Coronavirus

[Denny Crane]

Not sure if this has been posted but definantly worth taking your time to read.

 

Covers backward tracing, antigen testing superspreaders and overdispersion.

 

A snippet.

 

It’s not always the restrictiveness of the rules, but whether they target the right dangers. As Morris put it, “Japan’s commitment to ‘cluster-busting’ allowed it to achieve impressive mitigation with judiciously chosen restrictions. Countries that have ignored super-spreading have risked getting the worst of both worlds: burdensome restrictions that fail to achieve substantial mitigation. The U.K.’s recent decision to limit outdoor gatherings to six people while allowing pubs and bars to remain open is just one of many such examples.”

Could we get back to a much more normal life by focusing on limiting the conditions for super-spreading events, aggressively engaging in cluster-busting, and deploying cheap, rapid mass tests—that is, once we get our case numbers down to low enough numbers to carry out such a strategy? (Many places with low community transmission could start immediately.) Once we look for and see the forest, it becomes easier to find our way out

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Some coincidence that the city he and his party have had it in for since fuck knows when is first to suffer the toughest restrictions.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence, if they’re doing everything by feedback then it makes sense to give it to the people this shithole countries populace has a chip on its shoulder about. 

[Bruce Spanner]

20 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

It looks like they're pushing the responsibility onto councils. Unless the councils get the resources they need, they're not going to lock down further.

Yup, it’s all political.

 

Councils will get enough to look incompetent, this will be being paid back for years, the government say ‘I told you so’ just in time for them to say there’s fuck all left In the tin as they’ve wasted it/we have a vaccine we’re your saviours.

 

So fucking transparent! 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

How do you use a mask wrongly?

 

By not following the (lengthy) list of instructions? The way you fasten it onto your face; the way you remove it; you're not supposed to touch it while you're wearing it. Etc.

 

51 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Agree - the mask I wear is a 95 style. You can use them for a few days. They are like 2 bucks each. That said "surgical" masks which are regularly used by docs and nurses are the cheap throwaway ones. The environment they are in has nothing to do with their effectiveness.

 

Environment definitely matters. It's pissing down here right now. If I'm walking from shop to shop, I can either remove my mask in the rain (bearing in mind you're not supposed to touch your mask while it's on) or I can leave it on and it gets soaked - that is to say, even more soaking than it gets through normal use when I'm panting hot, wet air into it like an asthmatic mastiff.

[Denny Crane]

If anyone is interested in the antigen testing a quick listen here. Cheap tests for all that are widely available. 

 

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

7 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Environment definitely matters. It's pissing down here right now. If I'm walking from shop to shop, I can either remove my mask in the rain (bearing in mind you're not supposed to touch your mask while it's on) or I can leave it on and it gets soaked - that is to say, even more soaking than it gets through normal use when I'm panting hot, wet air into it like an asthmatic mastiff.

Sorry but no. A wet 95 mask will be more effective than a wet surgical mask which will be more effective than a wet sock which will be more effective than nothing.

 

Wet mask uncomfortable-yes, more difficult to breathe through - yes.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Sorry but no. A wet 95 mask will be more effective than a wet surgical mask which will be more effective than a wet sock which will be more effective than nothing.

 

Wet mask uncomfortable-yes, more difficult to breathe through - yes.

 

Even the pro-mask studies (eg Duke University) say that some masks are worse than no mask. Moisture will compromise them even more.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Even the pro-mask studies (eg Duke University) say that some masks are worse than no mask. Moisture will compromise them even more.

Feel free to link those - would be interested.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Feel free to link those - would be interested.

 

Here's an article on the Duke one

 

https://olv.duke.edu/news/researchers-created-a-test-to-determine-which-masks-are-the-least-effective/

 

Neck fleeces, also called gaiter masks and often used by runners, were the least effective. In fact, wearing a fleece mask resulted in a higher number of respiratory droplets because the material seemed to break down larger droplets into smaller particles that are more easily carried away with air. Folded bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly and did not offer much protection. “We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask,” Fischer said.

[TheHowieLama]

@Stront19m Dog™

 

Neck fleeces

 

Mate, we have already agreed those are not masks.

 

Why is there no mention of the wet masks you alluded to? You were talking about environment.

[Rico1304]

 

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Here's an article on the Duke one

 

https://olv.duke.edu/news/researchers-created-a-test-to-determine-which-masks-are-the-least-effective/

 

 

 

Final paragraph in that article. 
 

This is a very powerful visual tool to raise awareness that a very simple masks, like these homemade cotton masks, do really well to stop the majority of these respiratory droplets," Fischer said. "Companies and manufacturers can set this up and test their mask designs before producing them, which would also be very useful."

[Anubis]

28 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

If anyone is interested in the antigen testing a quick listen here. Cheap tests for all that are widely available. 

 

 

 

 

Interesting listen. And only 20 minutes long. Mad that you have something that could be so readily available that would help in dealing with outbreaks.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Haven't you got it yet? It's just about being right and anything posted is just about making sure what is said is right. A scarf over the face is not a mask and any suggestion that it is, is simply made up. 

[mattyq]

 

[Strontium]

21 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

@Stront19m Dog™

 

Neck fleeces

 

Mate, we have already agreed those are not masks.

 

Why is there no mention of the wet masks you alluded to? You were talking about environment.

 

They're masks under the law of the United Kingdom, and are worn by millions.

 

Have you really managed to miss the dozens of news articles in the past few days about wet masks?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

How do you use a mask wrongly? Also, don't make out like everyone is wearing a snood in the shops. They aren't. 

Pretty much everyone I've seen has some form of mask, as opposed to a snood. I used to have a snood and bought masks when I discovered that snoods weren't as effective as masks. 

 

To go from masks to snoods in an argument is another case of that now infamous goalpost shifting. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

They're masks under the law of the United Kingdom, and are worn by millions.

 

Have you really managed to miss the dozens of news articles in the past few days about wet masks?

Just stop it. Millions. What a load of tripe.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

They're masks under the law of the United Kingdom, and are worn by millions.

 

Have you really managed to miss the dozens of news articles in the past few days about wet masks?

If you say so. I think you know what was being discussed.

 

Must have, I live in the States - you were going to link one.

[Guest]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

If you say so. I think you know what was being discussed.

 

Must have, I live in the States - you were going to link one.

Good luck with that...

 

[Bruce Spanner]

Can’t wait for the arguing about former pandemics sub forum.

 

[TheHowieLama]

To be fair he gets it from all angles on here.

 

Don't worry Strontsie - these lads have your back - although ironically some seem to be masked up:

 

 

 

Brooklyn's Anti Mask Movement

 

Heshy Tischler, a city council candidate and activist in the Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of Borough Park, was taken into custody on Sunday evening in connection with his actions during a 7 October street protest.

Video shows a crowd of men surrounding, jostling and taunting Jewish Insider reporter Jacob Kornbluh, who has been covering resistance to social distancing in the neighborhood.

Tischler, who was not wearing a mask, can be seen screaming in Kornbluh’s face. Kornbluh, also an Orthodox Jew, said he was struck and kicked during the incident.

[Strontium]

12 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

If you say so. I think you know what was being discussed.

 

Must have, I live in the States - you were going to link one.

 

I don't know what to say. Face coverings are face coverings. They're all legal here. Loads of people wear bandanas, snoods, homemade and other cloth masks, etc.

 

I was pretty sure you had the WHO in the USA? And you definitely have Google. No worries.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/face-mask-rain-coronavirus-winter-damp-wet-who-b828559.html

 

Quote

Face masks can become less effective when worn in the rain, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and scientists have warned.

The health group and a number of experts have stated that face coverings must be replaced if they become damp and urged government officials to provide the public with “clear advice” about wearing masks during wet weather.

[Champ]

2 hours ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was some government cunt on sky news this morning with Kay Burley. One of the questions she asked him was how did they arrive at the decision to close restaurants. His answer was they're using evidence that America gave them.

 

Seems very odd.

And what ‘evidence’ was that we all wonder

[Champ]

4 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Shut up you girl 

Damien!