Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I've moaned a lot about the information about new infections not being detailed enough. So it feels churlish but I now feel the data is maybe too detailed to be useful
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=47574f7a6e454dc6a42c5f6912ed7076

This is updated on a weekly basis, so up to 2 August.

[crazy canuck]

If the mask helps for anything, it might be in generating less hospitalizations, but it's too early to tell,

We have only been wearing masks to help limit the spread of disease for a hundred years or so, too early to tell if it works or not. Maybe in, what, five hundred more we might know?

How about surgeons cleaning and disinfecting their tools between surgeries? Is the jury still out if that helps limit infections? How many centuries of evidence for that do we need?



This crazy new technology seen here in the 1920s is still unproven.

The story of the guy who made the link between docs not washing hands and patient infections/deaths is an echo of the people who think the health guidelines are nonsense.  He could not get his fellow doctors to see that he was correct.  His family had him committed because of his perceived crazy beliefs.  The great irony is he died of an infection caused by a cut he had in a fight with an orderly in the asylum when he realized he had been tricked and he was actually being detained as a patient.  He died shortly after getting the cut.

 

[DGuller]

He was committed because he did indeed go crazy, which isn't hard to do when you know that millions are dying because you're just not getting through to people. 

[alfred russel]

He was committed because he did indeed go crazy, which isn't hard to do when you know that millions are dying because you're just not getting through to people.

Sort of like how I felt in March and April when I knew that rock climbers were not being allowed to climb, senselessly.

[Eddie Teach]

Now you're just asking for it. 

[Zoupa]

Troll's gonna troll. :shrug:

[alfred russel]

Troll's gonna troll. :shrug:

It was a joke...man you are uptight.

[crazy canuck]

He was committed because he did indeed go crazy, which isn't hard to do when you know that millions are dying because you're just not getting through to people.

So thought the people who committed him for believing the equivalent of wearing masks in public makes good sense.

[alfred russel]

If it was so obvious that masks are effective, then why did the CDC and WHO initially not recommend them?

And why were legal actions taken in the UK against mask sellers advertising their effectiveness? Isn't there something deeply Orwellian in that: if they really knew the masks were effective, and still went after those selling something that would save lives for speaking the truth?

[Sheilbh]

If it was so obvious that masks are effective, then why did the CDC and WHO initially not recommend them?

And why were legal actions taken in the UK against mask sellers advertising their effectiveness? Isn't there something deeply Orwellian in that: if they really knew the masks were effective, and still went after those selling something that would save lives for speaking the truth?

My guess - they were building up supplies and didn't want competition from consumers for PPE. The French have admitted this.

I would note though that there's not one "they" in the UK. There was the public health people in government that was issuing medical advice and knew the effectiveness (although in England and Scotland masks are mandatory, but it's not a big deal and in Wales they're still not mandatory so the UK public health authorities are far, far less into masks than a lot of other countries).

Then there's the Advertising Standards Authority (which banned the ads) who are the industry body that self-regulates advertising and police an industry code of advertising practices - there's no reason to think that the ASA had any idea or inside track into what the medical advisors really thought. Their view was: there's a public health crisis, the official advice is that masks do nothing and there are companies advertising masks as a way to prevent the disease - that's in breach of the code at a time of crisis so we'll go after them. It wasn't like Ministry of Health says one thing Ministry of Justice prosecutes.

[alfred russel]

If it was so obvious that masks are effective, then why did the CDC and WHO initially not recommend them?

And why were legal actions taken in the UK against mask sellers advertising their effectiveness? Isn't there something deeply Orwellian in that: if they really knew the masks were effective, and still went after those selling something that would save lives for speaking the truth?

My guess - they were building up supplies and didn't want competition from consumers for PPE. The French have admitted this.

I would note though that there's not one "they" in the UK. There was the public health people in government that was issuing medical advice and knew the effectiveness (although in England and Scotland masks are mandatory, but it's not a big deal and in Wales they're still not mandatory so the UK public health authorities are far, far less into masks than a lot of other countries).

Then there's the Advertising Standards Authority (which banned the ads) who are the industry body that self-regulates advertising and police an industry code of advertising practices - there's no reason to think that the ASA had any idea or inside track into what the medical advisors really thought. Their view was: there's a public health crisis, the official advice is that masks do nothing and there are companies advertising masks as a way to prevent the disease - that's in breach of the code at a time of crisis so we'll go after them. It wasn't like Ministry of Health says one thing Ministry of Justice prosecutes.

So there is one entity that knew they were effective and lied for good faith reasons.

There is another entity with regulatory powers that lacks the capacity for independent assessment on medical merits, takes the first entities word and prohibits truthful statements in advertising.

Everyone is acting in good faith, people with masks and know they will save lives are prohibited from saying so...

That seems deeply Orwellian to me.

[viper37]

So, the number of cases is inscreasing at a steady rate, there does not seem to be any changes with the mandatory mask wearing.
Over the least week (it's been 2 weeks since the measure has been made), we had:
139, 164, 146, 141, 123, 123, 155 new cases each day.

There are less hospitalizations, though,.

If the mask helps for anything, it might be in generating less hospitalizations, but it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait a couple more weeks.  So far, it seems I was right and the mask brings nothing new but annoyance, in a real world situation.

What more can the mask do than a plexiglas sheet can not stop, really?  <sigh>

I'm really tired of all this bullshit.

The mask that close to your face absorbs droplets but most importantly slow aerosol (ie your breath) way down. An aerosol going through a quick deceleration and filter tends to fall to the ground instead of floating around in the air for minutes/hours.

Plexiglass does neither of those.

Just wear the damn mask inside buildings, or stay home.

the case for infection by micro, aeorosol droplets hasn't yet been made.

Plexiglass prevent the droplets from reaching the person on the other side.

As for staying home, I wish that could be a possibility.

I would suggest Montrealers start washing their hands, then maybe we could remove some of these restrictions.

Plexiglass is not air tight dude. Fuck right off with that Montrealers bullshit. We pay for all the services you get in your shit poor regions, you should be thanking god every day that you have a metroplois paying your bills.

Montreal treats shit poor regions like colonies to be exploited for their natural resources.  No wonder we're shit poor.

If we didn't have to pay for all the free bridges and free roads and total mismanagement of your city, we'd be way better off.

[viper37]

It makes sense in controlled conditions.  Trained medical staff, with a constant reminder from colleagues that they ain't wearing their mask right, that the mask is too wet, people that will change their masks between patients or after a couple of hours, that makes a lot of sense.

We have been wearing masks at the plant since we reopened in April. We've had 7 confirmed cases that I know of in that time. All those got the bug outside (family & partying), and I can't point at single instance of workplace transmission.

In contrast, last January about 20% of the plant got sick with flu or whatever else was making the rounds in just two weeks.

It seems to me masks do reduce transmission rates, even when people are sweaty (>40º C) and touch them.

I'm open to the idea it can reduce transmission rates.  So far, it does not seem to work, but maybe in another couple of weeks the rates of infections will be reduced, we'll see.

So far, I do not see indications that cases are going down in US&Canada, and Asia seems to see a resurgence of cases. 

I still think washing our hands regularly and keeping our distance is the best bet, but also, I believe the government should subsidize the private sector to upgrade their ventilation system with uv filters.

This may not be the last pandemic we get, and we should get started right now for the next one.

On a side note, I find it easier to breath in surgical masks (sold at an hefty price) than a home made cotton mask.  I bought 2 packs of them, 1.75$/each.  That hurts.

[Sheilbh]

Erm. Maybe.

I should say there's no evidence that the public health authorities were lying. It's my suspicion/conspiracy theory that they were and were discouraging masks to avoid pressure on supply chains, but there's no evidence of that. And, unlike France or the US, the UK advice is still very limited on masks. As I say mandatory in certain enclosed spaces in England and Scotland, not mandatory anywhere in Wales or Northern Ireland (and it's the same in Ireland, I believe though it'll be like England and Scotland soon). Masks have not been the hill everyone is dying on over here or in other bits of Northern Europe in the way they have in other countries. I don't know why, I don't know if they're all looking at the same evidence. I've seen the Welsh Chief Medical Officer say they are advising against masks because people treat them as if they're magic and break all the social distancing rules which are more effective.

The other entity has self-regulatory powers - like a state bar or other professional association - against a code of conduct. Their approach during covid is:

The ASA is very conscious that in this time of national crisis it must act sensitively and with due regard to the circumstances faced by businesses and members of the public.  In practice, this means applying a lightness of touch in some areas of our work, and, in other areas, an uncompromising stance on companies or individuals seeking to use advertising to exploit the circumstances for their own gain.
[...]
It means a commitment to act quickly and robustly against ads that exploit people's health-related anxieties and the difficult financial or employment circumstances that many people are now facing.  A refusal to tolerate ads that grossly undermine public health advice or that seriously misjudge public and minority group sensitivities.  And, an eagle-eyed diligence to spot any emerging advertising practices that grossly undermine the principles of fair competition generally accepted in business or where we see evidence of ads that irresponsibly take advantage of current retail conditions.

That's what they followed - especially the point about undermining public health advice. And I sympathise with the idea that truth isn't a defence here. People could wear and buy masks if they wanted, you can take whatever steps you want. But you shouldn't be able to advertise in a way that undermines the public health rules and advice which are for all and benefit all. You don't want 101 different conflicting voices when it comes to a public health crisis (or medicine in general in my view).

[Valmy]

If it was so obvious that masks are effective, then why did the CDC and WHO initially not recommend them?

It is funny I have no recolection of this at all. I was out using my mask in March and distinctly remember people in China and the east using them right when the outbreak occured. I remember seeing some Chinese students at UT campus in February with their masks on as they had come home from the winter break. I mean it seems like it was obvious to lots of normal people to wear masks.

But now months later I keep hearing that initially I was supposedly told not to wear a mask. I find that baffling. Nobody ever told me that, I swear to God.

Perhaps the CDC recognized it would not protect you from infection and did not want people overly reliant on them? Beats me.

Edit: I look back at this thread and lots of posts about people wearing masks but nothing saying that we are advised not to wear them. Dorsey even posted a joke about wearing a mask to keep safe from Corona Beer back on Feb 4th so where is this "we were told not to wear masks" stuff coming from?