/a/droplets-...tudy-suggests/
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  26. #2156
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This seems like a good reason to wear masks. https://physicsworld.com/a/droplets-...tudy-suggests/
    I linked to the original paper and some commentary on it a few days ago:
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    So it's all complicated and messy, as usual. For a brief glimpse of the lack of consensus on this one, take a look at the expert reaction to a recent paper dealing with the possibility of speech transmission in Covid-19.
    The "problem" is that the epidemiology doesn't look like a disease that actually is being transmitted by droplet nuclei like those described in the study, and it would be a new departure for coronaviruses to be transmitted in that way.
    Michael Cotterell (in my second link), emphasizes the long chain of assumption between this study, disease transmission, and masks.
    It must be stressed that the authors do not measure the viability of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol droplets at the small (micron sized) droplet sizes associated with the long airborne lifetimes. Moreover, regarding the authors’ assumptions of viral load, this value is not well known/constrained for SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, making recommendations on social distancing, face masks/coverings and hygiene on the back of this work alone is not possible. More work is needed to understand the viability (including aerosol size dependence to rates of death) of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol droplets, viral load, and contexts such as filtration efficiencies for various mask/face coverings, before any recommendations on the aforementioned health and safety precautions can be made in respect of mitigating airborne transmission.
    Grant Hutchison

  27. #2157
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,824
    Now I have heard about COVID toes— how people with long fingers may have a resistance...this is one disease right? Or could something else be about?

  28. #2158
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,200

    Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

    Apparently, the virus may infect the blood vessels.

    https://elemental.medium.com/coronav...g-2c4032481ab2


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  29. #2159
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Now I have heard about COVID toes— how people with long fingers may have a resistance...
    It's a data-mining exercise. Here is the original paper. A weak correlation between national average male second:fourth digit ratio (a proxy for intrauterine testosterone) and national Covid-19 case fatality rate. CFR, as we know, is a very poor statistic for international comparison. Visually, the correlation appears to be driven largely by one outlier. I wouldn't get too excited. It may eventually mean something, but it doesn't mean very much at the moment.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2020-May-31 at 12:51 PM.

  30. #2160
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,204
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The WHO has never given blanket recommendations about "public places"; that seems to come from the CDC instead.
    The "coughing and sneezing" quote comes, I think, from an infographic that is still available from the WHO, on their When And How To Use Masks page. And you'll see that it says "taking care of" rather than "treating" a person with suspected Covid-19, which is a subtle but important distinction, apparently lost on the compilers of the "Medical News Today" page.
    I just ran across an article about why there seems to be inconsistency between the CDC and WHO advice. I had suspected what the person is arguing, i.e. that the WHO is the "world" organization, and is working with many countries where getting masks for everybody is impractical.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-of...ry?id=70958380

    I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes sense.

    I'm sure everybody knows this, but in Japan, as in most of East Asia, nearly everybody is wearing masks even if it is not strictly speaking required. But of course, there is very little resistance to the idea because there are always some people wearing masks at anytime, either because they are worried about allergies or about catching or spreading something.
    As above, so below

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •