The second dumb thing we have done in the pandemic

[Pen]

18 hours ago, regentrude said:

Esp the bolded: the heart piece of our introductory courses is a learning center where students work in groups on problems on the board, and peer tutors and faculty walk around and work with the groups. Active learning, peer teaching, hits all the best practices and is almost magical. It has been the breakthrough to understanding for so many of these students.
It is completely impossible to do this with everybody distanced by 6 ft, and there is no technological solution that can replicate this online. (No, Zoom breakout rooms do not work, and students do not have the technology to cooperate on drawings and equations in real time and share with an instructor). 

 

That sounds wonderful.

 

There was an article about UV-c safe for eyes and skin antiviral lighting  being developed that could go in overhead lighting fixtures.  (Or perhaps could also go in other positions than overhead suitable to help dis infect university or other public spaces.) 

 

Such light fixtures to reduce load of active ambient aerosols or surface contamination,  plus masks, plus perhaps before start of semester SARS2 testing, and maybe being willing to use contact trace apps, plus personal caution, could very probably allow that sort of teaching and collaborative active learning to be done with a high degree of safety, even in the absence of safe and effective vaccine. 

 

It seems like it might also be something that perhaps universities with suitable fields of fields of expertise could have cross disciplines collaboration (say microbiology, medical school, engineering, physics?) to achieve prototypes of such lighting for in-house use and perhaps local distribution .  And could possibly also maintain testing for effectiveness.  That could be great learning too even if it did not fit a usual module for first year _______. 

 

For example, I think Oregon State University was  sort of semi-open (Or was  in spring semester with students doing a CV19 survey in its area) and is planning to reopen in late summer and has all those sorts of areas of expertise —except for no medical school.  But could possibly team with OHSU.  

University of Washington and UCLA probably have all the needed fields, including medical schools, but I think are more closed other than the medical schools and I don’t know what they plan for reopening. 

And it could be collaboration between universities in different places to get something like that done well, it would not have to be individual. 

 

 

[Pen]

Be suspicious/be careful:

A few times in my life I have lived in places where locks are not needed on home doors.  In many ways that’s really a nice thing.  (Though it also has tended in my life to go along with relatively poor circumstances where no one has much that anyone would want to steal. Nonetheless, socially, there can be a better enrichment and emotional well being.) 

 Most of my life though I have lived in places where locks are considered normal to have, and while it is not the same level of freedom nor emotional sense of well being as when living in a community where locks are not needed, and may take  some getting used to if one was used to the no locks way of life, it doesn’t mean the end of all sociability or friendship.  (Eta: have never myself lived in a community or situation with electronic home security or more than door locks being the commonplace.  Some people on Wtm probably do.) 

And to me that’s similar for the suspicious/cautious approach in regard to CV19. It would be far nicer not to have to be concerned or to take precautions similar to it being nicer to live in a community that doesn’t need home door locks. But it is what it is, and locks, masks, etc are far from being the end of the world. 

I am cautious in what I do.

I am suspicious in the sense of (dictionary definition) “having or showing a cautious distrust of someone or something” and it is by and large suspicious of something, in this case the virus.  

I distrust that we have much understanding of what harm it can do, or of how easily it may be able to evade both the immune system and testing. I don’t think we have had enough time to conclude that people who got an Asymptomatic case are over and done with it. And I don’t see a rush to try to get an Asymptomatic case as I know some people are doing, thinking sooner and younger is better than later and older is sensible given the lack of knowledge.

I think what is apparently happening in China suggests that they are trying to find every last Asymptomatic case and eradicate SARS2 there, and I am suspicious (yes, suspicious) that they know a lot more than we do. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Pen

[Bootsie]

44 minutes ago, Storygirl said:

I am not a scientist. But the science that I think underpins this statement is the R0 rate. When an infected person only gives it to one other person, on average, then the curve will stay flat. When each infected person infects more than one other, the curve goes up. So if everyone remains cautious, the R0 rate will grow smaller, and the virus will be circulating less.

I may be wrong, but that is what I've gleaned from the scientific explanations that I've heard.

Selkie, I didn't really meant to quote you -- I was just copying that doctor's statement from your post.

 

Yes, with a lower R0 the virus is circulating less but it is not "over" unless R0 goes to zero.  if the R0 is one "the curve" that is flat is the number of new cases.  A flat curve means that there are as many people infected today as there were last week.  This strategy does not get it over SOONER, it is likely to drag it out longer.  That can be a reasonable strategy if it prevents overwhelming the medical facilities at one time.  It can also be a reasonable strategy if it reduces the number of people who are infected before a vaccine is developed.  For most countries, lowering R0 to zero any time soon does not seem to be likely.

[Pen]

On 5/28/2020 at 2:51 PM, TCB said:

That was interesting, however the discussion below the initial study seemed to raise a number of questions about the conclusion they reached. I don't know if I missed it but what was the deal with the petri dishes? Did they test those? I think it's pretty unsurprising that there were virus particles on the mask after someone coughed in it. I don't know if that says anything about whether a mask protects other people from the particles.

Just went back and looked and saw that they did test the petri dishes so we do know that it's probably not safe to stand 20 cm from someone even if they are wearing a mask. Actually looking at it again, does it seem to say that there was less growth on the petri dish when the patient had a cotton mask on?

 

ETA I keep looking back at that study and it really looks like it actually seems to provide evidence that masks do protect those around from someone with the virus. The amount of virus detected on the petri dish was definitely less with a mask on than without, and it looks like the amount was lower, and even Not Detected on some of the samples when wearing a cotton mask. I may be losing my marbles lol so someone else look at that and correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yes.  

Or, well, it depends on the mask.  Some masks, single layer, loose weave, do almost nothing. Unfortunately whatever was used in an often referred to study MacIntyre? Used a do almost nothing ultra low filtration mask. 

 

But some cloth masks in studies I have seen give a reduction particularly when on the person (or hamster cage) who is infected, up in the 70s to 90s percent, or even as you say to Not Detected.  

 

.