Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[PhantomWolf]

You are probably right, but does that matter? Even if the masks cannot "stop" SARS-CoV-2, it is very probable that masks can prevent some infections. So if you do not have the perfect solution, wouldn't it makes sense to use a solution with, say, 10% success?

Trouble is that we're not talking "10% success" we're talking "minimal effect" and possibly "Harmful effects."

If using something is going to have minimal benefits and may actually be harmful, as well as reducing the supplies of those that actually have a real need of them, is it really a good idea for everyone to be using them?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...veryone-be-wearing-face-masks-its-complicated

WHY DON'T MASKS PROTECT THE WEARER

There are several possible reasons why masks don’t offer significant protection. First, masks may not do much without eye protection. We know from animal and laboratory experiments that influenza or other coronaviruses can enter the eyes and travel to the nose and into the respiratory system.

While standard and special masks provide incomplete protection, special masks combined with goggles appear to provide complete protection in laboratory experiments. However, there are no studies in real-world situations measuring the results of combined mask and eyewear.

The apparent minimal impact of wearing masks might also be because people didn’t use them properly. For example, one study found less than half of the participants wore them “most of the time”. People may also wear masks inappropriately, or touch a contaminated part of the mask when removing it and transfer the virus to their hand, then their eyes and thus to the nose.

Masks may also provide a false sense of security, meaning wearers might do riskier things such as going into crowded spaces and places.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...w-other-countries-making-face-masks-mandatory

Are you sure? Or can they transmit remotely by touching things as well?

Please learn to context. We were discussing the effectiveness of masks. Unless you are going around touching surfaces with your face, then a mask will have zero effectiveness against surface spreading of the virus.

 

[Samson]

And a good piece here by former #3 in the UN, Helen Clark: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...of-a-globally-coordinated-response-to-covid19

Indeed, a succinct summary and correctly, an extremely bleak forecast for the Pollyannas to confront.

 

[EHocking]

Trouble is that we're not talking "10% success" we're talking "minimal effect" and possibly "Harmful effects."

If using something is going to have minimal benefits and may actually be harmful, as well as reducing the supplies of those that actually have a real need of them, is it really a good idea for everyone to be using them?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...veryone-be-wearing-face-masks-its-complicated


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...w-other-countries-making-face-masks-mandatory

Please learn to context. We were discussing the effectiveness of masks. Unless you are going around touching surfaces with your face, then a mask will have zero effectiveness against surface spreading of the virus.

In the conclusion of the (unvetted/unpublished) paper quoted in that first article, the recommendation actually is,

“ Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.”​

As you say, “context” and in the context of the quoted paper, they are essentially promoting the use of face masks, albeit not in isolation (OK, they probably include social isolation as an additional measure, but you know what I meant).

The 2nd article concludes with,
“ even if the masks were less effective than expected, the potential benefits were "substantial".”.

 

[Marcus]

Trouble is that we're not talking "10% success" we're talking "minimal effect" and possibly "Harmful effects."

If using something is going to have minimal benefits and may actually be harmful, as well as reducing the supplies of those that actually have a real need of them, is it really a good idea for everyone to be using them?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...veryone-be-wearing-face-masks-its-complicated


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...w-other-countries-making-face-masks-mandatory


Please learn to context. We were discussing the effectiveness of masks. Unless you are going around touching surfaces with your face, then a mask will have zero effectiveness against surface spreading of the virus.

It's been established on this thread that masks don't protect the wearer, but do protect other people from an infected wearer, especially if he is coughing or sneezing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So NZ has been in lockdown for just on 2 and a half weeks. Cases Peaked at 89 new a day. We have had 4 deaths. Today we had 18 new cases with 49 people classified as recovered, dropping out active cases by 31!

We now stand at 1330 total cases, 1049 of which were confirmed and 281 having been probable.

We have a total of 471 recovered leaving our active cases as 855.

Well hear about lockdown and the future on the 20th, let's see if we can hold this course.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Still no big deal as far as I can see - the increase over the past week hasn't been above 6% a day.
?

That tiny Maui population means an increase by itself on each of the past two days as much as the whole state on most days, its hugely significant for here. Remember, Hawaii is mostly tiny numbers. Ten cases on Maui is HUGE. 16 cases and 21 cases there back to back is very significant and to find out it all comes down to one hospital manager who doesn't have a medical degree and had been the source of numerous issues over the past few years is infuriating

 

[PhantomWolf]

In the conclusion of the (unvetted/unpublished) paper quoted in that first article, the recommendation actually is,

“ Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.”​

As you say, “context” and in the context of the quoted paper, they are essentially promoting the use of face masks, albeit not in isolation (OK, they probably include social isolation as an additional measure, but you know what I meant).

As you pointed out, the paper is unpublished and unvetted. The article goes on to show that other studies have shown little effect and fully stats why masks are unlikely to protect the wearer. You are cherry picking.

The 2nd article concludes with,
“ even if the masks were less effective than expected, the potential benefits were "substantial".”.

This is just an outright mistruth. The Article does no such thing, in fact the article reaches no conclusion itself, and concludes with the PM's thoughts....

"Of course, for those front line workers there's good reason for them using appropriate face masks and [personal protective equipment].

"The jury is still out on wider use by the general public. But we'll continue to assess all of the most up to date evidence and make sure we move with that. In the meantime there's no substitute for social distancing and hand washing."

The part you quote is at the top of the article and is from a Yale whitepaper where they conclude that while mask might have little "Medical Benefit" they may have a substantial "Financial Benefit"

Plus, a white paper by Yale researchers found "the benefits of each additional cloth mask worn by the public are conservatively in the $3,000-$6,000 range due to their impact in slowing the spread of the virus". The economic analysis suggested even if the masks were less effective than expected, the potential benefits were "substantial".

We weren't talking about financial benefits, but thank you for playing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's been established on this thread that masks don't protect the wearer, but do protect other people from an infected wearer, especially if he is coughing or sneezing.

If you have read those posts you'd be aware that not only do I not argue against that, but repeatedly note that is the case and that masks should be reserved for people that are ill or believe themselves to have been exposed and can't self isolate, those that have to be in confined areas with potentially infected people, and medical staff who need them. And the right masks should be used for the right circumstances.

My major beef is with the general public who are healthy have have not been in contact with the infection, wearing them inappropriately in the belief that it is a panacea to preventing infection, thus using up the supplies and preventing them getting to those that genuinely need them.

Heck, I see people here wearing them while driving alone in their cars!

There is a myth that wearing a mask will stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent you getting Covid-19, it's just that, a myth. People need to be aware that masks are at best minimally effective, and at worst can actually increase your chances of getting contaminated. They need to know which masks to wear when and how to use them and dispose of them in the correct manner. And part of that is to know when they aren't needed at all.

 

[Marcus]

If you have read those posts you'd be aware that not only do I not argue against that, but repeatedly note that is the case and that masks should be reserved for people that are ill or believe themselves to have been exposed and can't self isolate, those that have to be in confined areas with potentially infected people, and medical staff who need them. And the right masks should be used for the right circumstances.

My major beef is with the general public who are healthy have have not been in contact with the infection, wearing them inappropriately in the belief that it is a panacea to preventing infection, thus using up the supplies and preventing them getting to those that genuinely need them.

Heck, I see people here wearing them while driving alone in their cars!

There is a myth that wearing a mask will stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent you getting Covid-19, it's just that, a myth. People need to be aware that masks are at best minimally effective, and at worst can actually increase your chances of getting contaminated. They need to know which masks to wear when and how to use them and dispose of them in the correct manner. And part of that is to know when they aren't needed at all.

In my city they are requesting that everyone wear masks all the time while in public . I don't do it though because when I go out the last time I went out was grocery shopping one week ago. I think that if I caught the virus a week ago I could detect faint symptoms, despite advice that nonsymptomatic persons could spread the virus.

 

[marting]

It's been established on this thread that masks don't protect the wearer, but do protect other people from an infected wearer, especially if he is coughing or sneezing.

No, it's not been established. It's currently a topic of debate. The National Academy of Sciences published a letter indicating that aerosol transmission may well be occurring.

From "Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol
Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1,
2020) (2020)"

While the current SARS-CoV-2 specific research is limited, the results of available
studies are consistent with aerosolization of virus from normal breathing.

Other recent research indicates surgical masks (not N95 which are better bug filters) are very effective at reducing coronavirus in aerosols and somewhat effective in reducing coronavirus in droplets. Interestingly, surgical masks are not very effective at reducing flu virus aerosols.

There is older research that shows aerosol emission greatly increases when talking and increases more when talking louder.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets.

This research collected exhalations and tested for virus in both droplets and aerosols. It's somewhat illogical to believe that what works for exhalation doesn't for inhalation.

That said, N95 and surgical masks are in short supply. Until the become more available, they need to go to those most exposed, especially medical workers. Using a limited supply for the most exposed reduces the overall expansion of the epidemic so it's in everyone's interest, not just those workers.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

My major beef is with the general public who are healthy have have not been in contact with the infection, wearing them inappropriately in the belief that it is a panacea to preventing infection, thus using up the supplies and preventing them getting to those that genuinely need them.

This is the bit I don't get. Where does this idea come from that people think it will be a panacea to prevent infection? When the message about social distancing, hand washing, not touching face etc has been hammered home for so long, why would wearing this extra level of protection suddenly make people forget about all those other messages? This is certainly not the case in Hong Kong. Where is the evidence for this idea?

(I also note that you pulled me up previously when I paraphrased that the claim was it makes people think they are invulnerable, yet 'panacea' seems just as strong a paraphrase! )

There is only one argument that I can see for not wearing them universally, and that is when there is a shortage (which there is in most countries) and medical staff need to be prioritized.

The HK medical establishment seems convinced that asymptomatic spreaders are a real concern, and not a minor issue, and the masks help with that. There was as news report on TV last night from Hong Kong University researchers, that said in many cases the virus didn't produce fever symptoms because it was not resulting in interferon production. More research is going on to determine exactly why, and to confirm how widespread this effect actually is, but they think it is considerable.

 

[marting]

This is the bit I don't get. Where does this idea come from that people think it will be a panacea to prevent infection? When the message about social distancing, hand washing, not touching face etc has been hammered home for so long, why would wearing this extra level of protection suddenly make people forget about all those other messages? This is certainly not the case in Hong Kong. Where is the evidence for this idea?

(I also note that you pulled me up previously when I paraphrased that the claim was it makes people think they are invulnerable, yet 'panacea' seems just as strong a paraphrase! )

There is only one argument that I can see for not wearing them universally, and that is when there is a shortage (which there is in most countries) and medical staff need to be prioritized.

The HK medical establishment seems convinced that asymptomatic spreaders are a real concern, and not a minor issue, and the masks help with that. There was as news report on TV last night from Hong Kong University researchers, that said in many cases the virus didn't produce fever symptoms because it was not resulting in interferon production. More research is going on to determine exactly why, and to confirm how widespread this effect actually is, but they think it is considerable.

The CDC is now recommending the use of DIY masks more broadly while reserving N95 and surgical masks for medical workers.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html#studies

 

[Marcus]

No, it's not been established. It's currently a topic of debate. The National Academy of Sciences published a letter indicating that aerosol transmission may well be occurring.

From "Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol
Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1,
2020) (2020)"




Other recent research indicates surgical masks (not N95 which are better bug filters) are very effective at reducing coronavirus in aerosols and somewhat effective in reducing coronavirus in droplets. Interestingly, surgical masks are not very effective at reducing flu virus aerosols.

There is older research that shows aerosol emission greatly increases when talking and increases more when talking louder.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2



This research collected exhalations and tested for virus in both droplets and aerosols. It's somewhat illogical to believe that what works for exhalation doesn't for inhalation.

That said, N95 and surgical masks are in short supply. Until the become more available, they need to go to those most exposed, especially medical workers. Using a limited supply for the most exposed reduces the overall expansion of the epidemic so it's in everyone's interest, not just those workers.

I was struck most by Skeptic Gingers analysis, I believe she provided some links but I don't have them now. The jist was that when a droplet lands on your mask, it soaks into the fabric and is held close to your face, where you can easily breathe in the virus. An outgoing droplet is also stopped by the mask, but is also held close to your face, rather than being expelled to land on another person.

 

[marting]

I was struck most by Skeptic Gingers analysis, I believe she provided some links but I don't have them now. The jist was that when a droplet lands on your mask, it soaks into the fabric and is held close to your face, where you can easily breathe in the virus. An outgoing droplet is also stopped by the mask, but is also held close to your face, rather than being expelled to land on another person.

Droplets are effectively handled by social distancing, hand washing, etc. They don't stay in the air long. Aerosols, OTOH, become a cloud that can persist and spread much further. That's what's very new. Aerosol transmission has been widely discounted but the references from both the National Academy and Nature just came out this month raising the possibility aerosol transmission is a significant factor in COVid-19.

I've thought aerosol transmission the most likely cause of 45 out of 60 people getting COVID-19 at a choir practice though they used social distancing.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak

 

[pipelineaudio]

This is the bit I don't get. Where does this idea come from that people think it will be a panacea to prevent infection? When the message about social distancing, hand washing, not touching face etc has been hammered home for so long, why would wearing this extra level of protection suddenly make people forget about all those other messages? This is certainly not the case in Hong Kong. Where is the evidence for this idea?

Its a red herring the CDC's Mike Tyson was pushing, as well as the WHO (though strangely didn't seem like they were saying it to the countries that were already wearing masks)

So tired of this dumb strawman. How many people died because of this crap that would have lived had the public been masked well enough not to cough death in other peoples' faces?

 

[The Atheist]

Get rid of tourism for good, and turn all the plague ships into artificial reefs.

I think it is. It will be years, of ever, that international tourism returns to the heights of 2019.

The HK medical establishment seems convinced that asymptomatic spreaders are a real concern, and not a minor issue, and the masks help with that.

The point is surely that any additional measures must be good.

Like it or not, universal making is going to remove some routes of infection, which is good.
_____________________________

China has 99 new cases today, the most for some time.

Hmmm.

 

[marting]

Another new study out of China indicating aerosol spread on a bus ride.

Preprint pdf:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...gic_evidence_from_two_outbreak_investigations

 

[marting]

The point is surely that any additional measures must be good.

Like it or not, universal making is going to remove some routes of infection, which is good.

Since the CDC reversed course and now recommends face masks broadly, it's going to continue after stay home edicts are loosened. Pretty much the end for restaurants. This isn't going to go away by the end of the year let alone in a few months.

 

[EHocking]

Since the CDC reversed course and now recommends face masks broadly, it's going to continue after stay home edicts are loosened. Pretty much the end for restaurants. This isn't going to go away by the end of the year let alone in a few months.

Restaurants can still sell food, eating it is another matter.

 

[Pixel42]

I think it is. It will be years, of ever, that international tourism returns to the heights of 2019.

I read a piece in the Guardian yesterday in which they interviewed frequent cruisers (including a nurse) who are looking forward to going on another cruise as soon as this is over.

I'm one of those pensioners who take 2 or 3 holidays a year, at least one of them international, and will certainly resume doing so as soon as practicable. I'm still hoping my (very small ship) cruise around Istria will go ahead in September.