Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Teaching3bears

The second dumb thing we have done in the pandemic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I see their curves. They are far steeper on the way down than ours, but that says very little about masks and a lot about the effectiveness of stricter shutdowns. 

We'll see how well masks work in Western settings as places reopen. Currently, our best mask data (other than actual localized studies of which masks allow particles to pass through and which don't) is from Asia. And we do know that HCWs have lower rates of antibodies in NY than the general population, which to me is suggestive, although of course they are wearing actual surgical masks and N95s and not random stuff. But of course, we'll see. 

What curves are you looking at to see the steepness on the way down?  New cases?  Active cases?  

I am not sure what conclusions you can draw by a steeper downward curve on new cases, which seems to be highly correlated to the steepness on the way up.  Flattening the curve models suggested both a less steep initial curve but also a less steep curve after the peak.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

What curves are you looking at to see the steepness on the way down?  New cases?  Active cases?  

I am not sure what conclusions you can draw by a steeper downward curve on new cases, which seems to be highly correlated to the steepness on the way up.  Flattening the curve models suggested both a less steep initial curve but also a less steep curve after the peak.   

New cases, yes. 

It’s totally obvious that quarantining people in a stricter way will result in a quicker decrease in the number of cases. That’s pretty much the null hypothesis.... you’d have to find strong evidence that it ISN’T true, since it makes so much sense. And no, it doesn’t look all that related to the steepness on the way up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

What curves are you looking at to see the steepness on the way down?  New cases?  Active cases?  

I am not sure what conclusions you can draw by a steeper downward curve on new cases, which seems to be highly correlated to the steepness on the way up.  Flattening the curve models suggested both a less steep initial curve but also a less steep curve after the peak.   

Mostly the curves are asymmetric from what I’ve seen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, square_25 said:

New cases, yes. 

It’s totally obvious that quarantining people in a stricter way will result in a quicker decrease in the number of cases. That’s pretty much the null hypothesis.... you’d have to find strong evidence that it ISN’T true, since it makes so much sense. And no, it doesn’t look all that related to the steepness on the way up. 

Yes, a stricter quarantine should lead to a quicker decrease in cases.  The steepness on the way down can't really be compared across countries, because it must be at least somewhat correlated to the steepness on the way up--especially if you are looking at the absolute number of cases.  If in theory, you could decrease new cases to zero with a 14-day complete lockdown,  a curve of new cases in a country that had 5000 cases on Day 1 of the lockdown and 0 cases on Day 14 would look a lot steeper than a country that had only 100 cases on Day 1 of the lockdown and 0 cases on Day 14.  

Looking by country is problematic because the amount of lockdown can vary in different areas of the country.  In Italy, more extreme lockdown measures occurred sooner in Northern Italy.  In Austria, some towns were under isolation, some were under quarantine, and others were under looser stay-at-home orders.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bootsie said:

Yes, a stricter quarantine should lead to a quicker decrease in cases.  The steepness on the way down can't really be compared across countries, because it must be at least somewhat correlated to the steepness on the way up--especially if you are looking at the absolute number of cases.  If in theory, you could decrease new cases to zero with a 14-day complete lockdown,  a curve of new cases in a country that had 5000 cases on Day 1 of the lockdown and 0 cases on Day 14 would look a lot steeper than a country that had only 100 cases on Day 1 of the lockdown and 0 cases on Day 14.  

Looking by country is problematic because the amount of lockdown can vary in different areas of the country.  In Italy, more extreme lockdown measures occurred sooner in Northern Italy.  In Austria, some towns were under isolation, some were under quarantine, and others were under looser stay-at-home orders.  


I suppose I scaled the steepness by the amount at the peak. I just meant something qualitative like visual steepness, which does that automatically. 

Anyway, we'll see data on masks in a bit, I'm sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone post this yet? 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

Looks like 6 feet may, in fact, not be enough, and may be based on outdated science.

If viral load does accumulate in the air, that would be a problem :-/. I wonder what that would mean for nursing homes, which have been hit so hard... 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Mostly the curves are asymmetric from what I’ve seen

Which makes logical sense.  Most of the early models seemed to assume a symmetrical curve which did not seem reasonable.  If you have an R0 on the upside of 2 you will have to lower R0 to .5 on the downside; if R0 on the upside is 3, you will have to lower R0 all the way down to .33 to have a symmetrical curve.  .  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Anyone post this yet? 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

Looks like 6 feet may, in fact, not be enough, and may be based on outdated science.

If viral load does accumulate in the air, that would be a problem :-/. I wonder what that would mean for nursing homes, which have been hit so hard... 

6 feet has never been the "you are totally safe beyond this distance" level. It's been a reasonable compromise that minimizes chances. Not eliminates it.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Which makes logical sense.  Most of the early models seemed to assume a symmetrical curve which did not seem reasonable.  If you have an R0 on the upside of 2 you will have to lower R0 to .5 on the downside; if R0 on the upside is 3, you will have to lower R0 all the way down to .33 to have a symmetrical curve.  .  

 

I think that was mostly IHME, and no, I have no idea why they did that. It seemed unwarranted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

6 feet has never been the "you are totally safe beyond this distance" level. It's been a reasonable compromise that minimizes chances. Not eliminates it.

 

Yeah, of course. However, we're now making all sorts of arrangements based on that, like restaurant seating, and it's reasonable to think about whether that's even reasonable (or whether we should, say, do our best to move all of as many restaurants as possible outside for the summer, even if we can't keep 6 foot distance.) 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 9:38 PM, Sneezyone said:

 

I reached the same conclusion. I have had better luck shopping in the early morning hours tho. There are fewer inconsiderate people on the roads and in the stores. The aisles are quiet and the people are masked...properly.

 

We've seen the same thing in our small town, too. My husband went to Walmart early in the morning last week and even overheard one masked senior man say to another masked senior couple "I appreciate what you're doing" as they crossed paths in the parking lot. 😍

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My area is pretty much business as usual and there is a pretty low percentage wearing masks. My family and I are being careful so in some ways are probably low risk to others, however I do work in a hospital, with covid patients when they are there, so from that point of view I may be higher risk to others. I would like to participate more in supporting the economy. but honestly I just don't go anywhere or buy anything unless I absolutely need to because so many are not taking any precautions at all. 

An example of this was the ice cream shop. My dds and I wanted to go get  ice cream so went to the store, and I was going to go in by myself with a mask on. When I got to the door the place was completely packed, no one wearing a mask, including the person serving the ice cream.  I decided to wait outside the door so that maybe, as people came out, it would be less crowded and I could go in and order. As I stood just outside the door a number of people came up and just went past me and crowded in the small room. I left because it seemed there was no way of buying anything without waiting cooped up inside the small room, and it is tiny. 

I just wonder if there are other people like me, who are just not participating in the economy as much as we could be because it is not really possible in a sensible way. Could it make economical sense to do things carefully so that we would, or does enticing the more cautious to participate not make enough difference in terms of numbers? Wondering what others think about this.

  • Like 9

Share this post


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

 

An example of this was the ice cream shop. My dds and I wanted to go get  ice cream so went to the store, and I was going to go in by myself with a mask on. When I got to the door the place was completely packed, no one wearing a mask, including the person serving the ice cream.  I decided to wait outside the door so that maybe, as people came out, it would be less crowded and I could go in and order. As I stood just outside the door a number of people came up and just went past me and crowded in the small room. I left because it seemed there was no way of buying anything without waiting cooped up inside the small room, and it is tiny. 

 

In this scenario, I would have left also. It's unfortunate, because I am sure the owner could use the business, but I would not feel that I was being wise to enter that space.  I am not sure what our local ice cream shop is doing now, but it used to be (four weeks ago) that you would order via their app, and they walked it out to your car.  I am hoping that if it was crowded like this that they would make people space out and try to take orders from people in the line itself to move things along. I'm so sorry. I am sure your kids were disappointed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

My area is pretty much business as usual and there is a pretty low percentage wearing masks. My family and I are being careful so in some ways are probably low risk to others, however I do work in a hospital, with covid patients when they are there, so from that point of view I may be higher risk to others. I would like to participate more in supporting the economy. but honestly I just don't go anywhere or buy anything unless I absolutely need to because so many are not taking any precautions at all. 

An example of this was the ice cream shop. My dds and I wanted to go get  ice cream so went to the store, and I was going to go in by myself with a mask on. When I got to the door the place was completely packed, no one wearing a mask, including the person serving the ice cream.  I decided to wait outside the door so that maybe, as people came out, it would be less crowded and I could go in and order. As I stood just outside the door a number of people came up and just went past me and crowded in the small room. I left because it seemed there was no way of buying anything without waiting cooped up inside the small room, and it is tiny. 

I just wonder if there are other people like me, who are just not participating in the economy as much as we could be because it is not really possible in a sensible way. Could it make economical sense to do things carefully so that we would, or does enticing the more cautious to participate not make enough difference in terms of numbers? Wondering what others think about this.

We are being really picky in how we participate. We have two local coffee shops which we patronized often and want to see them stay in business, so we go there. We get takeout meals about once a week, and while we try to go with locally owned stores, we have declined to go to any place where employees are not required to wear masks. Because we know the local owner, employees are properly trained and supervised, and we know the company is providing appropriate masks and gloves which the employees properly wear, Chik-Fil-A has gotten a good bit of our business. Sadly our closest local Mexican restaurant is a hot mess so we don’t feel comfortable going there. 

As far as non-restaurant venues to contribute to the economy, I’ve spent at the local plant nursery. I am starting to grocery shop at my locally owned store, though it’s costlier. It’s possible I will invest in a piece of sporting equipment (SUP), but aside from that, the places we spend our entertainment dollars are closed. 

ETA - we have been doing more online ordering for things we would usually buy locally. 

Edited by Seasider too
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cintinative said:

 

In this scenario, I would have left also. It's unfortunate, because I am sure the owner could use the business, but I would not feel that I was being wise to enter that space.  I am not sure what our local ice cream shop is doing now, but it used to be (four weeks ago) that you would order via their app, and they walked it out to your car.  I am hoping that if it was crowded like this that they would make people space out and try to take orders from people in the line itself to move things along. I'm so sorry. I am sure your kids were disappointed.

I'm glad your local place is taking some precautions. Fortunately my dds are older so they were fine. It just makes me wonder if overall economically businesses are losing out a fair amount because of things like that. I don't foresee anything changing here unless there is a further outbreak and people decide to become more cautious. Unfortunately our area is now a byword internationally for throwing caution to the wind after pictures were released showing large, crowded parties over the holiday weekend. Judging from the little social media I can bear to look at, there are a large amount of the local population who seem to be proud of this accomplishment!

Edited by TCB
  • Like 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


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

I'm glad your local place is taking some precautions. Fortunately my dds are older so they were fine. It just makes me wonder if overall economically businesses are losing out a fair amount because of things like that. I don't foresee anything changing here unless there is a further outbreak and people decide to become more cautious. Unfortunately our area is now a byword internationally for throwing caution to the wind after pictures were released showing large, crowded parties over the holiday weekend. Judging from the little social media I can bear to look at, there are a large amount of the local population who seem to be proud of this accomplishment!

Oh, I'm sorry :-(. What state are you in, if you don't mind me asking? 

Share this post


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

My area is pretty much business as usual and there is a pretty low percentage wearing masks. My family and I are being careful so in some ways are probably low risk to others, however I do work in a hospital, with covid patients when they are there, so from that point of view I may be higher risk to others. I would like to participate more in supporting the economy. but honestly I just don't go anywhere or buy anything unless I absolutely need to because so many are not taking any precautions at all. 

An example of this was the ice cream shop. My dds and I wanted to go get  ice cream so went to the store, and I was going to go in by myself with a mask on. When I got to the door the place was completely packed, no one wearing a mask, including the person serving the ice cream.  I decided to wait outside the door so that maybe, as people came out, it would be less crowded and I could go in and order. As I stood just outside the door a number of people came up and just went past me and crowded in the small room. I left because it seemed there was no way of buying anything without waiting cooped up inside the small room, and it is tiny. 

I just wonder if there are other people like me, who are just not participating in the economy as much as we could be because it is not really possible in a sensible way. Could it make economical sense to do things carefully so that we would, or does enticing the more cautious to participate not make enough difference in terms of numbers? Wondering what others think about this.

 

I think that’s a good point!

People being more cautious would make a big difference to me. 

I have only ventured out once into city since county went into phase 1 opening.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Oh, I'm sorry :-(. What state are you in, if you don't mind me asking? 

Missouri

Share this post


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

Missouri

 

Oh, yes, I saw the images :-/. The whole thing would make me super nervous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I just wonder if there are other people like me, who are just not participating in the economy as much as we could be because it is not really possible in a sensible way. Could it make economical sense to do things carefully so that we would, or does enticing the more cautious to participate not make enough difference in terms of numbers? Wondering what others think about this.

It would to me. And I'd love to take my kids to say, the plant nursery, or to look at sod with me, but I don't trust others to mask or social distance, and I can't put the responsibility of staying far enough apart on a kid, so exposing more people versus one person is a bad idea. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

It would to me. And I'd love to take my kids to say, the plant nursery, or to look at sod with me, but I don't trust others to mask or social distance, and I can't put the responsibility of staying far enough apart on a kid, so exposing more people versus one person is a bad idea. 

Any places I’ve gone (like plant nursery, grocery store), I’ve gone solo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

Any places I’ve gone (like plant nursery, grocery store), I’ve gone solo. 

Yeah, my kids haven't left the house in I think 3 months almost? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, my kids haven't left the house in I think 3 months almost? 

We will take ours with us to get a coffee or a milkshake and then drive through a park or past a landmark for a little sighteseeing. But yeah, otherwise the kid's in jail. 🙁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I understand your point, or at least I think I do, that by "normalize" you mean "remove a stigma from". I agree that people should feel free to wear them without fear of repercussions or ridicule. And I'm willing to be wear mine in public as a temporary measure til we get a better handle on this thing.

But I have to say that I am not interested in living in a country where it is considered "normal" to wear a mask. Not being able to read a person's facial expression? Not being able to converse easily? Social interaction out in public being curtailed? Having my young kids/baby get so used to it that they're not shy around people in masks anymore? No thanks.

In other countries I understand the culture and practices and norms are different, and that's fine. No judgment. But that's not how I want to live as an American and have it be the "new normal".

Well I’m sure they’re out there, I don’t know anyone who wants masks in public to be the permanent new normal. I think mask wearing by all is the biggest single thing the public can do to allow us to more safely start doing more things and opening more things up, but I don’t at all enjoy needing to wear a mask or having everyone around me masked. It is what it is though, and not liking it doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.

I don’t feel at all the same about not wanting my toddler to stop being shy around people with masks.  Mine doesn’t go out in public right now, but has seen all of us on with our masks and has tried hers on, and we had a long distance outdoor visit with grandparents with everyone masked, and she was not phased in the least. That’s a good thing in my eyes, not bad.  Not just because this is likely to be our temporary new normal, but in general I don’t want my kids to feel shy of someone simply due to anything about their looks being different. It’s desirable to me that they not bat an eyelash at someone with a disability, a different style of dress, a facial difference, or whatever.

I do keep hearing an undercurrent of “it isn’t American” from people who disagree with mask wearing, which makes it sound like more of a knee jerk visceral reaction to something they perceive as being “other” and specifically with being Asian and not wanting the US to feel like an Asian country. 

14 hours ago, GoodGrief1 said:

It’s a difficult situation for deaf/HOH who rely on lip reading too

Have you seen the masks with the clear windows? I’ve often thought it would be great if those were widely available to everyone, because It’s so nice to be able to see someone’s smile, even if you don’t need to read lips. 

5 hours ago, square_25 said:

Anyone post this yet? 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

Looks like 6 feet may, in fact, not be enough, and may be based on outdated science.

If viral load does accumulate in the air, that would be a problem :-/. I wonder what that would mean for nursing homes, which have been hit so hard... 

I’ve been a weirdo trying to keep more than 6 feet all along. It just feels too close to me. 

55 minutes ago, TCB said:

My area is pretty much business as usual and there is a pretty low percentage wearing masks. My family and I are being careful so in some ways are probably low risk to others, however I do work in a hospital, with covid patients when they are there, so from that point of view I may be higher risk to others. I would like to participate more in supporting the economy. but honestly I just don't go anywhere or buy anything unless I absolutely need to because so many are not taking any precautions at all. 

An example of this was the ice cream shop. My dds and I wanted to go get  ice cream so went to the store, and I was going to go in by myself with a mask on. When I got to the door the place was completely packed, no one wearing a mask, including the person serving the ice cream.  I decided to wait outside the door so that maybe, as people came out, it would be less crowded and I could go in and order. As I stood just outside the door a number of people came up and just went past me and crowded in the small room. I left because it seemed there was no way of buying anything without waiting cooped up inside the small room, and it is tiny. 

I just wonder if there are other people like me, who are just not participating in the economy as much as we could be because it is not really possible in a sensible way. Could it make economical sense to do things carefully so that we would, or does enticing the more cautious to participate not make enough difference in terms of numbers? Wondering what others think about this.

The more precautions others are taking, for sure the more we will be participating in the economy as a family. So far, my grocery shopping decisions have been driven primarily by where people are masking the most. Masks are now required in indoor public places where I am, so that has helped a lot, and I’m more likely to feel like I can go buy something I need when I know everyone there will be masked. I’m finally feeling at a point where takeout seems not too risky, so I think we will use some of our relief check this weekend to finally get a takeout meal to support a local restaurant and tip mightily. We’ve been waiting to be able to do that. Perhaps we will go to the plant nursery as well (not all of us). They are doing curbside pickup and private appointments. I would love, love to be able to take my family for ice cream or something kind of normal and fun like that, but it would definitely require them having an alternate way besides packing everyone into the shop like usual.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing my grocery shopping this morning with the same stores as last week, I'll say that people in my area think the threat is over and they are just going to go back to normal.  Last week, same time, same stores, I'd say 90% of the people I encountered were masked.  This morning, maybe 50% and that may be over-estimating.  I literally also had to back away from other customers who were invading my personal space and even employees.  It's like everyone decided that the Memorial Day holiday had magically made Covid-19 disappear.  I may have to go back to my online ordering routine.  I so enjoyed actually going to a store last week but last week I felt like everyone was being very careful - not this week.  

Our county cases have doubled in the past few weeks.  Those numbers aren't large but we are rural so I've just been watching the local trends.  One plant in the area had a breakout which changed our numbers.  It seems people aren't paying attention any more though.  The next few weeks will be interesting to watch.  Hopefully, the virus is in small enough numbers that we won't continue to see increasing numbers.  I'm a bit nervous this week because my 18yods starting work at our local Amazon Warehouse where there have been employees test positive but he needed a summer job.  He's being careful and showering after his shifts but if the numbers keep increasing our family is going to be more exposed than we were before 😞

  • Like 1
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t feel at all the same about not wanting my toddler to stop being shy around people with masks.  Mine doesn’t go out in public right now, but has seen all of us on with our masks and has tried hers on, and we had a long distance outdoor visit with grandparents with everyone masked, and she was not phased in the least. That’s a good thing in my eyes, not bad.  Not just because this is likely to be our temporary new normal, but in general I don’t want my kids to feel shy of someone simply due to anything about their looks being different. It’s desirable to me that they not bat an eyelash at someone with a disability, a different style of dress, a facial difference, or whatever.

I do keep hearing an undercurrent of “it isn’t American” from people who disagree with mask wearing, which makes it sound like more of a knee jerk visceral reaction to something they perceive as being “other” and specifically with being Asian and not wanting the US to feel like an Asian country. 

I don't want my kids to be shy around people because they look different either. But I think it is entirely normal for kids (and adults for that matter) to be wary of people whose facial expressions you can't see and/or read accurately and who they can't have a normal social interaction with because of the difficulties of communication that the masks impose. And I would hate for my kids to have to adapt and think of that type of non-interaction as "normal" when it's not and shouldn't be.

It's not racially motivated and it's not "other-ing" people to want to be able to genuinely communicate with people in public. Other cultures are more reserved than Americans when it comes to that type of thing, and that's fine. But it is at least somewhat uniquely American to be friendly and interactive with strangers in public and I don't want us to lose that. I feel the loss already myself when I'm out and about in my mask, and I am much less likely to initiate friendly conversations in public, even from a good social distance. Other people are less likely too, from what I have experienced. It contributes to the sense of isolation I feel and it's not a good place to be mental-health wise, for me or for my kids.

It's about the communication aspect of it, not the looks of it.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kand said:

 

Have you seen the masks with the clear windows? I’ve often thought it would be great if those were widely available to everyone, because It’s so nice to be able to see someone’s smile, even if you don’t need to read lips. 

 


I’ve seen them online, not in use in the community. I can’t imagine that wearing plastic on the face for any length of time is comfortable/healthy, though I guess I’d have to see them in person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if face shields would provide a similar level of protection to a cloth mask? I know medical personnel use shields plus N95 masks for close procedures. I'm thinking a clear shield might be a better choice for teaching young children, because they could see my facial expressions and mouth movements. And it wouldn't get damp, etc, the way a cloth mask does, and could be wiped down vs needing to be machine washed/dried. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

Does anyone know if face shields would provide a similar level of protection to a cloth mask? I know medical personnel use shields plus N95 masks for close procedures. I'm thinking a clear shield might be a better choice for teaching young children, because they could see my facial expressions and mouth movements. And it wouldn't get damp, etc, the way a cloth mask does, and could be wiped down vs needing to be machine washed/dried. 

The face shields that HCWs wear are to protect them from eye splashes etc and they also keep the N95 from getting as soiled. Wearing a shield alone would do very little to protect the wearer from others because of the air circulating around it. I don't know to what extent it would protect others from the wearer but it seems like it would stop larger particles from travelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmmetler said:

Does anyone know if face shields would provide a similar level of protection to a cloth mask? I know medical personnel use shields plus N95 masks for close procedures. I'm thinking a clear shield might be a better choice for teaching young children, because they could see my facial expressions and mouth movements. And it wouldn't get damp, etc, the way a cloth mask does, and could be wiped down vs needing to be machine washed/dried. 

NBC’s “expert” Dr Jennifer Ashton said in an update I saw today that the face shield doesn’t absorb anything, it simply forces any exhalation downward. 

So it might be fine accompanied by another typical mask, and I imagine it is helpful when a health care worker needs to keep eyes, etc protected in a clinical setting. 

And I guess it would be better than nothing for those who are able to wear a close fitting mask. 

But it doesn’t seem like a good idea if you are in the vicinity of little people shorter than you. 

Im certainly not an expert on it, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 12:23 PM, TCB said:

If you have good solid evidence that you base your opinion on please link it because I have been searching and searching for that kind of thing!

There is some recent research evaluating effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in filtering SARS–CoV-2 specifically. I found it in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Skippy said:

There is some recent research evaluating effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in filtering SARS–CoV-2 specifically. I found it in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

 

KEEP READING. 

"We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying — I think coughing is different from just breathing and talking.

I don’t think someone violently coughing should probably be out in public.  
 

But saying it doesn’t work for coughing doesn’t mean it is ineffective for talking and breathing.

I think it’s important for health care workers to know if their patients who are coughing need a stronger mask.

But I don’t feel like that changes anything for me as far as masks in public.

At this point, at least.  I am not sure what it will seem like 3 or 6 months from now.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read accounts where there are people in an emergency room with numerous people coughing very hard and wearing a mask they are given by the hospital.  I think it’s important to know what they need and what is good enough.

Separately — we are on track to go to a destination wedding at Lake of the Ozarks over Labor Day.  It is up in the air if they will have the wedding or if we will go.  They might do a tiny wedding with live-streaming (we would not he invited in person if that is the case).  The pictures made me hope we can go even though — we will be at a family place if we go, not a party place.  It looked so fun.  I talked to my husband and we are just going to wait and see.  The bride and groom are also going to wait and see.  I so hate this whole thing.  

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Skippy said:

There is some recent research evaluating effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in filtering SARS–CoV-2 specifically. I found it in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

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.

Edited by TCB
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmmetler said:

Does anyone know if face shields would provide a similar level of protection to a cloth mask? I know medical personnel use shields plus N95 masks for close procedures. I'm thinking a clear shield might be a better choice for teaching young children, because they could see my facial expressions and mouth movements. And it wouldn't get damp, etc, the way a cloth mask does, and could be wiped down vs needing to be machine washed/dried. 

I have seen a lot of restaurant workers and store clerks wearing them.  It seems as if it would help contain sneeze spray if someone was sneezing straight ahead.  But, when I have seen people look down, it appears that they are really breathing underneath the shield.  If a properly fitting mask is supposed to be tight across the nose and fit under the chin, then the shields definitely don't do that.  When you see what they look like after someone has worn one for a while, it will make you wonder what the inside of a cloth mask fitting close to your face really looks like (think about what a window  looks like when a kid breathes on the window and smudges their nose all over it).  

They can provide eye protection and it would be easier to see when doing things like getting on an escalator if you find the mask is impacting your peripheral vision a bit.  I have also noticed people touching their face underneath them.  I was even in a store and saw the cashier kept putting a finger in her mouth and picking at her teach underneath the visor (I went to another checkout line.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

KEEP READING. 

"We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing."

That's an excellent point.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528#203384098

Here's an earlier study which measured "normal breathing, deep breathing, turning head side to side, moving head up and down, talking, grimace, bending over and returning to normal breathing. Earlier studies have shown that the protection levels determined using the set of exercises included in the OSHA protocol highly correlated with the actual exposures from a simulated health-care workplace study."

For reference, the size of of the COVID-19 particles are 0.12 μm.

Conclusion: "Most of the tested N95 respirators and surgical masks in this study were observed to perform at their worst against particles approximately between 0.04 and 0.2 μm, which includes the sizes of coronavirus and influenza virus. The tested N95 respirators provided about 8–12 times better protection than the surgical masks..."

The above study is for N95 respirators and surgical masks and not homemade cloth masks.

So my tone is clear, I'm offering this for further information and not to be argumentative. :)

(Edited because I left out the link to the study.)

Edited by Skippy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 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.

I also find it extremely interesting that there was virus detected on the outside surfaces of the mask in all cases, but in three-fourths of the cases (surgical and cloth), none was detected for the inner surfaces of the masks. I hope that they continue to do more tests like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Skippy said:

That's an excellent point.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528#203384098

Here's an earlier study which measured "normal breathing, deep breathing, turning head side to side, moving head up and down, talking, grimace, bending over and returning to normal breathing. Earlier studies have shown that the protection levels determined using the set of exercises included in the OSHA protocol highly correlated with the actual exposures from a simulated health-care workplace study."

For reference, the size of of the COVID-19 particles are 0.12 μm.

Conclusion: "Most of the tested N95 respirators and surgical masks in this study were observed to perform at their worst against particles approximately between 0.04 and 0.2 μm, which includes the sizes of coronavirus and influenza virus. The tested N95 respirators provided about 8–12 times better protection than the surgical masks..."

The above study is for N95 respirators and surgical masks and not homemade cloth masks.

So my tone is clear, I'm offering this for further information and not to be argumentative. :)

(Edited because I left out the link to the study.)

 

Understood. All masks, regardless of their type, need to be fitted to be effective in any way. I find talk of thin bandanas and draped scarves on bearded people annoying for that reason. Haphazardly draping a cloth somewhere near the source of possible contagion is ineffective at best, useless as worst. If one were using that info on N95s as definitive, you'd expect to see HCW dropping like flies when, in actuality, their likelihood of catching the disease despite higher viral loads is lower.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Skippy said:

That's an excellent point.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528#203384098

Here's an earlier study which measured "normal breathing, deep breathing, turning head side to side, moving head up and down, talking, grimace, bending over and returning to normal breathing. Earlier studies have shown that the protection levels determined using the set of exercises included in the OSHA protocol highly correlated with the actual exposures from a simulated health-care workplace study."

For reference, the size of of the COVID-19 particles are 0.12 μm.

Conclusion: "Most of the tested N95 respirators and surgical masks in this study were observed to perform at their worst against particles approximately between 0.04 and 0.2 μm, which includes the sizes of coronavirus and influenza virus. The tested N95 respirators provided about 8–12 times better protection than the surgical masks..."

The above study is for N95 respirators and surgical masks and not homemade cloth masks.

So my tone is clear, I'm offering this for further information and not to be argumentative. 🙂

(Edited because I left out the link to the study.)

Right, but that again is for protecting the wearer, which no one is really claiming for homemade masks. 

And we do know that despite what that says, mask wearing does lower flu transmission. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

KEEP READING. 

"We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing."

Which is actually the whole freaking point. Soo....if they don't know that, than the whole thing is pretty useless. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I don't want my kids to be shy around people because they look different either. But I think it is entirely normal for kids (and adults for that matter) to be wary of people whose facial expressions you can't see and/or read accurately and who they can't have a normal social interaction with because of the difficulties of communication that the masks impose. And I would hate for my kids to have to adapt and think of that type of non-interaction as "normal" when it's not and shouldn't be.

It's not racially motivated and it's not "other-ing" people to want to be able to genuinely communicate with people in public. Other cultures are more reserved than Americans when it comes to that type of thing, and that's fine. But it is at least somewhat uniquely American to be friendly and interactive with strangers in public and I don't want us to lose that. I feel the loss already myself when I'm out and about in my mask, and I am much less likely to initiate friendly conversations in public, even from a good social distance. Other people are less likely too, from what I have experienced. It contributes to the sense of isolation I feel and it's not a good place to be mental-health wise, for me or for my kids.

It's about the communication aspect of it, not the looks of it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/photos-from-the-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic/

As American as Baseball...   masks during 1917-1920 Influenza:

Major League Baseball

players and also fans watching are masked:

Unident. baseball players, one batting & one catch

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Which is actually the whole freaking point. Soo....if they don't know that, than the whole thing is pretty useless. 

I can't really agree with this conclusion regarding it being useless, although I respect your opinion that it is. I think that all study of this type is useful, and adds to our knowledge base. I hope they do much, much more of it. Also, this tends to be a really emotional topic right now more than just a scientific one, and I get that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JanOH said:

Comparing my grocery shopping this morning with the same stores as last week, I'll say that people in my area think the threat is over and they are just going to go back to normal.  Last week, same time, same stores, I'd say 90% of the people I encountered were masked.  This morning, maybe 50% and that may be over-estimating.  I literally also had to back away from other customers who were invading my personal space and even employees.  It's like everyone decided that the Memorial Day holiday had magically made Covid-19 disappear.  I may have to go back to my online ordering routine.  I so enjoyed actually going to a store last week but last week I felt like everyone was being very careful - not this week.  

Our county cases have doubled in the past few weeks.  Those numbers aren't large but we are rural so I've just been watching the local trends.  One plant in the area had a breakout which changed our numbers.  It seems people aren't paying attention any more though.  The next few weeks will be interesting to watch.  Hopefully, the virus is in small enough numbers that we won't continue to see increasing numbers.  I'm a bit nervous this week because my 18yods starting work at our local Amazon Warehouse where there have been employees test positive but he needed a summer job.  He's being careful and showering after his shifts but if the numbers keep increasing our family is going to be more exposed than we were before 😞

 

Jan, are you in OH? I was concerned when they said the R0 is over one in a couple of local counties now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Momto6inIN

I would be wary of much communication with you or anyone at this time with both of us masked if indoors, not because of the mask but because my goal is to be in and out of necessary essential errands as quickly as possible and with as little interaction as possible.  The reason is the virus, not the mask.

If I encountered you in an indoors location and you were unmasked, I would be even more wanting to distance from you and not communicate with you in person. At. All. Again due to the virus.

If I encountered you outdoors and we were both masked and distanced, then I would be happy to communicate in a friendly manner.  

Again, for me the issue is the virus. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I can't really agree with this conclusion regarding it being useless, although I respect your opinion that it is. I think that all study of this type is useful, and adds to our knowledge base. I hope they do much, much more of it. Also, this tends to be a really emotional topic right now more than just a scientific one, and I get that. 

That was more of just my frustration, I know. But gee, don't put your nose right up to the outside of someone's mask while they are actively coughing. Ok. Um, wasn't gonna do that anyway, lol. 

For the general public what we need to know is exactly what they said they didn't test - if it helps reduce the distance the virus travels when someone coughs, and if it recduces spread via non coughing activities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

. Other cultures are more reserved than Americans when it comes to that type of thing, and that's fine. But it is at least somewhat uniquely American to be friendly and interactive with strangers in public and I don't want us to lose that. I feel the loss already myself when I'm out and about in my mask, and I am much less likely to initiate friendly conversations in public, even from a good social distance. Other people are less likely too, from what I have experienced. It contributes to the sense of isolation I feel and it's not a good place to be mental-health wise, for me or for my kids.

It's about the communication aspect of it, not the looks of it.

I feel the loss of communication as well, and that’s perhaps my most disliked part of it. I strongly disagree that it’s “uniquely American to be friendly and interact with strangers”, though.  There are a lot of cultures in the world that are far, far friendlier than ours typically is. I might even hazard that the US is on the lower side of the range of typical amounts of communication by people in public. Even within America, it varies widely from location to location how interactive and outgoing people are with others in public. 
 

4 hours ago, dmmetler said:

Does anyone know if face shields would provide a similar level of protection to a cloth mask? I know medical personnel use shields plus N95 masks for close procedures. I'm thinking a clear shield might be a better choice for teaching young children, because they could see my facial expressions and mouth movements. And it wouldn't get damp, etc, the way a cloth mask does, and could be wiped down vs needing to be machine washed/dried. 

I agree with others that it might provide some benefit, but not as much as a cloth mask. That said, that’s the route the speech therapists at the clinic we go to are going to use when they start doing in clinic appointments soon.  The kids need to be able to see the therapist’s mouth. The kids obviously won’t be able to be wearing masks during their appointment, so the therapist will be opening themselves up to some risk this way.

2 hours ago, Skippy said:

There is some recent research evaluating effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in filtering SARS–CoV-2 specifically. I found it in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

Others have addressed a lot of the limitations of the study, but I’m not sure anyone pointed out this was a preliminary study of only four people. So when you talk about 3/4 of the people, you’re literally talking about three of four people. And the petri dishes were less than 8 inches from their mouth when they coughed. Another potential flaw is that they tested the unmasked condition first, and as we now know, the virus particles remain suspended in the air for up to several hours after they are expelled, so having the person cough unmasked first and then doing the other tests could account for some of the particles in both the petri dish and on the outside of the masks. We just don’t know. Even the authors say in the comments that it’s a very limited pilot study and agree with a lot of the critique of all the issues with the study.  Sharing this particular study is the kind of thing that has made me ask in the past whether people even want masks to be effective. There are so many studies out there showing that it looks like they could help a lot, but people go looking for the one poorly designed study that might suggest they don’t (but it actually doesn’t suggest that when you look more carefully at it). 

1 hour ago, 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.

I agree with your assessment. Viral amounts were lower in the petri dish when the patient was wearing a mask than without, and they were lower when wearing a cotton mask than when wearing a surgical mask. So, the study could just as easily be used to show that cotton masks are better than surgical masks. I wouldn’t say that at all based on the study though, because the study is so limited and has some poor design aspects. It certainly shouldn’t be cited as the evidence for why people shouldn’t be wearing masks though. It clearly supports the opposite.

Edited by kand
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Novel virus is of course different than anything we have seen before.

But clearly we have used things like cloth drapes during surgical procedures to maintain more cleanliness / less infection.  That is not a new idea.

And clearly even before modern materials like N95 masks were available, coverings were thought to do some good in reducing infection from respiratory conditions as well.

I would prefer to err on that side while we figure out if it helps for certain and in what situations. 

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That was more of just my frustration, I know. But gee, don't put your nose right up to the outside of someone's mask while they are actively coughing. Ok. Um, wasn't gonna do that anyway, lol. 

For the general public what we need to know is exactly what they said they didn't test - if it helps reduce the distance the virus travels when someone coughs, and if it recduces spread via non coughing activities. 

 

I have a feeling that a fairly simple homeschool experiment might show that there would be some reduction at least in droplets, and reduction is helpful even if it is not perfect because it seems to take a certain amount of virus to get sick for most people.

Perhaps having some bright colored substance spread in one’s mouth that comes out with droplets, and cough with a large white paper underneath one with various types of masks  on and with mask off to get comparison to see if droplets reduce.

And trying to blow out a candle with masks on versus mask off. 

Etc.

I am sure you can think of others.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pen said:

Perhaps having some bright colored substance spread in one’s mouth that comes out with droplets, and cough with a large white paper underneath one with various types of masks  on and with mask off to get comparison to see if droplets reduce.

Where is MythBusters when you need it?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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...