Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

Also I’d note that in spite of my aversion to videos I did watch some of the press conference and the doctor to the left of dr Conley looked somewhat uneasy when they discussed infection protocol in the White House.  Of course that’s very unscientific just a random observation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3389

  • Pen

    2519

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • prairiewindmomma

    309

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

Thought I'd post a pic of my dd, getting ready to spend another day in a coronavirus triage tent!  

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m having a hard time walking the line of politics versus general covid info here.  But everything I’ve seen is an extended shedding of dead virus with infectious live viral shedding for at least 8 up to 11 days.  Unless the antibody stuff did some magic or he was infected a long time before admitting it, I don’t see how that could be at all possible.  I sure hope they’re right because he tapped the handrail multiple times on the way out and unmasked in front of the White House and there was a photographer unmasked quite close to him and the guys escorting him to the car were not very well protected with PPE.

 

There are things like this in literature search:

by O Mitjà · Cited by 99 · Related articles
Mar 19, 2020 — Antiviral drugs administered shortly after symptom onset can reduce infectiousness to others by reducing viral shedding in the respiratory ...
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'll take the doctor's word on it. I don't like this trend of saying, "Listen to the doctors" and then dismissing any doctor who says something one doesn't agree with whatever the prevailing thought is. This happens with scientists, too, and is infuriating.

 

Beyond taking the doctors ‘s word, assuming it to be correct and not just that DJT’s personal case tested as not shedding live virus, if some aspect or combo

in his treatment ended live virus shedding in a short time in a way that might work for more people, that is important IMO.  Especially if it was some part that is relatively inexpensive and attainable like the zinc and D and C ? and Famotidine and other OTC items rather than intravenous antivirals and not yet FDA approved antibody cocktails.

 If more people could shed less virus, or not shed live virus at all sooner that would be good! 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Beyond taking the doctors ‘s word, assuming it to be correct and not just that DJT’s personal case tested as not shedding live virus, if some aspect or combo

in his treatment ended live virus shedding in a short time in a way that might work for more people, that is important IMO.  Especially if it was some part that is relatively inexpensive and attainable like the zinc and D and C ? and Famotidine and other OTC items rather than intravenous antivirals and not yet FDA approved antibody cocktails.

 If more people could shed less virus, or not shed live virus at all sooner that would be good! 

 

Monoclonal antibodies won’t be widely available due to costs unfortunately.

heres the CDC current statement on infectiousness.  The best they had was six days which if he genuinely only tested positive on Friday (Thursday here won’t be till Wednesday).  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html


to be honest the thing that makes everything make sense is an earlier infection.  The rose garden event seems to fit with being a place where it likely spread (10 days ago).  That timing also fits with the time when symptoms appeared to be worse and it also fits with when dexamethasone was administered and it also fits with the doctors thinking he has most likely turned the corner now.  The one thing that doesn’t fit is that he was supposed to have a negative test before the debate.  However they were also supposed to mask for the debate as I understand and all took masks off so I guess maybe they also didn’t test.  Or had a rare false negative (though seems unlikely that both Melania and Donald had a false negative).  I know they were supposedly testing daily.  But the press secretary seemed quite happy to confirm the first positive test was Thursday but didn’t say when the last negative test was.  There may have been another statement since then but if there was I missed it.

 

of course it’s all guessing but at this point an earlier infection is the only thing that really makes everything else Trumps doctor is saying make sense.  It also means he most likely is genuinely out of the worst.  Whereas if he’s only four days in he hasn’t hit the 7-8 day point where people typically take a turn for the worst if they’re going to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Monoclonal antibodies won’t be widely available due to costs unfortunately.

heres the CDC current statement on infectiousness.  The best they had was six days which if he genuinely only tested positive on Friday (Thursday here won’t be till Wednesday).  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html


to be honest the thing that makes everything make sense is an earlier infection.  The rose garden event seems to fit with being a place where it likely spread (10 days ago).  That timing also fits with the time when symptoms appeared to be worse and it also fits with when dexamethasone was administered and it also fits with the doctors thinking he has most likely turned the corner now.  The one thing that doesn’t fit is that he was supposed to have a negative test before the debate.  However they were also supposed to mask for the debate as I understand and all took masks off so I guess maybe they also didn’t test.  Or had a rare false negative (though seems unlikely that both Melania and Donald had a false negative).  I know they were supposedly testing daily.  But the press secretary seemed quite happy to confirm the first positive test was Thursday but didn’t say when the last negative test was.  There may have been another statement since then but if there was I missed it.

 

of course it’s all guessing but at this point an earlier infection is the only thing that really makes everything else Trumps doctor is saying make sense.  It also means he most likely is genuinely out of the worst.  Whereas if he’s only four days in he hasn’t hit the 7-8 day point where people typically take a turn for the worst if they’re going to.

 

He wasn’t tested immediately before debate according to what I read, but was tested at some point almost daily.

It would be perfectly possible for him to have caught it a week ago Saturday and then for it to have been incubating and not to have had a positive test till Thursday.  Putting him at day 10 or so now.  

The chances that he was initially infected on same day as a test first showed positive is tiny, almost zero. There is debate on which day testing tends to show the virus, but no question that there is an incubation period. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

He wasn’t tested immediately before debate according to what I read, but was tested at some point almost daily.

It would be perfectly possible for him to have caught it a week ago Saturday and then for it to have been incubating and not to have had a positive test till Thursday.  Putting him at day 10 or so now.  

The chances that he was initially infected on same day as a test first showed positive is tiny, almost zero. There is debate on which day testing tends to show the virus, but no question that there is an incubation period. 

I read that actually he only had to have had a negative test 72 hours before the debate.  It may be that they had relaxed the daily testing protocol.  
 

I’m fairly confident he didn’t have concerns before the debate or he wouldn’t have knowingly been so close unmasked to the whole family I think.  But it’s possible that he hadn’t had a test in the last 3 days before hand.  Particularly given the less sensitive nature of the rapid tests they were using.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I read that actually he only had to have had a negative test 72 hours before the debate.  It may be that they had relaxed the daily testing protocol.  
 

I’m fairly confident he didn’t have concerns before the debate or he wouldn’t have knowingly been so close unmasked to the whole family I think.  But it’s possible that he hadn’t had a test in the last 3 days before hand.  Particularly given the less sensitive nature of the rapid tests they were using.  

I thought that the rapid tests were more likely to give a false positive than a false negative, and if the rapid test is positive they recheck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TCB said:

I thought that the rapid tests were more likely to give a false positive than a false negative, and if the rapid test is positive they recheck.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by Pen
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Matryoshka
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)!

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 8
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

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

From a doctor in Green Bay: " It’s got very strict admission criteria to get there. You have to be pretty healthy, actually, that may seem weird, to get there. In other words, requiring a low amount of oxygen. Being under a certain weight limit to be accepted down there. So you’re really close to going home when you’re going down there."

They will be taking people who are mostly out of the woods, and, according to another article, transporting them 120-150 miles via ambulance from Appleton/Oshkosh/Green Bay or from Wausau, where the hospitals are virtually full, to Milwaukee (where the hospitals are also nearing capacity), then back in a day or two. It is to be staffed primarily by volunteers, National Guard, and state employees, not medical personnel, which are in very short supply right now. I just wonder how useful it will end up being in the long run to solve the hospital crunch. At the same time, behavior is not changing substantially and there are multiple lawsuits working their way through the system to overturn the mask mandate and the recent limitations to bar and restaurant capacity (set now at 25%).

 

  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by RootAnn
Fixed a typo
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...