wuhan - coronavirus

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not sure.  I can’t find anything recent on it.  I thought there were some concerns about accuracy back when they started using them but maybe it was false positives which is less bad than false negatives.

It was discussed on the TWIV podcast, but I can’t remember all the details. My understanding, from what I heard, was that the rapid test was likely to have false positives, but if you tested positive a further test should be done to confirm, either the same type or another kind. The early PCR test definitely had a high number of false negatives.

[Ausmumof3]

So 15 cases for Vic today.  They had quite a big drop but getting down further seems to be really hard to achieve for some reason.  NSW had no community transmission but 11 cases in hotel quarantine (most days there’s a few but that’s quite high to manage).  We have two new hotel quarantine cases here today.  This is purely surmise because I don’t have any data supporting it but I know they were trying to accelerate getting the rest of Australians back home so they can bring international students in.  It may be that we’re having more entries at the moment.

[Ausmumof3]

Not strictly Covid related but this is kind of fun

https://today.law.harvard.edu/the-snack-box-challenge/

Harvard law students who can’t meet in person due to Covid are sending each other snack boxes from their countries of origin as a way of connecting.

[RootAnn]

I know some people have said that they are supposed to wait 5 days between potential exposure & testing since earlier testing could give a false negative. So, if Saturday was exposure, Thursday testing positive sounds plausible with the idea that there wasn't enough viral material for a positive on Monday or Tuesday.

I have noted that the local college seems to have dropped their testing push & another college in dd#1's university system has slowed their sentinel testing way down. Less positives but less testing whuch I assume would rebound if the college students are still acting the same.

[Ausmumof3]

Three cases of community transmission in NSW today after a few days without.  Disappointing.  Testing is down in NSW as well unfortunately.  Vic was down to just six cases today.

[Ausmumof3]

So it sounds like it initially Covid was detected in wastewater in NSW in areas without known cases first and then the three were uncovered.  Seems like a good indicator for waste water surveillance programs being helpful.

[Pen]

12 hours ago, RootAnn said:

I know some people have said that they are supposed to wait 5 days between potential exposure & testing since earlier testing could give a false negative. So, if Saturday was exposure, Thursday testing positive sounds plausible with the idea that there wasn't enough viral material for a positive on Monday or Tuesday.

I have noted that the local college seems to have dropped their testing push & another college in dd#1's university system has slowed their sentinel testing way down. Less positives but less testing whuch I assume would rebound if the college students are still acting the same.

 

I think people in government at White House have had potential exposures many/most days.  I think it is more like my relatives in HCW where any day can be an exposure event and quarantine for 14 days after any potential exposure is absurd or they’d be in to work for perhaps an hour then out for 14 days, in for another hour or so, out for 14 days... And less like my situation where I have relatively few potential exposure dates. 

The Rose Garden/ACB Nomination  looks like it may have been a spreader event looking back based on presence there of people now having tested positive. I doubt that it was seen at the time as about to be an exposure event  which should drive getting tested 5 days later. 

[RootAnn]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

The Rose Garden/ACB Nomination  looks like it may have been a spreader event looking back based on presence there of people now having tested positive. I doubt that it was seen at the time as about to be an exposure event  which should drive getting tested 5 days later. 

Sorry I wasn't clear, @Pen. I meant that if the President had been tested earlier in the week, say, Monday, that there might not have been enough COVID in his nasal passages to get a posotovevtest if he'd been infected on Saturday. Thus, he could have tested early in the week & legitimately been negative. (Kind of a false too early negative.) Note that no one has said he actually had a test early in the week.

[ktgrok]

On 10/3/2020 at 7:04 PM, freesia said:

This is great!

I'm not a singer myself, but would be happy to know if it was safe to go to church where others are singing, masked. 

On 10/3/2020 at 11:58 PM, Pen said:

 

Cv19 higher Risk inheritance from Neanderthals: 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

 

Great - supposedly I have a highr than average amount of neanterthal DNA. 

10 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I think people in government at White House have had potential exposures many/most days.  I think it is more like my relatives in HCW where any day can be an exposure event and quarantine for 14 days after any potential exposure is absurd or they’d be in to work for perhaps an hour then out for 14 days, in for another hour or so, out for 14 days... And less like my situation where I have relatively few potential exposure dates. 

 

ONLY because they are being careless about precautions! HCW are seeing sick people, and can't do their job remotely. And are wearing significant PPE. 

The politicians are not wearing PPE, and could do much of their job remotely, and certainly can do it while following social distancing norms. A doctor needs to get close to me to look in my ears or at my throat. A politician does NOT have to hug and kiss people, unmasked. They just don't. 

They could be wearing masks and distancing in the white house like most working Americans are doing. They just don't want the inconvenience. 

And given that CDC and health department guidelines say to avoid crowds, there was no need to host a party to celebrate the nomination of a justice. Especially indoors, unmasked. 

If they were all following the protocols laid out for ordinary americans they would not be at higher risk of exposure. 

[Pen]

 

Quote

HCW are seeing sick people, and can't do their job remotely. And are wearing significant PPE. 

Not entirely.

I know personally (or indirectly by a degree of separation know of) some who were using what PPE they reasonably could as soon as they understood there was a pandemic, well before mandated in their area or hospital. 

I also know (or by a degree of remoteness know of) some who used none till mandated and thence go with minimum legally able to get away with because of a firm belief that the up close and personal and emotional connection of faces is also important to their patients’ health and well-being. And interestingly to me, it seems at least partly related to field of practice and views on “health” and “healing” rather than what I know of their politics (it seems like the more surgical and single body part or organ focus the more PPE, the more holistic or psychiatric a focus the less PPE, in these people of my acquaintance or degree removed—none specifically on a CV19 ward, but any could encounter it).  

 It is only a small anecdotal sample, yet includes a couple of people whose intelligence and medical knowledge I respect, and was enough to have made me stop and rethink my own position. 

 

 

[Joker]

https://www.wthr.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/lilly-seeks-emergency-use-of-its-antibody-drug-for-covid-19/507-cefa26c1-beac-4f03-9da1-309d4818b138

Eli Lilly has been working on the same type of antibody drug Trump was given and is seeking approval now to use it.

[Pen]

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-16996-1_6

about immunity and emotions affecting immunity  (Positive emotions and human connection seeming to hugely help the immune system ...) 

“Immunity” does not necessarily mean not contracting an illness at all, but can include mounting a good balanced immune response that gets rid of the pathogenic invader and allows antibodies to be developed (without triggering a dangerous overly strong immune response - cytokine storm, Bradykinin storm etc.). 

It could be as important as Vitamin D .  

Because it may tend to be supportive of what went on at WH for SCOTUS celebrations and other such meetings and events, this may look like I am having a position flip — I am not.   I am just looking more deeply into a large other emerging area of what appears to be important health and immunology knowledge and research!

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Pen

[Matryoshka]

22 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-16996-1_6

about immunity and emotions affecting immunity  (Positive emotions and human connection seeming to hugely help the immune system ...) 

“Immunity” does not necessarily mean not contracting an illness at all, but can include mounting a good balanced immune response that gets rid of the pathogenic invader and allows antibodies to be developed (without triggering a dangerous overly strong immune response - cytokine storm, Bradykinin storm etc.). 

It could be as important as Vitamin D .  

Because it may tend to be supportive of what went on at WH for SCOTUS celebrations and other such meetings and events, this may look like I am having a position flip — I am not.   I am just looking more deeply into a large other emerging area of what appears to be important health and immunology knowledge and research!

 

I don't disagree that a positive emotional state likely helps your body build a healthier immune response.  BUT for me, at least, seeing someone's happy, welcoming face (inside, in a room, getting too close to me) in the middle of a deadly pandemic where said welcoming face could well be spewing deadly virus particles at me does not make me feel calm or welcomed or give me positive emotions, but increases my anxiety and flight or fight response.   So I'm not sure if this carries over in a time of an airborne pandemic.  Sure, people who are in total denial that this thing is real or applies to them might still be calmed by happy bare faces.  But I don't think that we should be setting public health policy on the feelings of people who are denying reality or overly convinced of their own magical invulnerability rather than the scientific reality that if someone infected (quite possibly a- or pre-symptomatic) and shedding virus, their smiling at you in a friendly, empathic manner is going to cause your body to mount an warm and fuzzy immune response impressive enough to prevent you from catching the virus.

I am indeed happy to see people's faces while outside, from far away (not backyard mingling), or over Zoom.  But getting close and chatty?  Much calmer and happier (apparently = healthier immune response) when you cover up.

The proof of that is in that WH superspreader event.  Everyone was calm and happy to be there, apparently, with no worries.  Still infected dozens (so far).  Masking and distancing would have been more effective in preventing spread than warm and fuzzies from everyone smiling at each other.

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I don't disagree that a positive emotional state likely helps your body build a healthier immune response.  BUT for me, at least, seeing someone's happy, welcoming face (inside, in a room, getting too close to me) in the middle of a deadly pandemic where said welcoming face could well be spewing deadly virus particles at me does not make me feel calm or welcomed or give me positive emotions, but increases my anxiety and flight or fight response.   So I'm not sure if this carries over in a time of an airborne pandemic.  Sure, people who are in total denial that this thing is real or applies to them might still be calmed by happy bare faces.  But I don't think that we should be setting public health policy on the feelings of people who are denying reality or overly convinced of their own magical invulnerability rather than the scientific reality that if someone infected (quite possibly a- or pre-symptomatic) and shedding virus, their smiling at you in a friendly, empathic manner is going to cause your body to mount an warm and fuzzy immune response impressive enough to prevent you from catching the virus.

I am indeed happy to see people's faces while outside, from far away (not backyard mingling), or over Zoom.  But getting close and chatty?  Much calmer and happier (apparently = healthier immune response) when you cover up.

 

 

Well, I am using a mask myself.

And I find emotions pretty easy to discern from eyes (maybe easier; mouth position is easier to fake for many people)!

 

 

[Matryoshka]

Just now, Pen said:

Well, I am using a mask myself.

And I find emotions pretty easy to discern from eyes (maybe easier; mouth position is easier to fake for many people)!

Didn't doubt that you were!  Just responding to the article, which again, I don't disagree with if we're talking about colds and other viruses that aren't going to possibly kill us or others we could pass it on to.

And yeah, I apparently don't rely that much on what people's mouths are doing?  I can also see a smile in the eyes, also rely on voice tone much more that what the lower half of people's faces are doing.  I've really not been much bothered by it, less than I would have expected, honestly.

[Pen]

https://youtu.be/QkkxuUXtpjQ

UCSF grand rounds - deals with issues related to WH outbreak and Trump care with more of a medical view than political (though probably people cannot help underlying political views having some effect on how they think, even if small ... some unconscious bias I would expect) and more important from my POV maybe is they have some discussion about what we can learn from it. 

[Pen]

DrBeen had an imo interesting discussion of turmeric / curcumin last night, particularly related to CV19. 

[Bootsie]

37 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I don't disagree that a positive emotional state likely helps your body build a healthier immune response.  BUT for me, at least, seeing someone's happy, welcoming face (inside, in a room, getting too close to me) in the middle of a deadly pandemic where said welcoming face could well be spewing deadly virus particles at me does not make me feel calm or welcomed or give me positive emotions, but increases my anxiety and flight or fight response.   So I'm not sure if this carries over in a time of an airborne pandemic.  Sure, people who are in total denial that this thing is real or applies to them might still be calmed by happy bare faces.  But I don't think that we should be setting public health policy on the feelings of people who are denying reality or overly convinced of their own magical invulnerability rather than the scientific reality that if someone infected (quite possibly a- or pre-symptomatic) and shedding virus, their smiling at you in a friendly, empathic manner is going to cause your body to mount an warm and fuzzy immune response impressive enough to prevent you from catching the virus.

I am indeed happy to see people's faces while outside, from far away (not backyard mingling), or over Zoom.  But getting close and chatty?  Much calmer and happier (apparently = healthier immune response) when you cover up.

The proof of that is in that WH superspreader event.  Everyone was calm and happy to be there, apparently, with no worries.  Still infected dozens (so far).  Masking and distancing would have been more effective in preventing spread than warm and fuzzies from everyone smiling at each other.

 

I don't know that I would be "calm" and "no worries" if I were at an event in the White House rose garden.  

[Matryoshka]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I don't know that I would be "calm" and "no worries" if I were at an event in the White House rose garden.  

😅 Well, likely very true for the likes of you and me who do not mingle in those spheres, but seems most of the folks actually there were regular attendees at such events and generally at the WH and for them it was just another day at the WH...

[Pen]

 

Some news

 

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-10-07-20-intl/index.html

 

Canada at weekly high; someone in Calif Governor Gavin Newsome’s office tests positive

 

 

Paris and London

https://youtu.be/ulTlNwLWffI

lockdown level increase bars close in Paris tomorrow    London ?

 

Canada 

 

 

[kbutton]

10 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

I don't disagree that a positive emotional state likely helps your body build a healthier immune response.  BUT for me, at least, seeing someone's happy, welcoming face (inside, in a room, getting too close to me) in the middle of a deadly pandemic where said welcoming face could well be spewing deadly virus particles at me does not make me feel calm or welcomed or give me positive emotions, but increases my anxiety and flight or fight response.   So I'm not sure if this carries over in a time of an airborne pandemic.  Sure, people who are in total denial that this thing is real or applies to them might still be calmed by happy bare faces.  But I don't think that we should be setting public health policy on the feelings of people who are denying reality or overly convinced of their own magical invulnerability rather than the scientific reality that if someone infected (quite possibly a- or pre-symptomatic) and shedding virus, their smiling at you in a friendly, empathic manner is going to cause your body to mount an warm and fuzzy immune response impressive enough to prevent you from catching the virus.

I am seeing/hearing people talk about how smiling is now illegal (because if someone can see your smile, you must not have a mask on). Masks are dehumanizing is another line. It really, really irks me, and I can't help but feel it's not just a disagreement, it's purposefully disingenuous but also a catchy phrase that people will latch onto without deeper thought.

10 hours ago, Pen said:

And I find emotions pretty easy to discern from eyes (maybe easier; mouth position is easier to fake for many people)!

Yes! I hear people complain they don't recognize people with the masks, but I think it's much easier to recognize someone in a mask than it is to recognize someone wearing sunglasses. I imagine some people look at mouths and some at eyes, but still, it's as if people who are crabby about mask wearing have never given other similar things we do a second thought. 

I think the next time someone says they find masks dehumanizing, I am going to assert that sunglasses make people look like giant bugs, lol! And rant about how I am sick of seeing bug faces on sunny days. 

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I am seeing/hearing people talk about how smiling is now illegal (because if someone can see your smile, you must not have a mask on). Masks are dehumanizing is another line. It really, really irks me, and I can't help but feel it's not just a disagreement, it's purposefully disingenuous but also a catchy phrase that people will latch onto without deeper thought.

Yes! I hear people complain they don't recognize people with the masks, but I think it's much easier to recognize someone in a mask than it is to recognize someone wearing sunglasses. I imagine some people look at mouths and some at eyes, but still, it's as if people who are crabby about mask wearing have never given other similar things we do a second thought. 

I think the next time someone says they find masks dehumanizing, I am going to assert that sunglasses make people look like giant bugs, lol! And rant about how I am sick of seeing bug faces on sunny days. 

I'm starting to think I must have some kind of superpowers,  because I've had zero trouble recognizing people in masks, which speaking of superpowers makes the silly masks in the comics even more suspect. Or maybe they and you are onto something that it's the upper part of the face that's more distinct? Who knows. But honestly,  I'm surprised at how easy it's been - especially when I often can't remember people's names half the time...

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I'm starting to think I must have some kind of superpowers,  because I've had zero trouble recognizing people in masks, which speaking of superpowers makes the silly masks in the comics even more suspect. Or maybe they and you are onto something that it's the upper part of the face that's more distinct? Who knows. But honestly,  I'm surprised at how easy it's been - especially when I often can't remember people's names half the time...

People recognize me in my mask all the way across the parking lot!  I must have a super distinct aura or something!   And no one has seemed to not know when I'm laughing or smiling or joking etc.  Or if I'm sad either. 

There was an elderly gentleman the other day who had drawn a smile on his mask with sharpie.  I joked with him about it.  Somehow he knew that I was smiling too even without a smile drawn on mine. 

[Ausmumof3]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26S33U?__twitter_impression=true
 

(Reuters) - Wisconsin will open a field hospital outside of Milwaukee to handle a surge in COVID-19 cases that have overwhelmed hospitals across the state, Governor Tony Evers said on Wednesday

[Ausmumof3]

Vic had 11 cases again.  There are a couple of distinct linked outbreaks they are trying to get on top of.

[Ausmumof3]

5 new local cases for NSW.  This is potentially going to impact on some of the borders reopening.

testing is down here in SA.  I feel kind of guilty saying that because I have mild cold symptoms and probably should go get tested but I don’t really want to spend an hour in the car at close range with the kids right now or they’ll probably end up sick too.  If I can get down without them I might try to go.

[Ausmumof3]

19 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Just because some of you guys don't have issues recognizing people in masks doesn't mean that other people also don't have the issue or are making it up. While I may not have the recognition issue, I know plenty of people who do have it. Also, I don't particularly care if it irks you to hear that masks are dehumanizing because they are (I still wear one). They cover up at least half of a person's face, make recognition for many very difficult, make hearing people difficult, etc. (Sunglasses are not legally required in order to go anywhere and usually cover much less of the face than the masks do, so that argument is utterly ridiculous.)

I swear that you people love to talk about how people who think differently than you should think about others, but you don't seem to be thinking of others, either, just in a different way. 

I dislike sunglasses because I find it hard to read faces when I can’t see eyes and I don’t really like not knowing where people are looking so I kind of get this. I totally get not wanting to wear a mask but will overcome that if it becomes necessary to keep my fam safe.

[BeachGal]

Low concentrations of ozone can be used to kill coronavirus even while people are present.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/26/national/science-health/research-coronavirus-ozone/

Quote

 

Scientists at Fujita Health University told a news conference they had proven that ozone gas in concentrations of 0.05 to 0.1 parts per million (ppm), levels considered harmless to humans, could kill the virus.

The experiment used an ozone generator in a sealed chamber with a sample of coronavirus. The potency of the virus declined by more than 90 percent when subjected to low level ozone for 10 hours.

“Transmission of the novel coronavirus may be reduced by continuous, low-concentration ozone treatment, even in environments where people are present, using this kind of system,” said lead researcher Takayuki Murata.

 

I’ll try to find the article but, iirc, a few schools in Italy are already using this to kill coronavirus. At this low concentration, it’s safe.

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

Just because some of you guys don't have issues recognizing people in masks doesn't mean that other people also don't have the issue or are making it up. While I may not have the recognition issue, I know plenty of people who do have it. Also, I don't particularly care if it irks you to hear that masks are dehumanizing because they are (I still wear one). They cover up at least half of a person's face, make recognition for many very difficult, make hearing people difficult, etc. (Sunglasses are not legally required in order to go anywhere and usually cover much less of the face than the masks do, so that argument is utterly ridiculous.)

I swear that you people love to talk about how people who think differently than you should think about others, but you don't seem to be thinking of others, either, just in a different way. 

Regarding the bolded, my point is that it is subjective--clearly not everyone has trouble recognizing people who are masked and not everyone has trouble recognizing people with sunglasses. But it seems like it's reasonable that people can reach to a common, everyday, (generally) non-intimidating situation like wearing sunglasses to see that we often do cover our faces in ways that make us less recognizable, and no one gets their panties in a wad and calls it "dehumanizing" to wear sunglasses. 

I chose the bug analogy because I really do think that's EXACTLY what people (including myself) look like when they wear them. That thought runs through my head frequently when I'm at an outdoor event. Specifically, grasshoppers come to mind, especially when bigger sunglasses tend to be in style.

I am thinking about others--I am thinking, "Why does everyone have to make this hard when they could find a million ways in which this is like other stuff we do for safety," or---in the case of sunglasses---for comfort, being cool, or having fun in the sun. We constrain ourselves to driving on one side of the road instead of wherever we want to; we make rules about hygiene during food preparation; we teach kids not to pick their nose in public; we make people pick up their dog's poop when they are out for a walk; we wear helmets when we're up to bat at Little League; we don't let our kids drink out of the dog's dish if we can catch them in time. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

What makes us human is our ability to communicate, our ability to show compassion, caring, love, to discuss issues and philosophies.  A mask doesn't take any of that away as we can show even our emotions in other ways.  It can make it difficult for people who are hard of hearing or deaf, of course, but there are specialty masks to help with that and of course, sign language is not masked at all.  Surely we are intelligent enough as humans to realize that we won't be communicating anything if we are dead or incapacitated from a virus and to realize that even if this goes on for a year or more, it is still a small portion of a lifetime. 

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

What makes us human is our ability to communicate, our ability to show compassion, caring, love, to discuss issues and philosophies.  A mask doesn't take any of that away as we can show even our emotions in other ways.  It can make it difficult for people who are hard of hearing or deaf, of course, but there are specialty masks to help with that and of course, sign language is not masked at all.  Surely we are intelligent enough as humans to realize that we won't be communicating anything if we are dead or incapacitated from a virus and to realize that even if this goes on for a year or more, it is still a small portion of a lifetime. 

Actually sign language use facial expressions for grammar. They also have to put their hands around their face a lot more. 

 

Clear masks are probably helpful and yes, I think masks are a good idea but I guess what I'm trying to say is some have it much harder. Usually the ones that aren't throwing a hissy fit. I don't understand why it works that way but...

[Ausmumof3]

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/covid-19-could-cause-infertility-new-israeli-study-644767/amp?__twitter_impression=true
 

preprint study only but up to 50 pc reduction in sperm volume and motility in men 30 days after a case of moderate to severe Covid.  Post-mortem tests in those who died showed moderate to severe changes to testicular cells that assist in sperm development. 

 

obviously 

[EmseB]

24 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/covid-19-could-cause-infertility-new-israeli-study-644767/amp?__twitter_impression=true
 

preprint study only but up to 50 pc reduction in sperm volume and motility in men 30 days after a case of moderate to severe Covid.  Post-mortem tests in those who died showed moderate to severe changes to testicular cells that assist in sperm development. 

 

obviously 

I know that everyone is studying covid right now, and I'd have to Google to be sure, but I'm almost positive this has been studied to happen with any illness with a fever. As in, fever for a few days can affect sperm production for awhile (months?).

[Ausmumof3]

44 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I know that everyone is studying covid right now, and I'd have to Google to be sure, but I'm almost positive this has been studied to happen with any illness with a fever. As in, fever for a few days can affect sperm production for awhile (months?).

https://txfertility.com/the-sperm-cycle-i-got-a-fever-and-the-only-prescription-is/
 

A quick search turned up this.  But that is more of a long term thing.  So if you have a fever today in 72 days you’ll see an impact.  This thing they’re talking about with Covid at this stage is 30 days in so I’m assuming a different mechanism.

[Wheres Toto]

On 10/5/2020 at 9:05 AM, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8805697/amp/Furious-blame-game-16-000-Covid-cases-missed-Excel-glitch.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

UK are filling in a backlog of 16,000 cases.  According to the Daily Mail it’s because they were using excel and didn’t realise it had got too big.  I’m not sure if that part is accurate because it seems kind of mind boggling that they’d use excel for something like that but either way it’s some kind of IT glitch.

This makes no sense unless they were doing something super weird in Excel.    I've worked on some huge Excel files, with graphs and pictures, multiple sheets, tracking years worth of data and never had a problem.    If it's on a shared drive with limits to size, that might make sense but Excel itself can have really really big file sizes.  

[Wheres Toto]

I do have a little bit of trouble recognizing people with masks on, but mostly people I just met a few weeks ago, see once a week, and a bunch of them at the same time.   It's not a lot worse than the troubles I have every year with new students, but it's slightly harder.  

Once I'm talking to someone or teaching, I don't have that much trouble telling whether they are smiling, concentrating, falling asleep and bored, etc. 

[kbutton]

2 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

I'm so sorry that I have no right to feel that way in your eyes or that I am just stupid and should get over it.

I didn't say that. At all. I brought up that aspect of things because I am exhausted by all the negative talk and lack of coping skills from people in my part of the world. I think that people need to realize that masks are not the only way people cover their faces, and no one thinks the most common other way of covering faces is a problem at all. If I regularly ranted all summer long about how people who wear sunglasses are totally unrecognizable and dehumanized due to the alteration of their appearance, people would think I was a lunatic. 

Yet, I truly cannot recognize people in sunglasses easily. My first thought when someone wearing sunglasses approaches me and starts talking without introducing themselves is, "Creep!!! Get away."

I know this is not the most rational feeling and it's based on my own difficulty with reading faces when eyes are covered, so I deal. Problems with masks are the exact same kind of problem, just a different part of the face. My problem with sunglasses is as valid as yours with masks, but I don't ruin summer for everyone over my problem with sunglasses or come up with snarky ways to characterize people wearing sunglasses (except when I'm finally fed up with the snark and feel like it's time to balance the perspective a bit). In this case, the snark was IRL, and there was no outlet. I do apologize for that. Apparently at the time I posted, it seemed like it was part of the flow (I would have to go back and look to see if it really was).

Comparing masks and sunglasses has actually helped me cope better with both masking and the sunglasses problem I have. It's intentional for me to contextualize new experiences so that they are less annoying. I thought that was a pretty universal coping skill, honestly. I try my best to find precedent (even if it's only analogous and not exactly the same issue) for things that are unfamiliar in order to find ways to reason through the appropriateness of those things and then to overcome my own reluctance or difficulties with the thing that is being asked of me. Heck, it's an entire skillset I've cultivated to help one of my kids who has SN. 

I suspect some of us are clearly feeling lonely IRL with our perspective but are validated for that same perspective on here, while people with another perspective are feeling like the lone voice on here and get more support for their perspective IRL. 

Given that masks are the situation we have for now, it's not likely to change soon, and even people supportive of masks are not thrilled about wearing them, maybe those who feel that masks are dehumanizing should start a JAWM thread (I clearly hit a nerve when my point was to note that the complaining was getting to me IRL). Depending on how things are phrased, such a thread might be good for helping people who hate them cope with wearing them ("Share your tips for overcoming abject misery as a friendly, masked extrovert," etc.).

All of this is very much like when people WHINE all winter about the "bad" weather (whether it's bad or normal for the given climate), and then insist all summer that no matter how hot and muggy it is, it's the only reasonable weather to like. Really, weather happens. Every day. And some of us are MISERABLE in exactly the weather someone else finds wonderful. 

People have said it in threads on here, and I know people IRL who have found the masks to be a nice way to sort of hide in plain sight in public.

I am sorry you find them to be so demoralizing. Truly.

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

This feels like you are condemning me. I wear masks ALWAYS when I am out. ALWAYS.  But yes, it is dehumanizing to me. I am not using it as an excuse. It is so incredibly awful.  I hate it. I'm so sorry that I have no right to feel that way in your eyes or that I am just stupid and should get over it.

Yes, Yes. A thousand times yes.

Again, I am doing it. But it still feels dehumanizing to me.

Yes, but I cannot FEEL that if I cannot see them.  I also cannot hug people or receive hugs since that is my love language.  So a HUGE HUGE HUGE part of the compassion and the way I feel human is gone: seeing people, touching people and singing.

You can feel whatever emotions you want. But I am free to express my opinions on a message board. Sometimes people find that changing their perspective helps them to manage their emotions. My perspective is that having the Image of God is what makes us human and no piece of cloth changes that. I also believe that a sovereign God allows for trials like pandemics and that it’s our response to it that matters. Again- just my opinion. 

[RootAnn]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

I suspect some of us are clearly feeling lonely IRL with our perspective but are validated for that same perspective on here, while people with another perspective are feeling like the lone voice on here and get more support for their perspective IRL

I think the most lonely & upset are those who are finding themselves marginalized in person by those who are against their actual behavior while also feeling attacked/marginalized on here for expressing an opinion that is different from the prevailing one. (Actual example of someone who consistently follows the masking laws while being ostracized by friends & neighbors for being a 'sheep' who also would like to see masking be optional and/or is advocating for allowing more businesses to open so that businesses aren't continuing to fail in their area.)

I feel for those people because they are standing up for their strongly held beliefs while doing the right/lawful thing. And they are feeling punished on many sides. I support people's rights to express themselves while they are following the law & peacefully / safely protesting (in this case, wearing masks but expressing an opinion against them).

I will say the "you people" word usage earlier (choosing not to quote the poster who did this) was inflammatory word usage, IMO. But I understand it might have come from a place & time of serious frustration and I think this is a good time to extend grace to everyone who is frustrated, upset, lonely, and sad. Which, honestly, is most of us, even if we believe different things.

Edited October 8, 2020 by RootAnn
Fixed a typo

[Bootsie]

5 hours ago, DorothyNJ said:

This makes no sense unless they were doing something super weird in Excel.    I've worked on some huge Excel files, with graphs and pictures, multiple sheets, tracking years worth of data and never had a problem.    If it's on a shared drive with limits to size, that might make sense but Excel itself can have really really big file sizes.  

If you are handling daily data from multiple sources, Excel can reach its limit.  It doesn't have to be a very long time period, for example with financial market data to hit the row limits within Excel.  It isn't so much the file size it is the numbers of rows and columns that become a constraint

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

You can feel whatever emotions you want. But I am free to express my opinions on a message board. Sometimes people find that changing their perspective helps them to manage their emotions. My perspective is that having the Image of God is what makes us human and no piece of cloth changes that. I also believe that a sovereign God allows for trials like pandemics and that it’s our response to it that matters. Again- just my opinion. 

To me, the idea of covering ones mouth and nose, being concerned that another's breath is deadly to me, hits a spiritual cord.  The idea of breath being life-giving is woven throughout scripture.  God breathed into Adam to bring about life.  The Holy Spirit is represented as breath.  I think there is something deeply primal and spiritual for some people about breathing and face coverings.  

[Guest]

One thing that I have found since I went back to teaching in person is that teaching with a mask and a face shield and from a distance where possible requires that I be a lot more animated in my voice and body language (as well as speech) because my facial expressions simply do not carry as much meaning. It's exhausting. Tonight I have five little ones in a row, and I pretty much have to be Steve from Blue's Clues level of animation and avoid letting any fatigue, annoyance about anything, or any negative emotion slip into my voice-including wariness of being in the same room with an adorable little 1st grader who spent all day at school and has been exposed to who knows how many people. I'm guessing that if I tried to go to a church service or homeschool group meeting in person with a mask/face shield I would find it similarly exhausting to try to make sure that I was saying what I wanted to say. 

[Ausmumof3]

The world just had its single biggest one day increase in diagnosed cases.  Worldometer has it at 343,000 I think WHO had 338,000 probably related to the time zone where they’re counting from.  

[Wheres Toto]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

If you are handling daily data from multiple sources, Excel can reach its limit.  It doesn't have to be a very long time period, for example with financial market data to hit the row limits within Excel.  It isn't so much the file size it is the numbers of rows and columns that become a constraint

There are limits to rows and columns but you would know that prior to saving your file since you wouldn't even see any more rows or columns.    The article said they didn't realize the changes weren't saving.  

I guess it's possible if it was fully automated and nobody was even looking at it but that doesn't really make sense either.  

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, DorothyNJ said:

There are limits to rows and columns but you would know that prior to saving your file since you wouldn't even see any more rows or columns.    The article said they didn't realize the changes weren't saving.  

I guess it's possible if it was fully automated and nobody was even looking at it but that doesn't really make sense either.  

Yeah, I didn't understand that point. I don't know if they are adding rows in the middle and didn't know some were being dropped off. 

[Pen]

 

https://youtu.be/r0RtXqSPnis

John Campbell recent fairly short video (especially if listening at 2x speed!) on his Regeneron antibody treatment thoughts, Wisconsin field hospital thoughts etc.   

[Ausmumof3]

17 minutes ago, DorothyNJ said:

There are limits to rows and columns but you would know that prior to saving your file since you wouldn't even see any more rows or columns.    The article said they didn't realize the changes weren't saving.  

I guess it's possible if it was fully automated and nobody was even looking at it but that doesn't really make sense either.  

They might have set up an input form and the data was being stored on a separate page so no one saw that the data wasn’t going anywhere.  It’s been a few years since I used excel much.

[Pen]

17 hours ago, BeachGal said:

Low concentrations of ozone can be used to kill coronavirus even while people are present.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/26/national/science-health/research-coronavirus-ozone/

I’ll try to find the article but, iirc, a few schools in Italy are already using this to kill coronavirus. At this low concentration, it’s safe.

 

I think the following link was already posted upthread, but am linking it here to go together with ozone information:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00417/full

[Ausmumof3]

With respect to mutations

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-chile-mutation-idUSKBN26U07Y?taid=5f7fe9b953c9a00001f376bb&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Chileans researchers believe they may have a new mutation of the virus circulating with some structural changes to the spike protein.  I guess this could be bad as some vaccines are designed very specifically to fit the spike protein if I understand right.  However this wouldn’t be the first time the media have reported mutations that actually weren’t new mutations so if anyone has anything from a science based source I’d be happy to read it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-00246-8
 

on the positive side research in ferrets from the CSIRO here in Aus seems to be showing that the “g mutation” on the spike protein is not going to negatively effect vaccine efficacy.  This study is a bit over my head but I think from what the corona cast said this morning that makes it less likely to be a vaccine that we need to prepare annually against new strains like the flu.  However I I might have misheard/or understood that but as I was pretty distracted by kids stuff at the time.

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

In vic today 11 cases.  NSW had five local and five in hotel quarantine.  SA and NT borders are now open to NSW, qld are holding off.  Which I guess means I need to be a bit more cautious again until they get this local transmission tracked down.  Premier has said they will close back down if necessary but I think they won’t want to unless things really spike again.