General Corona Virus Discussion

[Larry Manton]

UWE, interesting topic, and I have been gone for a while.

Okay, I'm 73, and agree with Jack, (I HATE it) be healthy and pro active.
That said got out of the army 1968 Hong Kong flu. Population of US was 200,000,000, 100,000 died in US, don't even remember anyone raising an eyebrow. Population now is 328,000,000 and about 168,000 have died and keep in mind baby boomers make up a lot of older people. Okay, simple math, divide the little number by the big one and you get a ratio. Right around .0005, picking fly shit out of pepper.

Won't bore you but are almost the same at this point with kovid 19. OKAY, could be worse without measures, but defiantly over blown. And if you look at other pandemics this is a joke. Did like the one graph, probably will die of Dengi fever before could.

Okay I feel better now, that is my 2 cents. I liked the quote from Shaw shank redemption, get on with living, or get on with dying. Ted Nugent hit it, If your afraid, stay in your house, I'm not.

And yeah, After the election either way, it will be like the war in Syria, meaning it just disappeared because the news stopped reporting it, and it is still there, but not is my point.

Larry

 

[DV52]

Here's the catch: The PCR tests that are used to count cases only look for RNA fragments, not live viruses that can infect someone. You can be totally immune (e.g. due to having had the thing several months ago, or due to T-Cell cross-immunity from some other corona virus), be exposed do this virus, have some of it end up in your nose, and test positive, despite the fact that you're not infectious. Or you can test positive many, many weeks after you've had it because your body is still shedding (non-infectious) RNA fragments out of dead cells.

-Uwe-

Uwe: - ALL valid points ( which are well made)! But, we are talking about community infection control - this is not an issue about virus transmission across individuals that may/may-not have immunity from a string of beneficial protection mechanisms in their past.

In an epidemiological environment (rather than in a laboratory), the ONLY practical mechanism for transmission control is the "scatter-gun" approach that targets the main method for contamination in the community. Yes, this principle has it's failings (as you have correctly identified), but this is very much a case of getting the most bang for your bucks (to use an American expression) in the first instance!

I'm sure that there is value in further research on the effectiveness of T-cell immunity - but until the infection numbers and the deaths come down to acceptable levels amongst citizens (defined any way that is agreed in the community), are these concerns really high priority?

Don

 

[Uwe]

Uwe: - ALL valid points ( which are well made)! But, we are talking about community infection control - this is not an issue about virus transmission across individuals that may/may-not have immunity from a string of beneficial protection mechanisms in their past.

In an epidemiological environment (rather than in a laboratory), the ONLY practical mechanism for transmission control is the "scatter-gun" approach that targets the main method for contamination in the community. Yes, this principle has it's failings (as you have correctly identified), but this is very much a case of getting the most bang for your bucks (to use an American expression) in the first instance!

The way to get the best bang for your buck is to identify individuals who are actually infectious/contagious and do so quickly, which is what PCR testing does not do well. Even the mainstream media is starting to admit this now:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

I'm sure that there is value in further research on the effectiveness of T-cell immunity - but until the infection numbers and the deaths come down to acceptable levels amongst citizens (defined any way that is agreed in the community), are these concerns really high priority?

I believe they are, because they go a long way toward addressing the question when this thing will peter out, as all such viral pandemics inevitably do.

-Uwe-

 

[Mike R]

CDC: 94% of COVID-19 deaths had underlying medical conditions


Shocking.

Doing the math:

~11200 people have died from COVID without underlying circumstances, in the US

 

[Mike R]

Want to spot the next epidemic center for outbreaks in the US? Compare percantage of new cases vs total cases in a state.

Hawaii and the Dakotas are starting to tick upward quickly now. Fortunately they have relatively low population, and in the case of the Dakotas, low density as well.

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

[h=1]Not till after the election?

Fauci predicts 'safe and effective' coronavirus vaccine by end of year[/h]
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...-coronavirus-vaccine-by-end-of-year/24608665/

 

[Larry Manton]

Huh, what are you implying here Jack?

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

Nothing it's just a news Item I saw, what do you think I'm implying?

Take your vitamin C .......

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/COVID19/IV-VitaminC-virus

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/casestudies/infectiousdisease/87976

[h=1]'Unusual' IV High-Dose Vitamin C Success Story in COVID-19[/h]

 

[BB tt]

The CDC has inadvertently reconfirmed what it has stated in nearly every study it referenced for more than fifty years prior to June 2020; that masks show no statistical reduction in the spread of viruses such as the common cold (corona) and flu.

“Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 offer little protection against wildfire smoke. They do not catch small particles found in wildfire smoke that can harm your health” . Hhhhmmmm so masks don’t catch small particles found in smoke.

According to the EPA “Particles from smoke tend to be very small - less than one micrometer in diameter. For purposes of comparison, a human hair is about 60 micrometers in diameter. Particulate matter in wood smoke has a size range of 0.4 – 0.7 micrometers”. (www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/smoke/wildgd.pdf)

SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter), and the majority of covid-19 respiratory droplets, generated my sneezing and coughing, that the masks are supposedly saving us all from are between .4 and .8 μm (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/).

So typical masks (not N95) can not filter particles in the 4-7 micron size range, and the particle size range for wuhan/corona/covid or whatever politically correct name they decide to call it next week (oh that’s right the new name is Trump Virus) for the majority of respiratory droplets the masks are supposed to be protecting everyone from are 4-8 microns. Wait the CDC just told us masks don’t work for particles in that size range, well just now and from around 1942 - June 2020.

Can we stop playing games with people’s lives now? Or do we have to wait till after the election for the media and the Democrats to tell us Wuhan virus was a figment of our imaginations just like the riots.

If wearing a mask makes you feel safe go for it more power to you, but if you really want to protect people leave your Prius or Tesla in the garage, stay home when you are ill, and wash your hands often. You know, kind of like we do every other flu season when there isn’t an election coming up.

“Come on Maaannnnn!”

 

[PetrolDave]

Particulate matter in wood smoke has a size range of 0.4 – 0.7 micrometers”. (www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/smoke/wildgd.pdf)

the majority of covid-19 respiratory droplets ... are between 4 and 8 μm (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/).

Let's look again at those numbers....

N95 masks don't block particles in the range 0.4 - 0.7 μm, but COVID-19 respiratory droplets are 4 - 8 μm i.e 10 times LARGER.

I don't see that this is proof that N95 masks won't block COVID-19 respiratory droplets?

*** EDIT *** this reply was posted when there was typo (now fixed) in the quoted post.

 

[BB tt]

Let's look again at those numbers....

N95 masks don't block particles in the range 0.4 - 0.7 μm, but COVID-19 respiratory droplets are 4 - 8 μm i.e 10 times LARGER.

I don't see that this is proof that N95 masks won't block COVID-19 respiratory droplets?

ok i will fixx my typo for you

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

General Corona Virus Discussion

-Uwe-

forums.ross-tech.com

If serious you will wear a full face respirator with ear coverage or hood otherwise you are pissing up a rope.

Additionally with no decontamination spray booth/room to remove equipment, this poses more of a risk by carbon dioxide re-circulation vs fresh oxygen than not wearing a mask at all and that is per DOD TM's!

Since the lungs are at risk for this COVID crap consider the domino affect of lack of oxygen being blocked by mask to enhance labored breathing and which stresses heart as a result, maybe oxygen added?

Best practice is to not touch face/others, wash your hands, amp up on C and D, wash clothing with bleach or diluted & stay the fuck away from everyone if you are a weak sauce.

Breathe through nose not mouth + wearing a hat to maintain heat in head and chest area is advised, since a natural reaction is for the body to offset cold air with mucus generated.
Unfortunately the formation of mucus becomes an incubator pee pee-tre-dish for contaminates for mouth breathers.

 

[PetrolDave]

ok i will fixx my typo for you

That makes more sense now, since both the smoke particles and the COVID-19 respiratory droplets are the same size (0.4 - 0.7/0.8 μm).

Thanks for correcting the typo!

 

[Uwe]

Let's look again at those numbers....

N95 masks don't block particles in the range 0.4 - 0.7 μm, but COVID-19 respiratory droplets are 4 - 8 μm i.e 10 times LARGER.

I don't see that this is proof that N95 masks won't block COVID-19 respiratory droplets?

N95 masks would indeed be fairly effective, but N95 masks are:

• very uncomfortable to wear
• difficult to get a proper seal with (pretty much impossible if you're male and haven't had a close shave within the last few hours)
• still almost unobtanium here in the US.

Moreover, the the article that @BB tt specifically referenced "Cloth masks" which are what most people are using here. Those are utterly ineffective at protecting the wearer from anything, as are the cheap disposable surgical masks that are the commonly available alternative. Surgical masks filter better than cloth, but they don't seal at all. The only thing that readily available (non-N95) masks accomplish is to reduce the velocity of one's exhalations, and thus the distance that droplets spread. There are a number of videos of people using vapes to demonstrate this. Reducing the distance that exhaled droplets travel may have some value when people are close together in a calm-air, indoor environment.

 

[Bruce]

From everything I read on the mask subject relating to Corona Virus, they were recommended not as a help to the wearer - they were intended to limit the effect of spittle reaching others. Wearing a mask is giving consideration to others rather than protecting oneself. They do little to nothing to help the wearer keep the nasties away. As Uwe wrote, they limit the distance fine particles that could be carrying the infection travel when one breathes or speaks. That is all the mask does. It is only really effective indoors and or in close proximity to others.

 

[Mike@Gendan]

From everything I read on the mask subject relating to Corona Virus, they were recommended not as a help to the wearer - they were intended to limit the effect of spittle reaching others. Wearing a mask is giving consideration to others rather than protecting oneself. They do little to nothing to help the wearer keep the nasties away. As Uwe wrote, they limit the distance fine particles that could be carrying the infection travel when one breathes or speaks. That is all the mask does. It is only really effective indoors and or in close proximity to others.

I find this sums up the idea quite well:

https://imgur.com/a/WKL3v6M

 

[BB tt]

From everything I read on the mask subject relating to Corona Virus, they were recommended not as a help to the wearer - they were intended to limit the effect of spittle reaching others. Wearing a mask is giving consideration to others rather than protecting oneself. They do little to nothing to help the wearer keep the nasties away. As Uwe wrote, they limit the distance fine particles that could be carrying the infection travel when one breathes or speaks. That is all the mask does. It is only really effective indoors and or in close proximity to others.

Yes that is what they started saying in June of this year but nearly every study the cdc referenced from ~1942 until this year said masks were ineffective at reducing the transmission of infectious diseases outside of the clinical environment (i.e. lab, medical facility) this included a two year study in Japan where people wear mask if if they think they may start to get sick. Again if it makes you feel good wear a mask but for the most part the only thing it is doing is making you feel good.

 

[Andy]

Here's an update from my county (where RTHQ is located too), population 830,000 as of 2019. New cases seem to hover around 40 per day and have been that way since mid-June. None of the big events (Memorial Day, Independence Day, etc) appear to have caused meaningful spikes. Deaths that skyrocketed at the peak (nearly all nursing home residents) have tapered off so much that many days there are zero. In the past month we went from 811 to 829 deaths or just over 1 every 2 days.

Data source: https://data-montcopa.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/covid-19

 

[DV52]

hooooweeeee.......... Down here in the very deep south (in Melbourne Victoria - which is on the South East coast of Australia) , the daily numbers following our second wave have fallen to just 39 with no new deaths recorded since yesterday. This is the first time Victoria has not recorded any COVID-19 deaths in the previous 24-hour period since 13 July. 2020.

Today’s 14 daily average case number for metropolitan Melbourne is 52.9. So we are fast approaching the magic number 50 - which is the threshold for considering the removal of our "stage 4" restrictions!

Don