Welcome Notice

Register Log in

OT: Pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19...

B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:30:25 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers. Sounds
like CDC and Illinois are still doing the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

He didn\'t have enough guts/respect for deplorables to tell them the
truth, or to use government power to allocate masks.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.

Distraction sounds about right.
But it happens to be wrong. Cloth masks are useful, if somewhat less effective than disposable masks designed for hospital use (which aren\'t exactly 100% effective either). John Larkin is doing his usual trick of parlaying his imperfect grasp of what is going on into a false claim about government intentions. Or he may just be cutting and pasting from some of James Arthur\'s political propaganda, which gets most of it\'s rhetorical force from making this kind of error more deliberately.

> Until they fess up, I\'ll gladly ignore the rest of the \"advice\".

Of course you will. Any excuse will do.

> You can lie to me once, then I stop listening.

John Larkin has just lied to you. He doesn\'t know enough to realise that he was lying, but he just told something that wasn\'t true. He makes a habit of this, and he\'s much too proud of his own judgement to ever realise it.

<snip. Who cares about Illinois? Unless, of course they happen to be silly enough to live there.>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
J

Jeff Layman

Guest
On 31/07/2020 06:45, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

I think you are a victim of not reading the references. The one reference draws a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the bogus article claims it says.


Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.
That\'s what the conclusion states (assuming you are referring to the
article at <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/>). The question
posed was \"Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against
airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?\"

The answer, as you noted, was \"The results indicate that the penetration
of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of
5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher
particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than
the N95 respirators.\"

Unfortunately, I do not have access to all the info in the article
(behind a paywall), but assume you are criticising the webpage comment
they made in the figure \"<5% of virus particles penetrated N95 masks\",
which is not in line with the result stated in the published article
that they /can/ (my emphasis) exceed an expected level of 5%. That is a
fair criticism, but I note the conditions of the test \"Even poorly
performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two
N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these
poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air
flow rate.\" That is the lower figure shown (for respirator B), while
respirator A still performed above 95%. So for the sake of the
difference between 94% and 95% you are discarding all the points made on
the webpage?

From the figure for respirator B, the 95% limit is reached with
particles below 75 nm in size. The average size of a coronavirus virion
is usually said to be 125 nm. The range is given as 60 - 140 nm (I
couldn\'t find where the 60 nm figure came from. According to
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563832/> the smallest
size for a coronavirus - not SARS-Cov-2 - was 50 nm in diameter
excluding the spikes, which were 19 nm long, so the minimum size would
be 88 nm in diameter). On that basis, only a tiny percentage (<0.5%) of
coronavirus virions would not be caught by an N95 mask - and that would
be the poorly-performing one.

> Does that sound like good protection???

It sure does for N95 masks. For surgical masks it\'s obviously not so
good, but if the penetration rate is 50% on average, would you not
rather have that than nothing at all?

--

Jeff
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:16:59 PM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 31/07/2020 06:45, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

I think you are a victim of not reading the references. The one reference draws a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the bogus article claims it says.


Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.
That\'s what the conclusion states (assuming you are referring to the
article at <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/>). The question
posed was \"Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against
airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?\"

The answer, as you noted, was \"The results indicate that the penetration
of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of
5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher
particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than
the N95 respirators.\"

Unfortunately, I do not have access to all the info in the article
(behind a paywall), but assume you are criticising the webpage comment
they made in the figure \"<5% of virus particles penetrated N95 masks\",
which is not in line with the result stated in the published article
that they /can/ (my emphasis) exceed an expected level of 5%. That is a
fair criticism, but I note the conditions of the test \"Even poorly
performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two
N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these
poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air
flow rate.\" That is the lower figure shown (for respirator B), while
respirator A still performed above 95%. So for the sake of the
difference between 94% and 95% you are discarding all the points made on
the webpage?

From the figure for respirator B, the 95% limit is reached with
particles below 75 nm in size. The average size of a coronavirus virion
is usually said to be 125 nm. The range is given as 60 - 140 nm (I
couldn\'t find where the 60 nm figure came from. According to
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563832/> the smallest
size for a coronavirus - not SARS-Cov-2 - was 50 nm in diameter
excluding the spikes, which were 19 nm long, so the minimum size would
be 88 nm in diameter). On that basis, only a tiny percentage (<0.5%) of
coronavirus virions would not be caught by an N95 mask - and that would
be the poorly-performing one.
Does that sound like good protection???
It sure does for N95 masks. For surgical masks it\'s obviously not so
good, but if the penetration rate is 50% on average, would you not
rather have that than nothing at all?
Since infected people don\'t exhale virus particle, but rather droplets of mucus that include virus particles, this is all entirely irrelevant.

Masks are designed to block aerosols where the droplet size is a whole lot bigger that virus particles being carried by droplets.

If you wanted to spread a cloud of virus particles around, you\'d have fun getting them out of the aqueous environment they are used to.

Some bacteria form spores, but they are a whole lot more complicated than viruses.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
J

Jeff Layman

Guest
On 31/07/2020 14:57, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:16:59 PM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 31/07/2020 06:45, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

I think you are a victim of not reading the references. The one reference draws a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the bogus article claims it says.


Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.
That\'s what the conclusion states (assuming you are referring to the
article at <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/>). The question
posed was \"Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against
airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?\"

The answer, as you noted, was \"The results indicate that the penetration
of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of
5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher
particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than
the N95 respirators.\"

Unfortunately, I do not have access to all the info in the article
(behind a paywall), but assume you are criticising the webpage comment
they made in the figure \"<5% of virus particles penetrated N95 masks\",
which is not in line with the result stated in the published article
that they /can/ (my emphasis) exceed an expected level of 5%. That is a
fair criticism, but I note the conditions of the test \"Even poorly
performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two
N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these
poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air
flow rate.\" That is the lower figure shown (for respirator B), while
respirator A still performed above 95%. So for the sake of the
difference between 94% and 95% you are discarding all the points made on
the webpage?

From the figure for respirator B, the 95% limit is reached with
particles below 75 nm in size. The average size of a coronavirus virion
is usually said to be 125 nm. The range is given as 60 - 140 nm (I
couldn\'t find where the 60 nm figure came from. According to
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563832/> the smallest
size for a coronavirus - not SARS-Cov-2 - was 50 nm in diameter
excluding the spikes, which were 19 nm long, so the minimum size would
be 88 nm in diameter). On that basis, only a tiny percentage (<0.5%) of
coronavirus virions would not be caught by an N95 mask - and that would
be the poorly-performing one.
Does that sound like good protection???
It sure does for N95 masks. For surgical masks it\'s obviously not so
good, but if the penetration rate is 50% on average, would you not
rather have that than nothing at all?

Since infected people don\'t exhale virus particle, but rather droplets of mucus that include virus particles, this is all entirely irrelevant.
It was you who wrote in your previous post \"Face masks don\'t stop virus
particles.\" I was just pointing out that was not correct.

It is most certainly not irrelevant. The mucus droplets will evaporate
and eventually dry virus particles will be released.Being small, they
will remain in the air rather than settle quickly. More info at
<https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0012009> and at
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/> where Fig C2 shows how
quickly small droplets evaporate.

> Masks are designed to block aerosols where the droplet size is a whole lot bigger that virus particles being carried by droplets.

What they are designed for and what they will block in practice are not
the same thing. In any case, filters can, somewhat counter-intuitively,
take out particles much less than designed for. See \"Classic collection
efficiency curve\" figure about halfway down the page at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIOSH_air_filtration_rating#NIOSH_classifications>

> If you wanted to spread a cloud of virus particles around, you\'d have fun getting them out of the aqueous environment they are used to.

See the ref stated above
<<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/> \"... under normal air
conditions, droplets smaller than 100 μm in diameter would completely
dry out before falling approximately 2 m to the ground.\"

> Some bacteria form spores, but they are a whole lot more complicated than viruses.

What has that got to do with viruses?

--

Jeff
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:33:13 AM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 31/07/2020 14:57, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:16:59 PM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 31/07/2020 06:45, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

Since infected people don\'t exhale virus particle, but rather droplets of mucus that include virus particles, this is all entirely irrelevant.
It was you who wrote in your previous post \"Face masks don\'t stop virus
particles.\" I was just pointing out that was not correct.
What I actually wrote was \"Face masks don\'t stop virus particles. They capture water droplets. Infected people exhale water droplets that do carry virus particles, and can infect other people who happen to inhale them. \"

There seems to have a been a little text-chopping - or at least carelesss trimming - since then.

It could be argued that what I should have written was \" Face masks aren\'t designed to stop virus particles. They are designed to capture water droplets. Infected people exhale water droplets that do carry virus particles, and can infect other people who happen to inhale them.\" Since I get jeered at for being pedantic whenever I get that careful, I didn\'t.

It is most certainly not irrelevant. The mucus droplets will evaporate
and eventually dry virus particles will be released.
The water might evaporate - or most of it - but the heavier molecules that distinguish mucus from pure water don\'t, and they lower the vapour pressure of the water remaining in droplet, so the last of it evaporates very slowly - if at all. What you end up with is a somewhat dehydrated snot particle with a virus or two in it. Still relatively easy for a mask to capture.

> Being small, they will remain in the air rather than settle quickly.

They may remain in the air somewhere, but air circulates and the droplets (and any hypothetical particles) get widely dispersed

More info at
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0012009> and at
It mentions \" the solute effect (Raoult’s effect) due to the presence of salt/electrolytes in saliva.\" but seems to ignore it when doing the modelling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/> where Fig C2 shows how
quickly small droplets evaporate.
actually it is more of a discussion of how quickly they might evaporate, from the point of view that any droplet is dangerous.

Masks are designed to block aerosols where the droplet size is a whole lot bigger that virus particles being carried by droplets.
What they are designed for and what they will block in practice are not
the same thing. In any case, filters can, somewhat counter-intuitively,
take out particles much less than designed for. See \"Classic collection
efficiency curve\" figure about halfway down the page at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIOSH_air_filtration_rating#NIOSH_classifications
Which mentions that the test particles being collected are \"sodium chloride particles\" and dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.

Not relevant to collecting droplets of mucus, which are rather stickier.

If you wanted to spread a cloud of virus particles around, you\'d have fun getting them out of the aqueous environment they are used to.
See the ref stated above
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/> \"... under normal air
conditions, droplets smaller than 100 μm in diameter would completely
dry out before falling approximately 2 m to the ground.\"
Water droplets might. Mucus droplets last longer due to \" the solute effect (Raoult’s effect) due to the presence of salt/electrolytes in saliva\".

Some bacteria form spores, but they are a whole lot more complicated than viruses.

What has that got to do with viruses?
Nothing. Which was the point. It\'s not easy to get single virus particles, and you might have been thinking of anthrax spores, which have been known to be circulated by post in regular envelopes by malicious people.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:57:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:16:59 PM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 31/07/2020 06:45, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

I think you are a victim of not reading the references. The one reference draws a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the bogus article claims it says.


Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.
That\'s what the conclusion states (assuming you are referring to the
article at <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490606/>). The question
posed was \"Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against
airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?\"

The answer, as you noted, was \"The results indicate that the penetration
of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of
5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher
particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than
the N95 respirators.\"

Unfortunately, I do not have access to all the info in the article
(behind a paywall), but assume you are criticising the webpage comment
they made in the figure \"<5% of virus particles penetrated N95 masks\",
which is not in line with the result stated in the published article
that they /can/ (my emphasis) exceed an expected level of 5%. That is a
fair criticism, but I note the conditions of the test \"Even poorly
performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two
N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these
poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air
flow rate.\" That is the lower figure shown (for respirator B), while
respirator A still performed above 95%. So for the sake of the
difference between 94% and 95% you are discarding all the points made on
the webpage?

From the figure for respirator B, the 95% limit is reached with
particles below 75 nm in size. The average size of a coronavirus virion
is usually said to be 125 nm. The range is given as 60 - 140 nm (I
couldn\'t find where the 60 nm figure came from. According to
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563832/> the smallest
size for a coronavirus - not SARS-Cov-2 - was 50 nm in diameter
excluding the spikes, which were 19 nm long, so the minimum size would
be 88 nm in diameter). On that basis, only a tiny percentage (<0.5%) of
coronavirus virions would not be caught by an N95 mask - and that would
be the poorly-performing one.
Does that sound like good protection???
It sure does for N95 masks. For surgical masks it\'s obviously not so
good, but if the penetration rate is 50% on average, would you not
rather have that than nothing at all?

Since infected people don\'t exhale virus particle, but rather droplets of mucus that include virus particles, this is all entirely irrelevant.

Masks are designed to block aerosols where the droplet size is a whole lot bigger that virus particles being carried by droplets.

If you wanted to spread a cloud of virus particles around, you\'d have fun getting them out of the aqueous environment they are used to.

Some bacteria form spores, but they are a whole lot more complicated than viruses.
Not only do masks effectively stop the droplets containing the virus, the smaller particles of virus below around 50 nm are not likely to be viable viruses, but rather particles which may result in a immune response of some type, but can not cause an infection. An infection is not at all likely to result from viral \"particles\" as opposed to intact viruses.

Even if intact viruses are somehow separated from the surrounding water droplet, they will quickly degrade. Like many substances in an aqueous environment, viruses interact with the water and are more likely to degrade without it. Larkin continues to hypothesize that viruses diminish in moist environs, but I\'m willing to bet it is the opposite and they are benefited by high humidity and suffer from low humidities.

This virus can be disassembled by hydrogen bonding to surfaces. But when in a water droplet it is surrounded by benign water molecules that actually help to hold the virus together. Evaporate the water and surfaces can attach to molecules in the viral coat resulting in it being pulled apart.

Masks are a significant help by stopping the vast majority of viruses from being breathed or exhaled. Combine that will distance, reduced numbers and hand washing and we can actually get rid of this virus. Do these measures half way and the infection rate increases.

It\'s that simple, many states in the US are providing a very accurate demonstration of this presently.

Thank you DeSantis for the microbiology lesson.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 31/07/2020 07:14, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Whilst you can in theory catch it from a single virus that gets lucky
the cellular defences take down most attackers pretty quickly so that
you need an initial viral load in the hundreds or thousands before you
are likely to be infected. It is a numbers game.

While this sounds valid, as it been proven? So far the \"experts\" in other
things are not experts in covid as it seems to be unlike anything else
ever seen before. There\'s lots of backpedalling and so forth as nobody
seems to even have any idea of what they\'re talking about.
It is true about our immune system in general. If it were not the case
we would be forever succumbing to some random environmental pathogen in
the same way that Aids victims used to before there was a treatment to
prevent the immune system from being rendered inactive.

The R number 3-5 is a pretty good indicator of infectivity of the virus
and so by implication the viral load that it takes to get infected.

It wouldn\'t be ethical to do the sort of challenge test needed to
establish infectiousness more accurately for Covid. But it is in the
range 3-5 or about a factor of 5 lower than measles and a factor of 2
more than ebola. Indeed one of the world\'s top experts in ebola virus
(and other nasty viral diseases) has caught Covid-19.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/finally-virus-got-me-scientist-who-fought-ebola-and-hiv-reflects-facing-death-covid-19

One thing that is noticeable from the latest data is that the increased
handwashing and sanitising has almost wiped out influenza deaths this
year as a beneficial side effect. UK death rates are now *below* the
long term seasonal average for the time of year which you can interpret
at least two ways and both may contain an element of truth:

Covid-19 has mostly killed people who were going to die soon anyway.
Lockdown and hygiene measures have prevented other means of death
(this includes a marked decrease in young male drivers in car crashes)

More than enough young lives saved on the roads to make up for the very
few Covid deaths in healthy young people caused by the virus.

One problem for the authorities in Europe is that the younger generation
are beginning to realise that they are not at a significant risk and are
breaking social distancing on the beaches. Infection rates are rising
quite quickly but so far hospital admissions and deaths remain stuck at
a baseline level of a couple of 2ppm that just won\'t go away.

Governments mostly consist of unfit overweight elderly men so you can
see that they have a vested interest in this game that does not
necessarily align with the rest of the population. Particularly the
young whose future careers have been blighted by the economic crash.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
C

Cydrome Leader

Guest
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:30:25 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers. Sounds
like CDC and Illinois are still doing the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

He didn\'t have enough guts/respect for deplorables to tell them the
truth, or to use government power to allocate masks.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.

Distraction sounds about right.

But it happens to be wrong. Cloth masks are useful, if somewhat less
effective than disposable masks designed for hospital use (which aren\'t
exactly 100% effective either). John Larkin is doing his usual trick of
parlaying his imperfect grasp of what is going on into a false claim
about government intentions. Or he may just be cutting and pasting from
some of James Arthur\'s political propaganda, which gets most of it\'s
rhetorical force from making this kind of error more deliberately.
Got any numbers to back up that cloth muzzles have any value compared to
proper masks for the job? I\'m sure you\'ve seen the photo of a man doing
some sort of arc welding with pieces of newspaper over his face as a mask.
Sure, it probably stops some UV and splatter.

Until they fess up, I\'ll gladly ignore the rest of the \"advice\".

Of course you will. Any excuse will do.

You can lie to me once, then I stop listening.

John Larkin has just lied to you. He doesn\'t know enough to realise that
he was lying, but he just told something that wasn\'t true. He makes a
habit of this, and he\'s much too proud of his own judgement to ever
realise it.
The lies and lack of corrections sounds like the government. John Larkin
seems like he\'s not wrong about stuff over half the time.

> <snip. Who cares about Illinois? Unless, of course they happen to be silly enough to live there.>

We have a few things going on here. Infinite clean drinking water if
you\'re near Chicago. No raging fires or droughts, and no earthquakes. We
have technology, manufacturing, finance and superb agriculture. It\'s a
well rounded sort of place in areas the government hasn\'t yet broken.
 
S

server

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 06:14:59 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an
interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t
showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread
of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid
contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are
crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose
primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem
reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website
about wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.
They encourage the use of cloth muzzles.

It is almost impossible to make practical filters that will stop viruses
effectively (at least outside of clean room air filter technology).

The origin of the word was for infectious agents too small to see with a
light microscope and impossible to detect or filter out with any
technology available at the time of their discovery. You wouldn\'t be
able to breathe through a filter that was capable of stopping viruses
and it would clog up in no time flat from all the other junk in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology

Making filters that would reliably stop all bacteria what what enabled
viruses to be discovered as non-filterable infectious agents. It
required an electron microscope before they were actually discovered.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a
facemask meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

It is probably sensible. Most members of the general public do not use
PPE effectively and so higher grade kit would be wasted on them. No
point if they fail to observe basic inside clean outside dirty rules.

In any case the main effect of wearing a mask is to prevent the wearer
exhaling infectious aerosol material into the environment. It doesn\'t
need to stop individual virus particles to work pretty well.

Ok, can all the hospital workers just shut the fuck up then about their
PPE and get on with things with the stuff \"good enough\" for common folks?

It\'s this double standard stuff that irks me. I don\'t see visitors at
construction sites being offered paper cook\'s hats when everybody else has
a hard hat. That\'s how stupid this whole thing is.
A doctor or nurse can be a disease vector 1000x as much as you. They
are in close contact with infected people, and with patients who are
especially likely to ge killed by this virus. You aren\'t.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
Covid-19 has mostly killed people who were going to die soon anyway.
Only a mentally defective would believe such total horse manure. Only a sociopath would spread the idea. My 94 year old friend is not going to die anytime soon. Although the statistical life expectancy for someone his age is only another three years. However, that is a statistical matter averaged over a large population and does not take into account that he is strong and healthy with no medical issues other than his blindness. So the reality is he is actually likely to make it another six years if he avoids this plague.

But then a sociopath would not consider another six years of someone else\'s life to be important.


Governments mostly consist of unfit overweight elderly men so you can
see that they have a vested interest in this game that does not
necessarily align with the rest of the population. Particularly the
young whose future careers have been blighted by the economic crash.
Yes, the economic \"crash\" that could have been avoided by addressing this deadly pandemic as if it were a deadly pandemic. Or we can focus on everything other than dealing with the disease and the US becoming the world\'s pariah.

That\'s the ironic part of all this. People who think we need to sequester \"the vulnerable\" and let the disease rage, ignore the fact that this is potentially the worst possible method of dealing with the disease causing lots of deaths as well as economic damage. We have no reason to believe we will develop lasting immunity from being infected, so the disease would rage as long as we fail to deal with it.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 10:58:27 AM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Covid-19 has mostly killed people who were going to die soon anyway.

Only a mentally defective would believe such total horse manure.
Specifically, the disease kills maybe 20 per thousand who get it;
one year\'s mortality for a human (lifespan circa 72 years) is less
than that, so the disease must be killing substantial numbers of folk who
weren\'t going to die this year.
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 8/2/2020 12:54 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 10:58:27 AM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Covid-19 has mostly killed people who were going to die soon anyway.

Only a mentally defective would believe such total horse manure.

Specifically, the disease kills maybe 20 per thousand who get it;
one year\'s mortality for a human (lifespan circa 72 years) is less
than that, so the disease must be killing substantial numbers of folk who
weren\'t going to die this year.
IMO, focusing on deaths is the wrong way to go.

Instead, you have to look at the cost -- to families, livelihoods -- of
an illness which did NOT claim a life (as there appear to be far more
examples of this than deaths).

I know of three folks still recovering from Covid19. In addition to
their hospitalizations, they\'ve also had to endure lengthy physical
rehab programs to regain even basic functions. Even if the financial
cost (to them) was negligible (isn\'t the government covering all or
some of this?), they will individually bear the long-term consequences
of their illness. How likely are their employers to keep their
jobs waiting for them 2 or more months later? What psychological
consequences will they bear over the balance of their lives?

How big a hit to the economy (if you value the economy over life)
will this be as folks start avoiding \"outings\" (shopping, vacations,
travel, etc.) to avoid even a RECOVERABLE illness?

Folks are tired of the \"sacrifices\" (ha!) they\'ve had to make.
Politicians are tiring of the costs. How much support will folks
who get ill NEXT year find -- for their wages, eviction protection,
job security, etc. -- when everyone has come to accept this as
The New Norm?

My colleagues and I are seeing increasing calls for our services
from clients. And, at the same time, distressing calls from the
employees AT those client shops who are now suddenly unemployed.
Folks who now have pretty bleak job prospects -- who will undoubtedly
limit their purchases (propagating the problem to still others).

It\'s tough talking to a guy who lost his job while you may have
benefited from the situation (and, may even be PERFORMING his
job in this New Normal).
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:33:02 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/2/2020 12:54 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 10:58:27 AM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Covid-19 has mostly killed people who were going to die soon anyway.

Only a mentally defective would believe such total horse manure.

Specifically, the disease kills maybe 20 per thousand who get it;
one year\'s mortality for a human (lifespan circa 72 years) is less
than that, so the disease must be killing substantial numbers of folk who
weren\'t going to die this year.

IMO, focusing on deaths is the wrong way to go.

Instead, you have to look at the cost -- to families, livelihoods -- of
an illness which did NOT claim a life (as there appear to be far more
examples of this than deaths).

I know of three folks still recovering from Covid19. In addition to
their hospitalizations, they\'ve also had to endure lengthy physical
rehab programs to regain even basic functions. Even if the financial
cost (to them) was negligible (isn\'t the government covering all or
some of this?), they will individually bear the long-term consequences
of their illness. How likely are their employers to keep their
jobs waiting for them 2 or more months later? What psychological
consequences will they bear over the balance of their lives?

How big a hit to the economy (if you value the economy over life)
will this be as folks start avoiding \"outings\" (shopping, vacations,
travel, etc.) to avoid even a RECOVERABLE illness?

Folks are tired of the \"sacrifices\" (ha!) they\'ve had to make.
Politicians are tiring of the costs. How much support will folks
who get ill NEXT year find -- for their wages, eviction protection,
job security, etc. -- when everyone has come to accept this as
The New Norm?

My colleagues and I are seeing increasing calls for our services
from clients. And, at the same time, distressing calls from the
employees AT those client shops who are now suddenly unemployed.
Folks who now have pretty bleak job prospects -- who will undoubtedly
limit their purchases (propagating the problem to still others).

It\'s tough talking to a guy who lost his job while you may have
benefited from the situation (and, may even be PERFORMING his
job in this New Normal).
As a comparison, instead of 1,000 people a day dying in the US from this disease, what if it were one airliner crash every day? Would people stop flying for a couple of months and then start up again only to find the accidents quickly resurge to killing 300 people a day, but say this is how it must be because we can\'t continue to not fly? Besides, those people all knew the risks and might well have died in car crashes which everyone knows are more dangerous than planes.

This country seems to have lost the ability to think. There is a lot of \"common sense\" running around, but without the knowledge of how diseases spread and the opinion that this is no worse than the flu, \"common sense\" leads us to totally wrong conclusions.

I guess we should try reporting the deaths and hospitalizations in the news.. Maybe then people will learn about the disease and start behaving like it is dangerous.

20% of the world\'s COVID-19 deaths and 25% of the infections, right here in River City!

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 8/2/2020 2:19 PM, Ricketty C wrote:
As a comparison, instead of 1,000 people a day dying in the US from this
disease, what if it were one airliner crash every day? Would people stop
flying for a couple of months and then start up again only to find the
accidents quickly resurge to killing 300 people a day, but say this is how
it must be because we can\'t continue to not fly? Besides, those people all
knew the risks and might well have died in car crashes which everyone knows
are more dangerous than planes.
People can avoid flying -- how often are YOU in an airport?

People hear that driving is dangerous/lethal -- yet know that they
are on the roads every day and \"still living\".

I.e., these behaviors don\'t manifest the actual risk in terms to which
folks can relate.

[A neighbor was cognizant of the risks of diabetes and his likelihood
of developing it. But, \"it won\'t apply to me\" -- until it did.
He similarly was aware of the heart-attack risk assigned to his
obesity and lack of exercise. But, again, \"it won\'t apply to me\"...
until it did. Repeat for his stroke risk and cancer risk. How
many times do you have to be proven wrong before you start taking
the (medical) science seriously??]

I don\'t know anyone in my neighborhood who is sick from this. So, none
of my neighbors see it as particularly threatening (as evidenced by
the proximity with which they interact, the \"guests\" they entertain
at/in their homes, etc.).

[Though a neighbor just died of a sudden/massive stroke -- but, no word as
to whether it was covid-precipitated as he was asymptomatic, otherwise]

OTOH, I know several people (NOT in the neighborhood) fighting infections
so the intellectual concept of \"pandemic\" has a direct tie-in to my
*emotional* relationship to the issue. Maybe more people need to be
sick so folks hear REAL experiences (instead of those that the media
opt to portray).

This country seems to have lost the ability to think. There is a lot of
\"common sense\" running around, but without the knowledge of how diseases
spread and the opinion that this is no worse than the flu, \"common sense\"
leads us to totally wrong conclusions.
We\'re expecting ~7K deaths this year from Covid19 -- in a state of ~7M.
That\'s higher than the CFR for influenza. So, higher than the IFR for
the flu. And, even higher still when you consider it applies to the
population as a whole -- even folks known NOT to be infected (and, thus,
not representable in an IFR estimate)

I suspect that starts to bring the experience a lot closer to people
as they -- or someone that they know -- can comment about knowing of
a Covid-related death.

I guess we should try reporting the deaths and hospitalizations in the news.
Maybe then people will learn about the disease and start behaving like it is
dangerous.
I recall the campaign to reduce teen smoking when I was a kid.
All the speeches, demos in school (\"this is a REAL healthy lung. this is
the lung of a smoker...\"). Do I know anyone who changed their behavior
wrt smoking as a result of this?

\"It won\'t (can\'t?) happen to me.\"

Teenage pregnancy?

AIDS?

<shakes head>

Gonna be a lot of Darwin Award contenders, this year!

20% of the world\'s COVID-19 deaths and 25% of the infections, right here in
River City!
 
C

Cydrome Leader

Guest
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 8/2/2020 2:19 PM, Ricketty C wrote:

As a comparison, instead of 1,000 people a day dying in the US from this
disease, what if it were one airliner crash every day? Would people stop
flying for a couple of months and then start up again only to find the
accidents quickly resurge to killing 300 people a day, but say this is how
it must be because we can\'t continue to not fly? Besides, those people all
knew the risks and might well have died in car crashes which everyone knows
are more dangerous than planes.

People can avoid flying -- how often are YOU in an airport?

People hear that driving is dangerous/lethal -- yet know that they
are on the roads every day and \"still living\".

I.e., these behaviors don\'t manifest the actual risk in terms to which
folks can relate.

[A neighbor was cognizant of the risks of diabetes and his likelihood
of developing it. But, \"it won\'t apply to me\" -- until it did.
He similarly was aware of the heart-attack risk assigned to his
obesity and lack of exercise. But, again, \"it won\'t apply to me\"...
until it did. Repeat for his stroke risk and cancer risk. How
many times do you have to be proven wrong before you start taking
the (medical) science seriously??]

I don\'t know anyone in my neighborhood who is sick from this. So, none
of my neighbors see it as particularly threatening (as evidenced by
the proximity with which they interact, the \"guests\" they entertain
at/in their homes, etc.).

[Though a neighbor just died of a sudden/massive stroke -- but, no word as
to whether it was covid-precipitated as he was asymptomatic, otherwise]

OTOH, I know several people (NOT in the neighborhood) fighting infections
so the intellectual concept of \"pandemic\" has a direct tie-in to my
*emotional* relationship to the issue. Maybe more people need to be
sick so folks hear REAL experiences (instead of those that the media
opt to portray).

This country seems to have lost the ability to think. There is a lot of
\"common sense\" running around, but without the knowledge of how diseases
spread and the opinion that this is no worse than the flu, \"common sense\"
leads us to totally wrong conclusions.

We\'re expecting ~7K deaths this year from Covid19 -- in a state of ~7M.
That\'s higher than the CFR for influenza. So, higher than the IFR for
the flu. And, even higher still when you consider it applies to the
population as a whole -- even folks known NOT to be infected (and, thus,
not representable in an IFR estimate)

I suspect that starts to bring the experience a lot closer to people
as they -- or someone that they know -- can comment about knowing of
a Covid-related death.

I guess we should try reporting the deaths and hospitalizations in the news.
Maybe then people will learn about the disease and start behaving like it is
dangerous.

I recall the campaign to reduce teen smoking when I was a kid.
All the speeches, demos in school (\"this is a REAL healthy lung. this is
the lung of a smoker...\"). Do I know anyone who changed their behavior
wrt smoking as a result of this?

\"It won\'t (can\'t?) happen to me.\"

Teenage pregnancy?

AIDS?

shakes head

Gonna be a lot of Darwin Award contenders, this year!
Let\'s work backwards here to reduce risk in a calculated way.

How do I 100% catch covids?

From that point how do I reduce the risk? Staying 6 feet and wearing
underwear on your face is just 100% made up on a whim nonsense. The value
of that, if any is completely unknown.
 
S

server

Guest
On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
That\'s not what the sycophants said. Dunno what kind of imbecile bounces from one article to another with such a consistent level of ignorance and lack of understanding.
 
C

Cydrome Leader

Guest
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 06:14:59 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an
interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t
showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread
of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid
contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are
crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose
primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem
reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website
about wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.
They encourage the use of cloth muzzles.

It is almost impossible to make practical filters that will stop viruses
effectively (at least outside of clean room air filter technology).

The origin of the word was for infectious agents too small to see with a
light microscope and impossible to detect or filter out with any
technology available at the time of their discovery. You wouldn\'t be
able to breathe through a filter that was capable of stopping viruses
and it would clog up in no time flat from all the other junk in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology

Making filters that would reliably stop all bacteria what what enabled
viruses to be discovered as non-filterable infectious agents. It
required an electron microscope before they were actually discovered.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a
facemask meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

It is probably sensible. Most members of the general public do not use
PPE effectively and so higher grade kit would be wasted on them. No
point if they fail to observe basic inside clean outside dirty rules.

In any case the main effect of wearing a mask is to prevent the wearer
exhaling infectious aerosol material into the environment. It doesn\'t
need to stop individual virus particles to work pretty well.

Ok, can all the hospital workers just shut the fuck up then about their
PPE and get on with things with the stuff \"good enough\" for common folks?

It\'s this double standard stuff that irks me. I don\'t see visitors at
construction sites being offered paper cook\'s hats when everybody else has
a hard hat. That\'s how stupid this whole thing is.

A doctor or nurse can be a disease vector 1000x as much as you. They
are in close contact with infected people, and with patients who are
especially likely to ge killed by this virus. You aren\'t.
Says who? Do medical personnel have 1000x the infection rate too?

Like I said in another part of this thread, how do I get a 100% infection
rate in the first place? From that, what mitigations can be added that
have any basis? Nobody is talking about this so far. It\'s just baloney
about masks or diapers on faces and 6 feet in a world where people are
trees and don\'t move around etc.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 5:21:17 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 06:14:59 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/07/2020 09:11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

A doctor or nurse can be a disease vector 1000x as much as you. They
are in close contact with infected people, and with patients who are
especially likely to get killed by this virus. You aren\'t.

Says who? Do medical personnel have 1000x the infection rate too?
Says anybody with any sense. Not that John Larkin frequently exhibits this much sense.

Medical personnel are exposed to a lot more people who have the disease - sick people do go to hospitals - and if they catch it, the nature of their work means that the people they might pass it on to are people who really shouldn\'t be exposed to the virus

Like I said in another part of this thread, how do I get a 100% infection
rate in the first place?
It was a silly question

From that, what mitigations can be added that
have any basis? Nobody is talking about this so far. It\'s just baloney
about masks or diapers on faces and 6 feet in a world where people are
trees and don\'t move around etc.
Everybody has talked about it. Lockdowns reduce the infection rate, contact tracing and the pre-emptive isolation of people who might have been infected (for 14-days from the date of possible infection) reduce it even further..

Dealing with tactics that make infection less likely does seem to be too complicated for your tiny brain. You will just have to get used to feeling stupid - it looks as if you have already had plenty of practice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 3:21:17 AM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Like I said in another part of this thread, how do I get a 100% infection
rate in the first place? From that, what mitigations can be added that
have any basis? Nobody is talking about this so far. It\'s just baloney
about masks or diapers on faces and 6 feet in a world where people are
trees and don\'t move around etc.
I think I have mentioned many times that the various rules about how many people can meet, distances, using masks, et. al. are no guarantee of not getting infected. They simply reduce the likelihood of infection to the point where the disease will stop spreading at a rate that increases the number of infected each day, instead as we saw in the US during thee month of May, the infection rate drops and even the number of active cases also started to drop by the beginning of June when much of the US decided that was good enough and started to reopen.

You\'ve already made up your mind that masks, distancing, et. al. have no function in spreading this disease. Do you really think that masks do not reduce the spreading rate? Do you think distancing does not reduce the spreading rate? Do you really think limiting your exposure to groups of people does not reduce the spreading rate?

Why not? Why do you demand \"proof\" of their effectiveness? Isn\'t it proof enough that in the US, every time we apply these measures we get the disease on the run and every time we back off the use of these measures the disease roars back? Do you need double blind, placebo controlled studies to see the impact of fighting this disease?

How about if we apply engineering techniques and use what works? Look at the numbers in Texas and Florida over the last three months and see if you can draw any conclusions. Do you see any correlations with the actions and the words of the governments there?

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top