I predict that gap will close and we'll be ahead again within a month. Unless we get a rapid reverse-ferret.
Couple of deletions. This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions. Thanks - Chris
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
UncleEbenezer wrote:Seems [those in power] have declared masks mandatoy in England again. So now the scene is set for us to close the gap in infection rates with Wales, and resume the lead we consistently had before the [Deletion] rule was dropped in England in July.
I predict that gap will close and we'll be ahead again within a month. Unless we get a rapid reverse-ferret.
Moderator Message:
Couple of deletions. This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions. Thanks - Chris
XFool wrote:...You think it's masks causing COVID infections?
And, since the masks have been brought back due to increasing incidents of an even more infectious variety, that seems to me a bet you can't 'lose'!
UncleEbenezer wrote:XFool wrote:...You think it's masks causing COVID infections?
Contributing to the spread.I understood it was something about a variant of concern whose characteristics are not yet understood.
UncleEbenezer wrote:But in any case, I wasn't talking about a rise or fall in raw numbers. I was talking about the comparison between two samples, England and Wales. That's as near as we're going to get to a proper controlled experiment:
- The two samples are mostly-similar populations. As near to all-else-being-equal - from cultural influences to vaccine rollouts - as we're likely to get.
- A change has just been announced for one (England) but not for the other (Wales). The change brings back a fairly close alignment of the rules.
- There is a baseline: the rules were aligned before July. Back then, Welsh infection levels were consistently lower than English ones.
- Between July and today, there has been one substantial difference in the rules. Namely, those masks.
- Other rule changes (such as schools, workplaces and leisure returning) have affected both populations, but have not substantially differed.
- During that time, Welsh infection levels have soared above English levels.
- Now our rules are re-aligning.
Lootman wrote:I have wondered myself whether masks might paradoxically increase infections. If the mask is providing any protection at all then the virus must accumulate on either the inside or the outside of the mask, or both. Then people keep touching them, removing them and putting them back on, placing them on the pub or restaurant table, putting their hands here and there, and so on.
So could face coverings actually be powerful vectors for the virus, which otherwise would just dissipate in the atmosphere, fall to the ground and die off?
Professional medical staff know how to handle masks, how often to change them, and so on. But I am fairly certain people wear the same face covering for days at a time, maybe weeks at a time, coughing into them, sneezing into them. It's kind of disgusting when you think about it, like using the same cloth handkerchief for days when you have a cold.
Hallucigenia wrote:Lootman wrote:I have wondered myself whether masks might paradoxically increase infections. If the mask is providing any protection at all then the virus must accumulate on either the inside or the outside of the mask, or both. Then people keep touching them, removing them and putting them back on, placing them on the pub or restaurant table, putting their hands here and there, and so on.
So could face coverings actually be powerful vectors for the virus, which otherwise would just dissipate in the atmosphere, fall to the ground and die off?
Professional medical staff know how to handle masks, how often to change them, and so on. But I am fairly certain people wear the same face covering for days at a time, maybe weeks at a time, coughing into them, sneezing into them. It's kind of disgusting when you think about it, like using the same cloth handkerchief for days when you have a cold.
Not this again. No, there is pretty overwhelming evidence that masks are a massive net positive - this is an airborne disease, you need to worry about it getting into your lungs not a handful of virus particles getting onto your hands. Have a read of this thread :
https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/sta ... 3479089154
and for something more formal :
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
Sorcery wrote:Hallucigenia wrote:
The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
Hallucigenia wrote:img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCOxqx2UcBYsDEB?format=jpg&name=small[/img]
Sorcery wrote:The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
Size
Bacteria are giants when compared to viruses. The smallest bacteria are about 0.4 micron (one millionth of a meter) in diameter while viruses range in size from 0.02 to 0.25 micron. This makes most viruses submicroscopic, unable to be seen in an ordinary light microscope. They are typically studied with an electron microscope.
GrahamPlatt wrote:When I read the OP there weren’t yet any replies. I didn’t reply because I couldn’t understand what was meant - I thought it was a form of sarcasm.
daveh wrote:The point is that the fine aerosol droplets (containing virus particles) are about the same size as bacteria, so will be stopped by a mask in the same way as the bacteria have been in the picture.
Sorcery wrote:The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
UncleEbenezer wrote:Sorcery wrote:The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
Compelling on a very limited subject that bears little resemblance to real life. And it's comparing abnormal things: how many people (other than small children) sneeze without covering the mouth/nose for the instant of the sneeze?
It doesn't account for the effects of masks on making you breathe harder. When you're panting and sweating, you're into a whole different ballgame to breathing normally (including talking or singing - and I hate to think what they call singing with a mask). And if you have the merest hint of a cough - or of the mucus that causes it - you're going to cough a whole lot more in a mask.
Neither does it account for masks worn and then left casually in so many places, like on a table in a train, rather than disposed of in a proper hospital incinerator.
servodude wrote:- but it's a really long bow to take those and extrapolate to "masks increasing transmission"
- sd
Sorcery wrote:From https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... differenceSize
Bacteria are giants when compared to viruses. The smallest bacteria are about 0.4 micron (one millionth of a meter) in diameter while viruses range in size from 0.02 to 0.25 micron. This makes most viruses submicroscopic, unable to be seen in an ordinary light microscope. They are typically studied with an electron microscope.
XFool wrote:The only thing approaching a proper controlled experiment would be two equal populations: one masked, one not.
XFool wrote:The only thing approaching a proper controlled experiment would be two equal* populations: one masked, one not.
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests