Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[servodude]

Further to this, if the aerosols hang around in the air for so long, then it would seem that pretty much everyone must have been exposed at some stage unless they have been strictly self isolating.

Sure that's how it works so it is..
- and there's some big huge conspiracy for COVID
- and 9/11 was known to the BBC beforehand
- and you shouldn't vaccinate your kids
- and qanon have a point
- and critical thinking has gone by the wayside
- and there's a big reset coming
- and the moon landing was faked

Now as an honest guy I have to confess I was joking about most of those... let's see if you can work out where

-sd

[langley59]

My point was a sincere and sensible one, your response doesn't appear to be and doesn't address the point. I conclude that either we have almost all been exposed to the virus and not that many of us have fallen ill so its not as dangerous as is being made out (to most people) or it doesn't spread much by aerosols but the point is being pushed that it does, and why might that be, to make us even more fearful?

[gryffron]

We all have some inbuilt defences against viral attack. It may be minimal for the elderly and sick, or very significant for children. Therefore, the quantity of the initial viral dose appears to be key. So yes, you're right, we have likely ALL been exposed to small amounts of virus, which for most of us has been easily defeated by our first line infection defences, without us even noticing.

As the Spanish link shows, the greater the concentration of the virus, and the longer the exposure, the greater the chance of infection taking hold.

It isn't necessarily that some people are susceptible and some immune. Rather that some are MORE susceptible than others.

Gryff

[langley59]

We all have some inbuilt defences against viral attack. It may be minimal for the elderly and sick, or very significant for children. Therefore, the quantity of the initial viral dose appears to be key. So yes, you're right, we have likely ALL been exposed to small amounts of virus, which for most of us has been easily defeated by our first line infection defences, without us even noticing.

As the Spanish link shows, the greater the concentration of the virus, and the longer the exposure, the greater the chance of infection taking hold.

It isn't necessarily that some people are susceptible and some immune. Rather that some are MORE susceptible than others.

Gryff

This all makes sense to me. Therefore being exposed to small amounts of the virus is perhaps a good thing for most people then as it may challenge and strengthen the immune system without being harmful.

[Mike4]

We all have some inbuilt defences against viral attack. It may be minimal for the elderly and sick, or very significant for children. Therefore, the quantity of the initial viral dose appears to be key. So yes, you're right, we have likely ALL been exposed to small amounts of virus, which for most of us has been easily defeated by our first line infection defences, without us even noticing.

As the Spanish link shows, the greater the concentration of the virus, and the longer the exposure, the greater the chance of infection taking hold.

It isn't necessarily that some people are susceptible and some immune. Rather that some are MORE susceptible than others.

Gryff

This all makes sense to me. Therefore being exposed to small amounts of the virus is perhaps a good thing for most people then as it may challenge and strengthen the immune system without being harmful.

Jolly good. It is also the basis of why face coverings are a Good Thing when they don't prevent passage of EVERY virus particle into your lungs. By catching some but not of the particles they (arguably) reduce the viral load in some cases to a low enough innocculum to no longer infect you but still provoke an immune response in you. Dr John discusses this sometimes if you watch his videos.

[Bouleversee]

Just heard on the news that on the basis of tests taken up to 2 weeks ago, cases in England increased by 47% in one week (from approx. 35,200 to 52,000 new cases a day), presumed to be an underestimate of current rate of infection.

[88V8]

Just heard on the news that on the basis of tests taken up to 2 weeks ago, cases in England increased by 47% in one week (from approx. 35,200 to 52,000 new cases a day), presumed to be an underestimate of current rate of infection.

Quite possibly.

It will be two weeks before we can really judge whether the Tiers are effective. The inevitable time lag before the supertanker responds to twiddles of the wheel, calls for patience, wait and see, before taking more measures.
The media is not good at wait and see.

Heard a snippet on the wireless this morning, Which have tested a selection of reusable face masks and found some of them quite useless.
I find Which's website quite useless =- perhaps it's me - so I suppose I shall have to await the arrival of hardcopy to see which ones to avoid.
Meanwhile I shall continue with the manky used-several-times-then-stuffed-in-a-bag-and-left-in-the car blue things.

V8

[langley59]

Jolly good. It is also the basis of why face coverings are a Good Thing when they don't prevent passage of EVERY virus particle into your lungs. By catching some but not of the particles they (arguably) reduce the viral load in some cases to a low enough innocculum to no longer infect you but still provoke an immune response in you. Dr John discusses this sometimes if you watch his videos.

Yes I can see the logic in this, although we must also bear in mind the dangers associated with wearing masks, such as rebreathing a concentrated viral load if you are infected, breathing in harmful bacteria, reduced oxygen, excessive carbon dioxide, face rashes, mental health issues, etc.

[Mike4]

Jolly good. It is also the basis of why face coverings are a Good Thing when they don't prevent passage of EVERY virus particle into your lungs. By catching some but not of the particles they (arguably) reduce the viral load in some cases to a low enough innocculum to no longer infect you but still provoke an immune response in you. Dr John discusses this sometimes if you watch his videos.

Yes I can see the logic in this, although we must also bear in mind the dangers associated with wearing masks, such as rebreathing a concentrated viral load if you are infected, breathing in harmful bacteria, reduced oxygen, excessive carbon dioxide, face rashes, mental health issues, etc.

You have a GREAT sense of humour!!

[bungeejumper]

[we must also bear in mind the dangers associated with wearing masks, such as rebreathing a concentrated viral load if you are infected, breathing in harmful bacteria, reduced oxygen, excessive carbon dioxide, face rashes, mental health issues, etc.

Dammit, you're right. Certain death. And that's not all - 85% of people who wear masks go on to get Covid. There's some guy in America who's just bet his career on it.

BJ

[XFool]

[we must also bear in mind the dangers associated with wearing masks, such as rebreathing a concentrated viral load if you are infected, breathing in harmful bacteria, reduced oxygen, excessive carbon dioxide, face rashes, mental health issues, etc.

Dammit, you're right. Certain death. And that's not all - 85% of people who wear masks go on to get Covid. There's some guy in America who's just bet his career on it.

BJ

That's nothing! I have evidence that, of people who at some time in their lives have worn a mask, 100% of them later go on to die. I'd say that is conclusive.

[jfgw]

Yes I can see the logic in this, although we must also bear in mind the dangers associated with wearing masks, such as rebreathing a concentrated viral load if you are infected, breathing in harmful bacteria, reduced oxygen, excessive carbon dioxide, face rashes, mental health issues, etc.

Plus choking, strangulation, being shot due to mistaken identity...

Seriously, I think there are issues with non-professional use. However, if the main mode of transmission is through aerosols, these issues are likely of much lower significance than the advantages.

Used professionally (in healthcare), they are used once and disposed of properly, and hands are washed thoroughly to avoid transferring pathogens. If formite transmission was a major means of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, I think that the use of masks by the general public would need to be reconsidered as, if anything encourages people to touch their faces, masks do, and how many people do you see sanitising their hands after taking off their dirty masks?

Julian F. G. W.

[sg31]

Plus choking, strangulation, being shot due to mistaken identity...

Seriously, I think there are issues with non-professional use. However, if the main mode of transmission is through aerosols, these issues are likely of much lower significance than the advantages.

Used professionally (in healthcare), they are used once and disposed of properly, and hands are washed thoroughly to avoid transferring pathogens. If formite transmission was a major means of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, I think that the use of masks by the general public would need to be reconsidered as, if anything encourages people to touch their faces, masks do, and how many people do you see sanitising their hands after taking off their dirty masks?

Julian F. G. W.

I don't wear N95 masks or similar, I use the blue 'surgical' type, I've no idea if they are surgical quality. I don't wear them for my own protection, as far as I'm aware they aren't much good for that anyway. I wear them to protect others in case I'm infected. I don't really go anywhere that has a high risk of infection so I don't really expect the outside of the mask to be infected. I don't always disinfect my hands after weraring the mask. Should I.

I do have a few N95 masks but as I have a beard it seems pointless wearing them as I wouldn't be able to get a good seal. I might consider shaving the beard off if I was in high risk situations on a regular basis.

[Lootman]

I don't wear N95 masks or similar, I use the blue 'surgical' type, I've no idea if they are surgical quality. I don't wear them for my own protection, as far as I'm aware they aren't much good for that anyway. I wear them to protect others in case I'm infected. I don't really go anywhere that has a high risk of infection so I don't really expect the outside of the mask to be infected. I don't always disinfect my hands after wearing the mask. Should I?

Yes, because if your mask is doing any good at all then the front of it has virus on it. If it does not have virus on it then it was pointless wearing it in the first place.

And you do not really know which locations have a high risk of infection because it only takes one person to expose you. That is why you wear a mask, because of the uncertainty.

I wear a N99 mask because I am not remotely interested in catching this by accident. I do not wear a mask to protect others.

[servodude]

I don't wear N95 masks or similar, I use the blue 'surgical' type, I've no idea if they are surgical quality. I don't wear them for my own protection, as far as I'm aware they aren't much good for that anyway. I wear them to protect others in case I'm infected. I don't really go anywhere that has a high risk of infection so I don't really expect the outside of the mask to be infected. I don't always disinfect my hands after wearing the mask. Should I?

Yes, because if your mask is doing any good at all then the front of it has virus on it. If it does not have virus on it then it was pointless wearing it in the first place.

And you do not really know which locations have a high risk of infection because it only takes one person to expose you. That is why you wear a mask, because of the uncertainty.

I wear a N99 mask because I am not remotely interested in catching this by accident. I do not wear a mask to protect others.

We know
The upside is that by wearing one you are anyway!
Which is why your first sentence is not quite correct... your mask is doing more good for more people if there's virus on the inside; whether or not it was your intent.
Win win!

-sd

[Lootman]

I don't wear N95 masks or similar, I use the blue 'surgical' type, I've no idea if they are surgical quality. I don't wear them for my own protection, as far as I'm aware they aren't much good for that anyway. I wear them to protect others in case I'm infected. I don't really go anywhere that has a high risk of infection so I don't really expect the outside of the mask to be infected. I don't always disinfect my hands after wearing the mask. Should I?

Yes, because if your mask is doing any good at all then the front of it has virus on it. If it does not have virus on it then it was pointless wearing it in the first place.

And you do not really know which locations have a high risk of infection because it only takes one person to expose you. That is why you wear a mask, because of the uncertainty.

I wear a N99 mask because I am not remotely interested in catching this by accident. I do not wear a mask to protect others.

We know
The upside is that by wearing one you are anyway!
Which is why your first sentence is not quite correct... your mask is doing more good for more people if there's virus on the inside; whether or not it was your intent.
Win win!

Evidently you do not understand how my mask works.

Again!

[servodude]

Yes, because if your mask is doing any good at all then the front of it has virus on it. If it does not have virus on it then it was pointless wearing it in the first place.

And you do not really know which locations have a high risk of infection because it only takes one person to expose you. That is why you wear a mask, because of the uncertainty.

I wear a N99 mask because I am not remotely interested in catching this by accident. I do not wear a mask to protect others.

We know
The upside is that by wearing one you are anyway!
Which is why your first sentence is not quite correct... your mask is doing more good for more people if there's virus on the inside; whether or not it was your intent.
Win win!

Evidently you do not understand how my mask works.

Again!

I bet I know what you're going to write before you do
Don't worry you don't need to understand it for it to work
- but if there's virus on the inside of your mask it's doing more collective good than on the outside

-sd

[Lootman]

Don't worry you don't need to understand it for it to work - but if there's virus on the inside of your mask it's doing more collective good than on the outside

Wrong on both counts.

First there is no "virus on the inside" (whatever that means). I had my last Covid test just a few days ago.

Second, I have now twice demonstrated that I understand how my mask works better than you evidently do.

[88V8]

Evidently you do not understand how my mask works.

N99 masks are available valved and unvalved.
Are we to understand that yours involves the V word?

Does it work with bubblegum?

V8

[XFool]

Yes, because if your mask is doing any good at all then the front of it has virus on it. If it does not have virus on it then it was pointless wearing it in the first place.

And you do not really know which locations have a high risk of infection because it only takes one person to expose you. That is why you wear a mask, because of the uncertainty.

I wear a N99 mask because I am not remotely interested in catching this by accident. I do not wear a mask to protect others.

We know
The upside is that by wearing one you are anyway!
Which is why your first sentence is not quite correct... your mask is doing more good for more people if there's virus on the inside; whether or not it was your intent.
Win win!

Evidently you do not understand how my mask works.

Again!

ROTFL!