Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Mike4]

And I don't think I've ever seen a face-covering in any of the pics of the Asian branch of my family, any more than in the white European side.

I can just imagine the scene. "Right everyone, family photo for Uncle Eb. Masks ON!"

[Bubblesofearth]

Have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piCWFgwysu0

It's hard to imagine a loose scarf NOT making a difference.

Masks make a huge difference to the emission of droplets. You can actually demonstrate this very easily without fancy equipment. Fill a spray bottle with coloured dye (food dye works well) and spray a tiled wall. Now try the same thing with a mask, or similar, in front of the spray nozzle. I've done this and the difference is total. A loose scarf is as effective.

However these loose covering will have minimal effect on the flow and diffusion of gases.

BoE

[Bubblesofearth]

Ah, the voice of the authoritarian state. Your narrow-minded prejudices don't make it ridiculous.

Common sense, the evidence and some simple experiments make it ridiculous not to wear masks. If I'm prejudiced it's prejudiced against people using silly excuses not to do everything with their power to reduce the spread of this particularly unpleasant disease.

I expect you're one of those people who routinely closes windows for at least half the year.

The opposite actually.

What asian countries? Certainly none I've been in. And I don't think I've ever seen a face-covering in any of the pics of the Asian branch of my family, any more than in the white European side.

I know people who have lived and worked in both Hong Kong and Japan where the wearing of masks is the norm if there is risk of contagion. It's considered impolite in Japan not to wear a mask if ill at, for example, work. Given the number of asymptomatic people with Covid-19 it is now regarded as sensible for everyone to wear them. From people I know out there they consider us to have a death-wish when they see images of our shops and underground trains.

Are you perhaps thinking of the nonsense inflicted on women in some religious cultures? Of course, the victims of that - those for whom it causes a real problem - are invisible. If they can't opt out of the cultural policy then they're just stuck at home.

Er, what??

BoE

[vrdiver]

Masks make a huge difference to the emission of droplets. You can actually demonstrate this very easily without fancy equipment. Fill a spray bottle with coloured dye (food dye works well) and spray a tiled wall. Now try the same thing with a mask, or similar, in front of the spray nozzle. I've done this and the difference is total. A loose scarf is as effective.

However these loose covering will have minimal effect on the flow and diffusion of gases.

It's a good experimental demo, but somewhat flawed; our exhalation droplets are not the same as those coming out of a spray bottle (if they were, you'd be soaked whenever somebody talked to you - just consider the tiled wall!).
For a mask to hinder the droplets in our exhalation (not eliminate, just reduce the quantity and velocity) it needs to be of fine enough mesh to interact with them as they pass.

If you wanted to amend your demo, you might want to try it with a real mask, but exhaling after having puffed from an e-cigarette. That would also show "the path of least resistance" which the air will take if it can't get through the material of the mask, so showing the new danger zones created either side of the mask wearer (or wherever the exhalation goes if not able to exit straight ahead).

Such a demo will also illustrate whether the specific mask is particularly effective, or just cosmetic.

VRD

[dealtn]

Some "bugs" disperse and die quite quickly when breathed out. The same "bugs" often live longer when trapped in a mask, in a warm and moist atmosphere.

I don't know where Covid-19 fits, but the fact that other "bugs" have an increased prevalence as a result of mask wearing shows it isn't a simple "no-brainer" in overall health terms.

Where we are, and given the importance of general mental health, it isn't a surprise that mask wearing in general is being promoted as a way of showing we are "doing something", even if the true "physical" health benefits may turn out to be marginal one way or the other.

[Bubblesofearth]

Some "bugs" disperse and die quite quickly when breathed out. The same "bugs" often live longer when trapped in a mask, in a warm and moist atmosphere.

I don't know where Covid-19 fits, but the fact that other "bugs" have an increased prevalence as a result of mask wearing shows it isn't a simple "no-brainer" in overall health terms.

If you already have the virus then coating your mask with it is not going to increase your risk. The purpose of masks is to prevent others getting it from you and that's about reducing spread which masks do a good job of.

Of course masks aren't perfect. As has been pointed out elsewhere there will be leakage around the edges etc. But they at least limit the amount of material emitted (the same concentration on the mask you mention is clear in my dye experiment) and the distance it travels.

FWIW there is no more scientific evidence that 2m social distances is all that effective at limiting spread. Again, however, one has to apply common sense before waiting for the sort of trial that would be needed for more definitive proof.

In the end it's a combination of measures that's going to work best. Isolation if ill, social distancing, masks, track and trace and so forth.

Instead of trying to get too forensic with all this there's perhaps a lot to be said IMO for simply copying the procedures of a country, e.g. Taiwan, that has been successful in controlling the virus.These measures included masks.

BoE

[dealtn]

Some "bugs" disperse and die quite quickly when breathed out. The same "bugs" often live longer when trapped in a mask, in a warm and moist atmosphere.

I don't know where Covid-19 fits, but the fact that other "bugs" have an increased prevalence as a result of mask wearing shows it isn't a simple "no-brainer" in overall health terms.

If you already have the virus then coating your mask with it is not going to increase your risk. The purpose of masks is to prevent others getting it from you and that's about reducing spread which masks do a good job of.

Of course masks aren't perfect. As has been pointed out elsewhere there will be leakage around the edges etc. But they at least limit the amount of material emitted (the same concentration on the mask you mention is clear in my dye experiment) and the distance it travels.

FWIW there is no more scientific evidence that 2m social distances is all that effective at limiting spread. Again, however, one has to apply common sense before waiting for the sort of trial that would be needed for more definitive proof.

In the end it's a combination of measures that's going to work best. Isolation if ill, social distancing, masks, track and trace and so forth.

Instead of trying to get too forensic with all this there's perhaps a lot to be said IMO for simply copying the procedures of a country, e.g. Taiwan, that has been successful in controlling the virus.These measures included masks.

BoE

You have completely missed my point.

This isn't about Covid-19. Wearing masks to protect either yourself or others from Covid-19 has the side effect of keeping other "bugs" alive and active that would otherwise die. This isn't a good thing. So any "health saving" from mask wearing in preventing the spread of Covid-19, has to be offset by other health consequences. If wearing masks, even when doing so for the reasons of wanting to do what is best, leads to higher transmission rates for influenza, or pneumonia, say, then that isn't a good thing.

The most significant health offset not considered enough in Covid-19 prevention is mental health, and it has been joyous to see so many excited youngsters finally able to go back to school this week. There may be a small increase in Covid-19 transmission as a result, but increased mental health offsets this.

Sad though 50,000 odd deaths must be, and individual tragedies for sure, but collectively the 50,000 times a few months that the aggregate lifetime lost might equate to, need to be offset by the 1,000s of suicides over future years that might be now more likely to occur. Most of these will be measured as multiple years of lives lost, not months.

None of this is easy, and it is a brave politician to be able to stand up and explain why it is the right thing to introduce policies that appear harmful in the immediate Covid-19 terms, but in aggregate are perhaps better. Scientists and advisors don't have the "baggage" that comes with being a politician and are able to do so much more easily.

It isn't easy, even with full facts, let alone without.

[tjh290633]

If we have to wear cowboy scarves, can we also carry our six-shooters? Maybe spurs and chaps as well.

TJH

[vrdiver]

If we have to wear cowboy scarves, can we also carry our six-shooters? Maybe spurs and chaps as well.

TJH

You carry what you want, but I'm not carrying any chaps around. If they're man enough to walk to the pub, they can jolly well walk back.

VRD

[Bubblesofearth]

You have completely missed my point.

This isn't about Covid-19. Wearing masks to protect either yourself or others from Covid-19 has the side effect of keeping other "bugs" alive and active that would otherwise die. This isn't a good thing. So any "health saving" from mask wearing in preventing the spread of Covid-19, has to be offset by other health consequences. If wearing masks, even when doing so for the reasons of wanting to do what is best, leads to higher transmission rates for influenza, or pneumonia, say, then that isn't a good thing.

Anyone with symptoms of 'flu or pneumonia or even a cold just now should be self-isolating and not going to indoor public places. Aside from that why would masks not limit the spread of these diseases as well as Covid? Build-up on your own mask is not an issue if you already have the disease. Having said that it is, of course, important to make masks one-use only, either binning or washing after use.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that mask-wearing in e.g. Japan leads to increased transmission of any diseases. If it did then I would assume the practice would have been abandoned.

The most significant health offset not considered enough in Covid-19 prevention is mental health, and it has been joyous to see so many excited youngsters finally able to go back to school this week. There may be a small increase in Covid-19 transmission as a result, but increased mental health offsets this.

Sad though 50,000 odd deaths must be, and individual tragedies for sure, but collectively the 50,000 times a few months that the aggregate lifetime lost might equate to, need to be offset by the 1,000s of suicides over future years that might be now more likely to occur. Most of these will be measured as multiple years of lives lost, not months.

None of this is easy, and it is a brave politician to be able to stand up and explain why it is the right thing to introduce policies that appear harmful in the immediate Covid-19 terms, but in aggregate are perhaps better. Scientists and advisors don't have the "baggage" that comes with being a politician and are able to do so much more easily.

It isn't easy, even with full facts, let alone without.

No argument with any of that. If anything the consequences of lockdown, especially if prolonged, could be even worse with other diseases not being treated and the economic fallout. As ever it will be the poorer countries that get hit hardest in this regard. Death from hunger stats alone are frightening for some and these will likely increase beyond any from Covid.

[swill453]

Anyone with symptoms of 'flu or pneumonia or even a cold just now should be self-isolating and not going to indoor public places.

Says who? That's certainly not official advice. The most common cold symptoms aren't really mistakable for Covid-19.

Scott.

[dealtn]

You have completely missed my point.

This isn't about Covid-19. Wearing masks to protect either yourself or others from Covid-19 has the side effect of keeping other "bugs" alive and active that would otherwise die. This isn't a good thing. So any "health saving" from mask wearing in preventing the spread of Covid-19, has to be offset by other health consequences. If wearing masks, even when doing so for the reasons of wanting to do what is best, leads to higher transmission rates for influenza, or pneumonia, say, then that isn't a good thing.

Anyone with symptoms of 'flu or pneumonia or even a cold just now should be self-isolating and not going to indoor public places. Aside from that why would masks not limit the spread of these diseases as well as Covid? Build-up on your own mask is not an issue if you already have the disease. Having said that it is, of course, important to make masks one-use only, either binning or washing after use.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that mask-wearing in e.g. Japan leads to increased transmission of any diseases. If it did then I would assume the practice would have been abandoned.

"...should..." but aren't.

"...make masks one-use only, either binning or washing after use..." not everyone does.

This was discussed in the very early days of Covid-19, although generally speaking better masks, and hopefully habits, have become the normal since then.

"...mask wearing in eg. Japan..." It's cultural (and discussed before). They are "doing the right, and respectful thing". My brother lives there, married to a Japanese wife, and worked in a multi-cultural University (surrounded by very intelligent people). There are lots of on-going conversations amongst them of whom is "right" and "wrong" on this issue. At the risk of repetition, it isn't easy!

[Bubblesofearth]

Anyone with symptoms of 'flu or pneumonia or even a cold just now should be self-isolating and not going to indoor public places.

Says who? That's certainly not official advice. The most common cold symptoms aren't really mistakable for Covid-19.

Scott.

The symptoms of Covid are proving more and more diverse which means it is getting more and more difficult to know whether it's that or something else. Unless you have actually suffered from the disease I suspect you wouldn't have a clue. So the advice should be to self-isolate if suffering ANY new symptoms of illness, especially if of a respiratory nature. And what's wrong with preventing the spread of other diseases anyway? In case you are wondering this is my opinion.

As for official advice I'm afraid the behaviour and propaganda messages of our Government have been so bad as to render them worthless. Advice from the BMA, on the there hand, has been that the introduction of masks has been long overdue and should have been extended to other indoor places.

BoE

[swill453]

In case you are wondering this is my opinion.

Thanks for clarification.

Scott.

[Bubblesofearth]

In case you are wondering this is my opinion.

Thanks for clarification.

Scott.

No problem

It seems the WHO have finally got with the program regarding masks;

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-healt ... KKBN23C27Y

BoE

[Mike4]

No problem

It seems the WHO have finally got with the program regarding masks;

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-healt ... KKBN23C27Y

BoE

It beggars belief doesn't it?

They also got sucked in by that fake-data Lancet study of HXQ that was finally rejected and withdrawn yesterday. Also staggering that The Lancet got fooled and it took 13 days of imminent scientists protesting, for The Lancet to cave in and admit they got stitched up and made to look idiots.

Not that they put it in quite those terms, but that is what happened.

[ursaminortaur]

It seems that that some care homes are forcing self-funders to pay a weekly surcharge on their fees for coronavirus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/06/care-home-residents-foot-100-a-week-for-coronavirus-costs

Some older people who fund their own care home fees are being forced to pay a steep and unexpected coronavirus bill by their care provider, it has been revealed.

Older people and their families are being asked to pay more than £100 a week on top of their usual care home fees, with homes saying the cost of PPE and staff absences could push their finances into the red, threatening their sustainability.

“Older people living in care homes and their families have been through the mill these last few months,” said Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK. “It is adding insult to injury that after going through so much, some residents who pay for their own care are now facing a big extra bill – on top of already expensive fees.”

[Leothebear]

“We have new research findings,” she added. “We have evidence now that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”

No sh1t Sherlock. Who'd have thunked it.

[UncleEbenezer]

It seems that that some care homes are forcing self-funders to pay a weekly surcharge on their fees for coronavirus

Maybe they should have charged higher fees all along, to give themselves more headroom for a contingency like this?

[soapbox] Someone's got to pay. The government stitched up the care sector (not just care homes) by requisitioning all their PPE supplies for the NHS, leaving them a market that excluded their regular suppliers. Effectively pushed them into a black market.

Whether care home owners or management are to blame for general high fees is a valid question, but not a new one arising from covid.

[dealtn]

It seems that that some care homes are forcing self-funders to pay a weekly surcharge on their fees for coronavirus

Maybe they should have charged higher fees all along, to give themselves more headroom for a contingency like this?

[soapbox] Someone's got to pay. The government stitched up the care sector (not just care homes) by requisitioning all their PPE supplies for the NHS, leaving them a market that excluded their regular suppliers. Effectively pushed them into a black market.

Whether care home owners or management are to blame for general high fees is a valid question, but not a new one arising from covid.

What makes you think fees are generally high? Even before Covid-19 arrived the care sector wasn't one you would associate with profitability, let alone excess profitability.