Jump to content
Voice of Reason

Coronavirus Courtesy

Recommended Posts

I have been in Kroger, Wal-Mart and Target since Friday. In all three places people wearing masks outweighed those not wearing them by at least 3 to 1.

 

I'd say it's around 50-50 at our closest Walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All in the Louisville Metro area?

 

Yes. Middletown to be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to Home Depot Saturday in Cold Spring. I'd say 33% masks to 66% no mask. Now if you'd like to get into correct mask wearing procedures, then that would take that percentage down to probably 80% non mask and 20% mask... and that probably on the generous side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it has been mentioned here. Costco is mask only - employees and customers. As of May 4 a mask is required to shop at Costco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO - mask only needed by healthy people if they are caring for someone infected, sneezing and coughing (I would argue you should stay home if that is case).

 

When and how to use masks

 

 

From above:

 

 

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHO - mask only needed by healthy people if they are caring for someone infected, sneezing and coughing (I would argue you should stay home if that is case).

 

When and how to use masks

 

 

From above:

 

 

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

 

Which contradicts information in their own Q&A. It appears to be because the WHO draws a distinction between a medical mask and a non-medical mask and the way in which they switch between them is unclear on the site.

 

Q&A: Masks and COVID-19

 

"WHO recognizes that there are many questions about the use of face masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in the community, and that many countries are recommending that people wear them. Wearing a medical mask can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. However, the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection. Other measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene should be adopted."

 

Regarding use of non-medical masks:

"Although their protective effectiveness to the wearer is unknown, they may protect others if the wearer is a pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic carrier."

 

The WHO's position has been the same for months: they won't take a position on questions involving non-medical masks for the general public.

 

The CDC has done so and recommends masking in situations where social distancing is difficult or impossible.

 

How to Protect Yourself & Others | CDC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which contradicts information in their own Q&A. It appears to be because the WHO draws a distinction between a medical mask and a non-medical mask and the way in which they switch between them is unclear on the site.

 

Q&A: Masks and COVID-19

 

"WHO recognizes that there are many questions about the use of face masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in the community, and that many countries are recommending that people wear them. Wearing a medical mask can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. However, the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection. Other measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene should be adopted."

 

Regarding use of non-medical masks:

"Although their protective effectiveness to the wearer is unknown, they may protect others if the wearer is a pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic carrier."

 

The WHO's position has been the same for months: they won't take a position on questions involving non-medical masks for the general public.

 

The CDC has done so and recommends masking in situations where social distancing is difficult or impossible.

 

How to Protect Yourself & Others | CDC

 

I thought this was new news since it was specific who should (and my implication should not) need a mask.

 

I still do not like the CDC logic on this since it assume lots of hyper-contagious, completely asymptomatic carriers and assumes the mask actually do something of practical good in public settings - something never proven or scientifically demonstrated.

 

Originally, the panic over completely asymptomatic carriers was triggered by a sole study - that was found to be flawed since the original never talked to the one patient attributed to being a completely asymptomatic carrier. When in fact she was show definite signs of illness.

 

Article:

 

Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed | Science | AAAS

 

Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”

 

...

 

“During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.”

But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, RKI and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)

 

And then there is the study - that cites an asymptomatic carrier (not sure if totally asymptomatic) that apparently did not infect any of the 455 people who they came in contact with.

 

A Study on Infectivity of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Carriers - PubMed

 

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

 

As with even the first study this seems rushed - and its also from China - and it uses words like 'some', 'might' and 'weak'.

 

Bottom line - asymptomatic, public transmission is not at all the issue - based on evidence - that warrants public masks, IMHO. But the CDC is the last word, regardless of their track record to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this was new news since it was specific who should (and my implication should not) need a mask.

 

I still do not like the CDC logic on this since it assume lots of hyper-contagious, completely asymptomatic carriers and assumes the mask actually do something of practical good in public settings - something never proven or scientifically demonstrated.

 

Originally, the panic over completely asymptomatic carriers was triggered by a sole study - that was found to be flawed since the original never talked to the one patient attributed to being a completely asymptomatic carrier. When in fact she was show definite signs of illness.

 

Article:

 

Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed | Science | AAAS

 

Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”

 

...

 

“During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.”

But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, RKI and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)

 

And then there is the study - that cites an asymptomatic carrier (not sure if totally asymptomatic) that apparently did not infect any of the 455 people who they came in contact with.

 

A Study on Infectivity of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Carriers - PubMed

 

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

 

As with even the first study this seems rushed - and its also from China - and it uses words like 'some', 'might' and 'weak'.

 

Bottom line - asymptomatic, public transmission is not at all the issue - based on evidence - that warrants public masks, IMHO. But the CDC is the last word, regardless of their track record to now.

 

The novel virus is so new that information is changing by the day. They initially thought it more similar to the SARS-CoV-1 virus that China pretty well contained during that outbreak. It's proven to be a more difficult beast.

 

The most recent thing I've read was an editorial in yesterday's [EDIT: republished from April] New England Journal that's trying to make sense of the limited studies we currently have of asymptomatic transmission. It concluded with a recommendation for masking, but the editorial itself is rightly centered on skilled nursing facilities and the additional precautions needed there that exceed our current standards.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758

Edited by Getslow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is on here or not but just FYI.

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020:

 

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The novel virus is so new that information is changing by the day. They initially thought it more similar to the SARS-CoV-1 virus that China pretty well contained during that outbreak. It's proven to be a more difficult beast.

 

The most recent thing I've read was an editorial in yesterday's [EDIT: republished from April] New England Journal that's trying to make sense of the limited studies we currently have of asymptomatic transmission. It concluded with a recommendation for masking, but the editorial itself is rightly centered on skilled nursing facilities and the additional precautions needed there that exceed our current standards.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758

 

The virus RNA is novel. But at the end of the day - its a well-known mechanical structure that is not really novel at all and it certainly seems to be coming out that this thing mechanically transmits and moves around like other viruses. It just does not seem to have new or magic powers that should create long term, radical changes to our way of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The virus RNA is novel. But at the end of the day - its a well-known mechanical structure that is not really novel at all and it certainly seems to be coming out that this thing mechanically transmits and moves around like other viruses. It just does not seem to have new or magic powers that should create long term, radical changes to our way of living.

 

There has been suggestion that the higher rates of transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 over its obvious comparison, SARS-CoV-1, is that it replicates more in the upper respiratory tract than its predecessor, which located itself primarily in the lower respiratory tract. They discuss it in the article I posted above. I think that was something of a surprise early on and may have hampered early responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all still complaining about wearing masks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if this is on here or not but just FYI.

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020:

 

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

 

So we have doctors in Column A that suggest masking will help slow spread. And we have doctors in Column B that say they're not particularly helpful.

 

Where does that leave us?

 

A pragmatic approach suggests erring on the side of caution while studies continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we have doctors in Column A that suggest masking will help slow spread. And we have doctors in Column B that say they're not particularly helpful.

 

Where does that leave us?

 

A pragmatic approach suggests erring on the side of caution while studies continue.

 

That's the approach I'm taking.

 

At the same time, the mixed messages really make it difficult for people, myself included, who are very impatient and want definitive answers yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.