Coronavirus COVID-19 - Global Health Pandemic #57

[zecats]

Aww! I appreciate that!!

Yes indeed, as usual. And happy to see you are well.

 

[LadyL]

I think,as a species, we are going to have to innovate and evolve. I think life as we know it is over for a while, maybe forever. As billions of humans continue to encroach on natural habitats, these outbreaks will continue to occur (see ebola, HIV, zika, avian flu, nipah, MERS, SARS). Trying to deal with them all singly is like playing wack-a-mole on a world wide scale. We need to get off our pedestal and come to terms that, for once, humans need to adapt instead of continuing to rape and slaughter the natural world with nary a thought of the consequence. We got lucky this time. Next time it could be airborne ebola with a 5 day incubation period.

yes! ITA!

 

[gitana1]

Why do rich countries have such high coronavirus death tolls? - ABC News
Why do rich countries have such high coronavirus death tolls?
By chief foreign correspondent Philip Williams, Lucia Stein and Rebecca Armitage

Posted 3 hours ago
...
We have all been told of the slow responses, the lack of testing kits and shortages of personal protective gear. And, of course, Australia has been a standout success amongst the wealthy nations.

But there are some simple reasons why others in our cohort of privilege have failed so badly. According to experts, it comes down to a number of factors.

The raw figures compiled by Johns Hopkins University in the United States tell a number of stories.

But perhaps the most stark is the fact that the US, UK, Italy, France and Spain currently account for a shocking 70 per cent of all deaths.

Each of them is rich, with a sophisticated health system. And while their deadly curves are being ironed out, there is a lethal legacy already, with the threat of future waves to come.

Russia and Brazil are now threatening to join them at the top of these grim charts.

But many poorer and middle-income nations have, so far at least, largely been spared the carnage of wealthier countries.
There is no 'one size fits all' explanation — every single nation, including Australia, has its own coronavirus twists and turns — but there are some general observations that seem to make sense.

The deadly impact of international travel
...
The worst-hit countries are amongst the most mobile and are home to some of the world's busiest airports, handling hundreds of millions of passengers each year.

People in richer countries have the luxury of international travel and enjoy strong global trade links, particularly with China, where the outbreak evolved.

The affluence that allowed for this international travel undoubtedly spread the virus quickly and efficiently.

This reduced the reaction time and proved a curse for cosmopolitan cities like New York, London and Paris. Their very desirability as international centres was, in part, their downfall.

The lower levels of travel to low to middle-income countries could help explain why they were able to escape the virus, at least in the early days of the pandemic.
...
According to Professor Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist and public health specialist at the University of Melbourne, this gave them "time to prepare and do some form of physical distancing".

"[It wasn't a] silver bullet, but that extra time meant they were not as far advanced in their epidemic and they have had more ability to put control in place," he told the ABC.

"The virus got out of China and then went to close East Asian countries, and then by travel went to Europe and North America very quickly rather than, say, to India or Africa."
...
Dr Abrar Chughtai, an epidemiologist in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at UNSW Sydney, agrees that the low number of "seeding cases" could help explain why some countries have done very well so far.

"To start a pandemic you need a number of seeding cases in the community," he said.

"In Australia we don't have a high number of cases, but it happened in the US and [other countries], where they did see a high number of cases possibly due to high travel.

"So, the human travel trends might be important to look at."

But that apparent advantage for many poorer countries may rapidly disappear as the virus starts to take hold in those countries in the coming weeks.

"The chance of dying if you get the virus varies massively by age. Massively," he said.

"From nearly infinitesimally small for someone under 20 … a one in 10,000 chance [of probability of dying], and then up to north of 10 per cent, maybe even 15 per cent, if you're over 80. "

Also, low test rates and cover ups. Mass graves were dug in Brazil. A lot of people in some of those developing nations who died of pneumonia as a result of COVID were not listed as COVID deaths. Same with those who survived but needed treatment:


TIJUANA —

In cities across Mexico, morgues are full, funeral homes are jammed and crowded hospitals are turning patients away.

“My father is in a black bag in the back of that brown hearse,” said Gabriela Jacomé, a 43-year-old house-cleaner waiting outside the San Nicolás Tolentino cemetery in Mexico City on a recent morning.

Vehicles carrying COVID-19 victims were grid-locked at the entrance along a main drag marked with yellow signs warning: “High risk of contagion!”

Such scenes are difficult to square with the country’s official death toll: 4,767 as of Friday.

Government authorities have long acknowledged that many cases are not counted because they have not been confirmed by testing and just how many remains a mystery.

There are clues. A review of 120 death certificates provided by a worker at a crematorium in the northern border city of Ciudad Juárez showed a total of 63 listed “probable COVID-19" as the cause of death. Another 30 named pneumonia or other respiratory ailments often associated with coronavirus.
How many people are dying of COVID-19 in Mexico? It's hard to say

 

[gitana1]

Why do rich countries have such high coronavirus death tolls? - ABC News
Why do rich countries have such high coronavirus death tolls?
By chief foreign correspondent Philip Williams, Lucia Stein and Rebecca Armitage

Posted 3 hours ago
...
We have all been told of the slow responses, the lack of testing kits and shortages of personal protective gear. And, of course, Australia has been a standout success amongst the wealthy nations.

But there are some simple reasons why others in our cohort of privilege have failed so badly. According to experts, it comes down to a number of factors.

The raw figures compiled by Johns Hopkins University in the United States tell a number of stories.

But perhaps the most stark is the fact that the US, UK, Italy, France and Spain currently account for a shocking 70 per cent of all deaths.

Each of them is rich, with a sophisticated health system. And while their deadly curves are being ironed out, there is a lethal legacy already, with the threat of future waves to come.

Russia and Brazil are now threatening to join them at the top of these grim charts.

But many poorer and middle-income nations have, so far at least, largely been spared the carnage of wealthier countries.
There is no 'one size fits all' explanation — every single nation, including Australia, has its own coronavirus twists and turns — but there are some general observations that seem to make sense.

The deadly impact of international travel
...
The worst-hit countries are amongst the most mobile and are home to some of the world's busiest airports, handling hundreds of millions of passengers each year.

People in richer countries have the luxury of international travel and enjoy strong global trade links, particularly with China, where the outbreak evolved.

The affluence that allowed for this international travel undoubtedly spread the virus quickly and efficiently.

This reduced the reaction time and proved a curse for cosmopolitan cities like New York, London and Paris. Their very desirability as international centres was, in part, their downfall.

The lower levels of travel to low to middle-income countries could help explain why they were able to escape the virus, at least in the early days of the pandemic.
...
According to Professor Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist and public health specialist at the University of Melbourne, this gave them "time to prepare and do some form of physical distancing".

"[It wasn't a] silver bullet, but that extra time meant they were not as far advanced in their epidemic and they have had more ability to put control in place," he told the ABC.

"The virus got out of China and then went to close East Asian countries, and then by travel went to Europe and North America very quickly rather than, say, to India or Africa."
...
Dr Abrar Chughtai, an epidemiologist in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at UNSW Sydney, agrees that the low number of "seeding cases" could help explain why some countries have done very well so far.

"To start a pandemic you need a number of seeding cases in the community," he said.

"In Australia we don't have a high number of cases, but it happened in the US and [other countries], where they did see a high number of cases possibly due to high travel.

"So, the human travel trends might be important to look at."

But that apparent advantage for many poorer countries may rapidly disappear as the virus starts to take hold in those countries in the coming weeks.

"The chance of dying if you get the virus varies massively by age. Massively," he said.

"From nearly infinitesimally small for someone under 20 … a one in 10,000 chance [of probability of dying], and then up to north of 10 per cent, maybe even 15 per cent, if you're over 80. "

Also, low test rates and cover ups. Mass graves were dug in Brazil. A lot of people in some of those developing nations who died of pneumonia as a result of COVID were not listed as COVID deaths. Same with those who survived but needed treatment:


TIJUANA —

In cities across Mexico, morgues are full, funeral homes are jammed and crowded hospitals are turning patients away.

“My father is in a black bag in the back of that brown hearse,” said Gabriela Jacomé, a 43-year-old house-cleaner waiting outside the San Nicolás Tolentino cemetery in Mexico City on a recent morning.

Vehicles carrying COVID-19 victims were grid-locked at the entrance along a main drag marked with yellow signs warning: “High risk of contagion!”

Such scenes are difficult to square with the country’s official death toll: 4,767 as of Friday.

Government authorities have long acknowledged that many cases are not counted because they have not been confirmed by testing and just how many remains a mystery.

There are clues. A review of 120 death certificates provided by a worker at a crematorium in the northern border city of Ciudad Juárez showed a total of 63 listed “probable COVID-19" as the cause of death. Another 30 named pneumonia or other respiratory ailments often associated with coronavirus.
How many people are dying of COVID-19 in Mexico? It's hard to say

 

[zecats]

Even though masks are not mandated in my area I wear one anyway out of respect for others. I'm uncomfortable with the thought that I may be infected and asymptomatic/presymptomatic and possibly spreading illness to others. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience and not worth getting ones boxers/panties in a twist. We have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. IMO

In our house, we became so used to wearing masks when DH had the virus. I never went into the room to take care of him without one, def put one on when he had to go to the hospital, and then when he started coming out and rejoining us, we kept them on for quite a while. Now, it feels almost as getting into a car and driving or riding without wearing a seatbelt. I just wear one, any time I have to go out or when a delivery comes, for example.

Plus, after seeing him sick, I want no part of this illness....

 

[tmar]

Wuhan bans hunting, eating wild animals in response to coronavirus

Wuhan bans hunting, eating wild animals in response to coronavirus

Kaelan Deese
1 hour ago
...
Wuhan, the Chinese city that is thought to be ground zero for the coronavirus outbreak, has banned hunting and eating wild animals as a response to the global pandemic and in hopes of preventing future outbreaks.

Wuhan's local administration announced Wednesday that the consumption and hunting of all wild animals have been banned in the city of over 11 million people, CBS reported.

The administration declared Wuhan a "wildlife sanctuary," only allowing hunting under the exception of government-sanctioned work such as "scientific research, population regulation, monitoring of epidemic diseases and other special circumstances," the report added.
The city also said it would impose hefty restrictions on wild animal breeders, disallowing them to breed food for consumption, and even making a stance for a broader plan to eventually buy out exotic animal breeders.

 

[katydid23]

Still in preprint, but interesting.

"Conclusions Our meta-analysis does not suggest improvement in clinical progression, mortality, or viral clearance by RT PCR among patients with COVID 19 infection who are treated with hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher incidence of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine use."

Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

I think that might be true about using it on patients who have already caught the C Virus. But there is some interest in it's possible uses as a preventative medication.

 

[tmar]

Pets providing solace for some in coronavirus isolation rather than Netflix, Zoom catch-ups or long walks

Pets providing solace for some in coronavirus isolation rather than Netflix, Zoom catch-ups or long walks

Baz Ruddick
1 hour ago
...
The Ipswich Hospital Foundation (IHF) has launched a virtual pet parade, hoping it will improve the mental health of local residents.

An online form asks users to submit a photo, some basic information, and answer the question about how their pets help cope with coronavirus isolation.

IHF chief executive officer James Sturges said people were being asked how their pets had helped them with their mental health while being in lockdown.

"We thought it would be a good way to … bring those [mental health concerns] to the forefront of the Ipswich area, so we can work on how to improve the mental health of the whole region," Mr Sturges said.
...
Studies have documented the positive effect animals could have on mental wellbeing, including the creation of biochemical changes that could help to reduce stress.

"What the evidence has shown is that it assists people to have a sense of purpose and connection to their day-to-day experience," Ms Phillips said.

"Animals are often unconditional in their positive regard for people, so that gives people a sense of wellness."
...

 

[10ofRods]

While not MSM, this gives an idea of what we're up against. Worth checking out.

View attachment 247599

Karen Unhappy With Restaurant Social Distancing Policy, Unleashes Monster Cough All Over Manager

Oh, ugh. We're going to see a lot of issues in future. People have lost their minds.

 

[firebird]

"The company said it has informed the White House about that policy.

But Ford also said Tuesday, “The White House has its own safety and testing policies in place and will make its own determination” about whether Trump and his party will wear masks during the visit .

Asked Tuesday by reporters if he would wear a mask at the Ford facility, Trump at first said, “I don’t know.” “It depends. In certain areas I would,” the president said. “So, we’ll see. Where it’s appropriate, I will."

I believe the media will start to be fixated on people violating distancing orders- parties, beaches etc. This weekend will tell us a lot.

But I think I already know what we can expect for Memorial Day. There will be a tsunami of people gathering this weekend and essentially announcing to the world that they are done with worrying. This doesn't particularly worry me since the numbers so far don't spell gloom, and I believe there will be a warm weather component to suppressing the virus, as well as the natural flow of pandemics to subside and reemerge in waves.

My fear is for the second wave that is expected in the fall, which happens to also be election season in the U.S. It is pretty clear where the current divide in support or opposition to the shutdown measures lie. Actually it is blatantly clear.

I believe that in a second wave in the fall, a large segment of the U.S. population will absolutely revolt against any form of returning to a shutdown. It will get ugly on many levels (and I'm not giving an IMO on this one).

I agree 10000%

 

[Chelly]

It's unhealthy for children to be wearing masks, for hours at a time, everyday.

The new form of cheating: ''I saw Billy lift up his mask and get fresh air during the test''

OK then.....what would be the healthy alternative to children wearing masks? Children NOT wearing masks?

 

[10ofRods]

What is the Michigan attorney general going to do if he does not wear a mask? Arrest him? Good luck.

They could, I suppose, bar his way into the factory. Lock the doors, lock the gate.

That would be a strange event. I guess they could also give the workers an opportunity to meet outdoors with the president. But would Ford want to allow possibly exposed workers to go back into the factory if they didn't go get tested?

Well, we live in interesting times.

 

[anneg]

Do masks work?/Is it a violation of my constitutional rights?

Many stores and other businesses are requiring either employees or patrons or both, to wear masks.
Many states or local governments are requiring or encouraging people to wear masks when around others in public places or private businesses. Why? I have compiled some legal info (based on my personal knowledge as an attorney) and some scientific info that I researched. I hope this is of benefit.


LEGAL INFORMATION:
First, is it a violation of my rights to force me to wear a mask?

Just as there are laws that require people to wear clothes in public, or to wear seat belts in cars, helmets when on a motorcycle, etc., laws can be passed, even at the local level, especially during an emergency crisis, if the benefit to public health, safety and welfare, outweighs the liberty being denied.

However, store policies aren’t law. So shouldn’t we have the right to choose to wear a mask or not?

No. Private entities can create their own policies, like no shirt, no shoes, no service, or no pets, or even requiring people to keep their kids from roaming, etc., as long as those policies aren’t discriminatory. So they have the right to kick you out and refuse you service if you don’t abide by the policy.

But isn’t it discrimination to force me to wear a mask?

No. Unless they are only forcing a certain “protected class” to wear a mask, it is legal for them to require it.

What’s a protected class?
Gender, sex, age, race, ethnicity, religion, disability.

But I have a condition that makes wearing a mask hard or impossible for me. So aren’t they violating the ADA by requiring me to wear one?
Only if they’re not providing you with a reasonable accommodation like a personal shopper or online shopping.

If they ask me for a note to prove I have a condition that makes wearing a mask dangerous or impossible for me, isn’t that a violation of HIPAA?
No. The same way you have to show proof of disability at Disneyland to get certain accommodations, or to get a “handicapped” placard, it is not a violation of HIPAA to require proof of disability in this instance.

SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION:

But what the heck, the CDC changed it’s time about masks. So aren’t we “sheeple” for wearing them? Where is the proof that they work and why if they work did the CDC day they weren’t effective and we should not wear them?

Need to Preserve Certain Masks for Health Care Workers:​

At the beginning of this we had a run on N-95’s and surgical masks leaving front line health care workers without enough PPE’s. A case in point is a 61 year old nurse working with COVID patients who died after having contracted COVID from a patient because she rushed to give him emergency care (chest compressions) with only a surgical mask. She died 14 days after treating him, trying to save his life:

Hollywood nurse died 14 days after rushing into room to save COVID-19 patient — without an N95 mask

So initially, the CDC wanted to preserve masks for those who need them more than others.

Efficacy Depends on Type and Circumstance:​

But wait, doesn’t that prove that masks are ineffective if she got COVID awhile wearing a surgical mask?
No. Transmission of COVID19 depends on exposure to a certain amount of viral load, apparently. Surgical masks offer some protection but if a person is forcefully exhaling or spewing aerosol droplets right in your face, it might not be enough.

Study Showing No One Wearing Masks Was Infected by COVID: ​

In an investigative study in China by epidemiologists investigating an outbreak among bus passengers, tracing showed that one person infected 13 people after a four hour bus ride.

The bus was enclosed. No open windows. The person who spread the virus was feeling sick, however it was on 1-22-20, before the Chinese government had declared the virus a national emergency. The sick person was not wearing a mask.

At least one of the passengers who contracted the virus got it within 30 minutes of boarding AFTER the infected person GOT OFF the bus. That led the researchers to determine that, based on various factors, the aerosol droplets can linger for up to 30 minutes in an enclosed space.

The epidemiologists were able to determine exactly who infected whom and how far apart they were because all buses in China carry cameras and they watched everything on video and had traced the infected patients to the bus.

Importantly, people in China often wear surgical masks in public. And some did on the bus as well.

NOT ONE PERSON WEARING A MASK ON THE BUS BECAME INFECTED.

So for normal exhalations in an enclosed area, or even more forceful ones, a surgical mask may help people around the infected person.

Study Comparing N-95's and Surgical Masks During SARS:​

And of course we all have seen doctors and dentists or other medical staff wearing masks during procedures and surgeries. We’ve also seen cancer patients wearing masks and people in the hospital visiting the patient wearing masks as well. Why is that?

A 2007 study during the SARS outbreak provides some of the answers:

[In a ]study comparing the in vivo protective performance of surgical masks and N95 respirators [1] [the] authors found that N95 respirators filtered out 97% of a test aerosol while surgical masks did almost as well, filtering out 95% of the aerosol.
Methods
The authors used a KCl-fluorescein solution aerosol as a viral simulant. KCl is the test challenge aerosol recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and fluorescein was added as a visual marker to gauge the degree of KCl penetration. Each of 10 subjects (half men and half women) was tested wearing each kind of mask. The masks were fitted properly, and the subjects were tested at rest and while walking on a treadmill up to 6.4 km/hr (4 miles/hour). The KCl solution was sprayed on the mask twice every 10 minutes, for a total of 14 times, from a distance of 1 meter away using an atomizer.
The degree of filtration of the challenge aerosol was measured in two ways. First, the concentration of KCl in the 4 layers of the exposed N95 and the 3 layers of the exposed surgical mask was determined. Second, the degree of fluorescein staining on the portion of a subject’s face covered by the mask was quantified.
Results
The estimated size of the most penetrating aerosol particles reaching the mask was 0.1-0.3µm. By each method, the N95 performed significantly better than the surgical mask, but the difference was small (2%).
Droplet vs. Aerosol
Surgical masks have long been the recommended respiratory protection for diseases transmitted by large droplets (>5µ) such as plague or meningococcal meningitis. For diseases such as TB that are transmitted by small droplet aerosols, an N95 (or better) respirator or powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) with high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter is recommended. It has been generally assumed that a surgical mask provided little protection from aerosols. With SARS and influenza, both droplet and aerosol transmission may occur, although the relative importance of each is debated.
During the SARS epidemic, in most circumstances, surgical masks were effective in protecting healthcare workers (HCW) from infection. In a case-control study of five hospitals in Hong Kong affected by SARS, W. H. Seto and colleagues found that consistent use of surgical masks was associated with a significant reduction in risk of infection. In fact, of 51 HCW with documented SARS exposure while wearing a surgical mask, none became infected. In contrast, 13 of 198 exposed HCWs (6.5%) who did not wear a surgical mask or N95 were infected. [2]

Similar results were found in Toronto during the SARS outbreak, where consistent use of surgical masks reduced the risk of infection by 50% among 32 critical care nurses who entered the room of a SARS patient. Consistent use of an N95 resulted in an 80% risk reduction. [3]
The experience with the SARS epidemic clearly demonstrated a relationship between the risk of infection to HCWs and certain aerosol-generating medical procedures. The highest risk was associated with endotracheal intubation, airway suctioning, and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation[4]. In these settings, the highest degree of respiratory protection possible is warranted.

02-15-2007: Surgical Masks May Provide Significant Aerosol Protection


Emphasized by me.

This shows that when attending to a patient and walking in a room with not only droplets, but viral aerosols, a surgical masks offers the wearer protection. However when doing more invasive procedures like chest compressions, where there are forceful exhalations in the worker’s face, a surgical mask would not necessarily be enough protection.

Study of Homemade vs. Surgical Masks​

Here’s a study of cloth masks and surgical masks from 2012 which studied the efficacy of reduction in transmission of influenza from those who were wearing masks. It found that while cloth masks weren’t as effective at preventing microorganisms from spreading, both did contain a significant amount and that cloth masks were better than nothing in preventing infection BY the wearer:

“The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.”


Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic? - PubMed

Note also that the homemade masks in the study did not have any filters or other barriers in them.


But I’ve heard that COVID 19 particles are maybe smaller than other viruses or more contagious and in studies, can penetrate masks and thus masks are no use? Is that true?

Study of 4 COVID Patients and Masks​

There was a recent study of four (4) COVID19 patients that showed that the coronavirus was found on the OUTSIDE of both surgical and cloth masks when people were told to cough forcefully into the mask. This led to an indication that masks are ineffective.
New study questions the effectiveness of masks against SARS-CoV-2

However, the presence of the virus on the outside of the masks doesn’t indicate that it spread throughout the room in either droplet or aerosol form and thus that the masks do nothing to prevent transmission. Tests of the air, or distance tests were not done. And this indication is contrary to actual tests involving spread in the room and contagion by others (on a bus or healthcare workers wearing various masks).

We don’t know the exact size but in my inexpert opinion it seems it’s unlikely to be smaller than the coronavirus that caused SARS. We do know that apparently, higher viral load is what matters.

Whether Airborne or Aerosol - Conditions Seem to Matter​

There is no indication thus far that this virus is airborne in the true sense of the word. It spreads mainly by droplets. But there is evidence that aerosolized droplets can be spread by close talking or singing. The chances increase in small or poorly ventilated areas and thus higher exposure to “minimal infectious load”:

Studies of Aerosol Spread/Mask Efficacy​

Another paper, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus can remain in aerosols for at least three hours—and for several days on various surfaces—in a laboratory setting. But the amount of viable virus diminished significantly during that time. Scientists do not know the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2. (For influenza, studies have shown that just three virus particles are enough to make someone sick.)
Overall, most of the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can become airborne comes from clinical settings—which tend to have a lot of sick people and may host invasive procedures, such as intubations, that can cause patients to cough, generating aerosols. It is not clear how representative of everyday environments these areas are. “There is not much convincing evidence that aerosol spread is a major part of transmission” of COVID-19, Perlman says.

Cowling hypothesizes that many respiratory viruses can be spread through the airborne route—but that the degree of contagiousness is low. For seasonal flu, the basic reproduction number, or R0—a technical designation for the average number of a people a sick person infects—is about 1.3. For COVID-19, it is estimated to be somewhere between two and three (though possibly as high as 5.7). Compared with measles, which has an R0 in the range of 12 to 18, these values suggest most people with the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 are not extremely contagious.
But there are seeming exceptions, such as the choir practice in Washington State, Cowling says.
[The article goes on the explain that ventilation, exposure by a “super spreader”, size of the room and forcefulness/type of the exhalations can impact the contagion risk].

Cowling co-authored a study, published in early April in Nature Medicine, of patients with respiratory infections at an outpatient clinic in Hong Kong between 2013 and 2016. This research detected RNA from seasonal coronaviruses—the kind that cause colds, not COVID-19—as well as seasonal influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, in both droplets and aerosols in the patients’ exhaled breath. The paper, led by Nancy Leung, an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong’s school of public health, found that wearing surgical masks reduced the amounts of influenza RNA in droplets and of seasonal coronavirus RNA in aerosols.

Although the study did not look at COVID-19 specifically, the findings support mask wearing as an effective way to limit transmission of the virus from an infected person—known in medical parlance as source control. There is not much evidence that masks convey protection to healthy people, although it is possible (and may depend on the type of mask). Given the prevalence of asymptomatic infection with COVID-19, however, there is some justification for universal mask wearing to prevent those who do not know they are sick from infecting others. In Hong Kong, which has kept its outbreak relatively under control, masks are worn by the vast majority of the population, Cowling says.”

How Coronavirus Spreads through the Air: What We Know So Far

CDC Did Not Know That Asymptomatic Carriers Spread COVID. Now We Know
​

Evidence that COVID19 can be contracted by asymptomatic coronavirus carriers was not known when the CDC issued its statement that masks were not required. Once it was determined that asymptomatic carriers can infect others and cause them to develop COVID19, the advice changed, in regard to homemade masks.

CONCLUSION
Being required to wear a mask is not a violation of our constitutional rights.

And it appears that doing so lowers the risk of spread to the wearer and to others.

In the final analysis it appears that a cloth mask is is better than nothing in protecting the wearer from some amount of viral load. Surgical masks are three times more effective but a cloth mask does offer some protection. I thinks it’s not unreasonable to suggest that wearing a filter in the mask might protect the wearer even more.
But while surgical masks are much more effective than cloth, they don’t provide the protection of an N95 and can allow a health care provider to become infected when exposed to forceful exhalations from a sick person who is inches from their face, or maybe by being in a small space for a lengthy period in which a sick person or persons has or have been coughing, sneezing or undergoing procedures. (I have also seen that amount of time exposed also has a bearing on transmission).

N95’s provide the wearer with the most protection but as health care workers desperately need them, no one is recommending that the rest of us wear them.

Importantly, it also appears that homemade masks can protect others from being infected by the wearer. Yes, if someone forcefully coughs, virus microorganisms will be present on the front of the mask. That’s even true for surgical masks. But it seems even cloth masks can prevent the aerosolized droplets from spreading in the air around the person. It is a barrier that can protect others.

And while most won’t become sick from COVID and fewer will become seriously ill or die, this is a small inconvenience to protect some of our most vulnerable and to prevent the impact on our health care system and economy of so many people getting sick at around the same time. Those numbers add up and have devastated nations. And it will enable others to feel more confident going back out into the world of everyone does their part and follows some basic guidelines. So wearing a mask when possible, in close proximity to others, in my opinion, is both wise and ethical. It's a responsibility we should all have in a civilized society. And it just might help our economy get back on track as it will make more people comfortable venturing out if this becomes the norm for the present.

Thank you for this summary--very helpful!

 

[Chelly]

Speaking moistly? Trying to remember ... got it!
Stay the Blazes Home!

I, and others, have learned Staying the Blazes Home isn't all that bad compared to the possible consequences of being out-and-about and socializing.

 

[Runswithscissorz]

It can't be stopped, really. But what this kind of behavior (refusing to socially distance or wear masks when possible) does is keeps a huge sector of the population from being comfortable enough to go places (where they would otherwise spend money), like boardwalks, shopping malls and shops, electronics stores, hardware stores, etc. Those of us concerned about spread due to these people congregating and not wearing masks, will continue to stay away from businesses. And that hurts the economy.

Yep. I worked at a hardware store before all this started. Ended up quitting (older, at risk). I was the “paranoid one”. Until I wasn’t and more people got onboard. Except the owners who decided it was safer for them to stay away and avoid emails with questions on what the hell we should be doing and not provide PPE and not giving guidance.

Some store managers were more aware than others. All the knowledgeable employees quit, replaced by kids who can only run a register and not trained. Not ideal when most people shop at a small hardware store for the guidance.

Since I’ve been home using online & curbside shopping I’ve run into similar issues at other stores and even doctor offices. Untrained new hires who can’t help with issues.
Awesome.

 

[CSIDreamer]

OK then.....what would be the healthy alternative to children wearing masks? Children NOT wearing masks?

Face shields? I'm just thinking out loud.

I hope you dont mind me asking how your friends are?

 

[Chelly]

Even though masks are not mandated in my area I wear one anyway out of respect for others. I'm uncomfortable with the thought that I may be infected and asymptomatic/presymptomatic and possibly spreading illness to others. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience and not worth getting ones boxers/panties in a twist. We have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. IMO

Yes, yes and yes. I just may be wearing a mask the rest of my life. And if that happens, those masks will be jeweled, sequined and feathered.

 

[gitana1]

Yes, published yesterday in the CDC MMWR https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6920e2-H.pdf?deliveryName=DM28707

High COVID-19 Attack Rate Among Attendees at Events at a Church — Arkansas, March 2020

The couple (the index cases) attended church-related events during March 6–8, and devel-oped nonspecific respiratory symptoms and fever on March 10 (wife) and 11 (husband). Before his symptoms had developed, the husband attended a Bible study group on March 11. Including the index cases, 35 confirmed COVID-19 cases occurred among 92 (38%) persons who attended events held at church A during March 6–11; three patients died.

The age-specific attack rates among persons aged ≤18 years, 19–64 years, and ≥65 years were 6.3%, 59.4%, and 50.0%, respectively.

During contact tracing, at least 26 additional persons with confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified among community members who reported contact with church A attendees and likely were infected by them; one of the additional persons was hospitalized and subsequently died. This outbreak highlights the potential for widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, both at group gatherings during church events and within the broader community.

View attachment 247531

Thanks for that. Much more detailed than the article I posted.

20% of those infected needed hospitalization. That’s a lot.

 

[TMAN2014]

Except the owners who decided it was safer for them to stay away and avoid emails with questions on what the hell we should be doing and not provide PPE and not giving guidance.

LOL, that sounds familiar to me.

 

[katydid23]

World sees largest increase in CV cases yesterday

About 100,000 new cases.

Meanwhile, yesterday's deaths in the US went back up - to 1500, from around 1000 per day for the 5 day period preceding.

Coronavirus Update (Live): 5,042,133 Cases and 327,268 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

New York and New Jersey are accounting for a lesser percentage of those deaths. California's reported deaths went up by about 30% (one week after phase I reopening). But Michigan's death are now equal to California's (with 1/4th the population). Many states are seeing increases in death rates.

Arizona, alone, account for an increase of 150 deaths of the 500 increased deaths. Arkansas had an additional ~50 deaths from Monday to Tuesday. Indiana had an increase of slightly more than 100 deaths from Monday to Tuesday. Obviously, some states held steady or went down. Maryland had a big jump, but I'm wondering if that's due to some reporting artifact.

At 1500 deaths a day, that's 45,000 deaths per month. No signs of slowing as we head out of May and into June.

Rounded off, UK has now tied Italy for per million deaths (532) while the US is at 281. That means Belgium has had the most deaths (almost 800 per million of population), Spain at almost 600, with Italy and UK tied for third place on a per capita basis.

Two states (Georgia and Florida) stand accused of manipulating their data to make things seem better.

"Two states (Georgia and Florida) stand accused of manipulating their data to make things seem better."

Axed Florida scientist who 'refused to manipulate COVID data' is facing revenge and stalking charges, is 'not a data scientist' and was fired for 'insubordination', Gov. Ron De Santis says in scathing attack
Florida Gov. launches attack at data scientist who 'refused to fudge public coronavirus numbers' | Daily Mail Online

• Rebekah Jones led a team of Florida Department of Health scientists and public health officers to create and design a comprehensive COVID-19 dashboard
• She said in a May 5 email that she was fired for refusing to 'manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen'
• Speaking Wednesday DeSantis said: 'Our data is available, our data is transparent. So any insinuation otherwise is just typical partisan narrative'
• Referencing her charges for stalking an ex DeSantis said: 'I have a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment, so her supervisor dismissed her'
• The site was hailed as a great example by Dr. Deborah Birx last month
• Here’s how to help people impacted by Covid-19

Speaking alongside Vice President Mike Pence, DeSantis said: 'Our data is available, our data is transparent. So any insinuation otherwise is just typical partisan narrative trying to be spun.'

But DeSantis said: 'She is not an epidemiologist, she is not the chief architect of our web portal — that is another false statement — and what she was doing was she was putting data on the portal, which the scientists didn’t believe was valid data.'

Referencing her charges for stalking an ex DeSantis said: 'Come to find out she’s also under active criminal charges in the state of Florida.

'I have a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment, so her supervisor dismissed her because of a lot of those reasons, and it was a totally valid way, but she should have been dismissed, long before that.'