Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

kand

Could some mask-refusers explain?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

It seems to reproduce in the lungs, but viruses don’t just stay in one place.  It will spread throughout the body and attack other organs.  

Although some viruses do, right? Like, if you have cold sores, you can spread it to other parts of your body. 

I really know next to none of this science, so I'm simply asking. (As you can tell, I think people should wear masks, so I'm just trying to figure out how things work.) 

Share this post


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

That's a lot more nuanced than I even realized. So I'm just thinking through this really carefully. When the woman in Walmart (who claimed it was her asthma) came ACTIVELY COUGHING and said she was fine coming up close to me, she was totally wet, out of line, not evidence based. I mean, I was almost fisticuffs mad. 

So just to apply a little logic, singing could involve lots of air movement, much like coughing, therefore you'd need studies showing a particular mask actually blocks something or it's unlikely masks in church would make much difference. The force of the air would just make everything go out the sides. I haven't returned to church and have been thinking about what it would take to make me feel comfortable. They're not wearing masks, but on the other hand it sounds like the benefit might be more hoped rather than definite. One lusty breath and the mask is doing diddley. And yes, I acknowledge the irony that to me masks seem safer in church but I'm unwilling to wear one. But if there's no logic to the mask while singing, if the air is just going to go out the sides as when coughing, then it would make nominal difference.

So how do nurses feel safe going into these medical situations??? Oh my. 

I know multiple people wearing masks (disposable, medical) in public, saying explicitly they are doing it to keep themselves safe. So if a nurse wears a mask, is that to keep the NURSE safe or the patient?? Surely it has at least *some* safety value for the wearer? 

It has been very obvious that a segment of the population is going to wear masks or put masks on their kids in the hope that it will keep them *safe* and I don't think there's a lot of effort to dispel misconceptions on this.

The fact that this is the first time you've heard this points to a MASSIVE messaging failure on the part of public health departments. This is what the whole "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" thing is based on. And why "masks for those who want to" doesn't work. The point of masking is to stop the majority of infectious droplets from getting into the air in the room.  Once they're dispersed you'd need a higher quality filter and tightly fitted mask to keep from breathing them in. 

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Yes, that seems to make sense. Although I thought they'd been finding the virus in other organs? Could using a different access point result in the virus attaching to something else? 

 

Very probably, but I don’t think research has been done to determine this.

It attaches to ACE2 receptors, and many body tissues have ACE2 receptors, not just lungs. 

 

 

(ETA: a quote from a nih pub med article I think whose link vanished

“Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute infectious disease that spreads mainly via the respiratory route. A distinct coronavirus (SARS-CoV) has been identified as the aetiological agent of SARS. Recently, a metallopeptidase named angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been identified as the functional receptor for SARS-CoV. Although ACE2 mRNA is known to be present in virtually all organs, its protein expression is largely unknown. Since identifying the possible route of infection has major implications for understanding the pathogenesis and future treatment strategies for SARS, the present study investigated the localization of ACE2 protein in various human organs (oral and nasal mucosa, nasopharynx, lung, stomach, small intestine, colon, skin, lymph nodes, thymus, bone marrow, spleen, liver, kidney, and brain). The most remarkable finding was the surface expression of ACE2 protein on lung alveolar epithelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine. Furthermore, ACE2 was present in arterial and venous endothelial cells and arterial smooth muscle cells in all organs studied.”

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Very probably, but I don’t think research has been done to determine this.

It attaches to ACE2 receptors, and many body tissues have ACE2 receptors, not just lungs. 

Yeah, that's what I remember seeing. (And again, I'm not all that educated about these things.) 

Share this post


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

The fact that this is the first time you've heard this points to a MASSIVE messaging failure on the part of public health departments. This is what the whole "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" thing is based on. And why "masks for those who want to" doesn't work. The point of masking is to stop the majority of infectious droplets from getting into the air in the room.  Once they're dispersed you'd need a higher quality filter and tightly fitted mask to keep from breathing them in. 

And perhaps is an indication that one is in a news bubble, either inadvertently (it can happen easily) or voluntarily.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you're still interested in an answer to the original question: I have claustrophobia and wearing a mask induces anxiety.  I'll wear it if required by the store, but I frequently pull it down to breathe or just give up and keep my nose exposed.  Yes, it defeats the purpose of the mask, but when the alternative is me having a panic attack.... suck it up.  I'm doing my best.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Yeah, that's what I remember seeing. (And again, I'm not all that educated about these things.) 

 

I added more above but our posts crossed:

 

“Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute infectious disease that spreads mainly via the respiratory route. A distinct coronavirus (SARS-CoV) has been identified as the aetiological agent of SARS. Recently, a metallopeptidase named angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been identified as the functional receptor for SARS-CoV. Although ACE2 mRNA is known to be present in virtually all organs, its protein expression is largely unknown. Since identifying the possible route of infection has major implications for understanding the pathogenesis and future treatment strategies for SARS, the present study investigated the localization of ACE2 protein in various human organs (oral and nasal mucosa, nasopharynx, lung, stomach, small intestine, colon, skin, lymph nodes, thymus, bone marrow, spleen, liver, kidney, and brain). The most remarkable finding was the surface expression of ACE2 protein on lung alveolar epithelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine. Furthermore, ACE2 was present in arterial and venous endothelial cells and arterial smooth muscle cells in all organs studied.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm making a mask out of a double layer of a black chiffon-like material.  Not real effective but it meets the legal definition of a mask, is very breathable, and should be non-offensive to others who value mask wearing (I don't think it will be obvious how lightweight the material is).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


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

I'm making a mask out of a double layer of a black chiffon-like material.  Not real effective but it meets the legal definition of a mask, is very breathable, and should be non-offensive to others who value mask wearing (I don't think it will be obvious how lightweight the material is).

So you've decided to make people feel better without actually protecting them :-/. Frankly, I'd rather you wear nothing so I could stay further away from you if I needed to... 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Danae said:

The fact that this is the first time you've heard this points to a MASSIVE messaging failure on the part of public health departments.

 

This is what the whole "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" thing is based on. And why "masks for those who want to" doesn't work.

The point of masking is to stop the majority of infectious droplets from getting into the air in the room.  Once they're dispersed you'd need a higher quality filter and tightly fitted mask to keep from breathing them in. 

 

I bolded and modified your spacing to draw attention to what I think is most key to understand. 

Yes. I agree.

It needs also some excellent graphics to help rapid understanding!

 

And @PeterPan in my experience is a person who will actually pay attention and potentially change mind given different information. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I'm making a mask out of a double layer of a black chiffon-like material.  Not real effective but it meets the legal definition of a mask, is very breathable, and should be non-offensive to others who value mask wearing (I don't think it will be obvious how lightweight the material is).

 

Thank you!

It probably will still be better than nothing.

if you could handle a loose  triple layer that would probably be even better. 

I have been soaking my outer mask layer in saturated salt water then drying which may help deactivate  virus ...   an added potential benefit or detriment is that it tends to make cloth dry stiff.  With claustrophobia which I have some of, I can use the stiffness to make a cloth mask curve away from my face, much like many n95 types. I find I prefer the cloth to stand off my nose and mouth.  You might be the opposite and prefer soft, light and airy touching you. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

In case you're still interested in an answer to the original question: I have claustrophobia and wearing a mask induces anxiety.  I'll wear it if required by the store, but I frequently pull it down to breathe or just give up and keep my nose exposed.  Yes, it defeats the purpose of the mask, but when the alternative is me having a panic attack.... suck it up.  I'm doing my best.

FWIW -- I don't judge people one way or the other when I'm out and about. Mostly I keep my mind on my own business and try to get in/out as quickly as possible, and therefore I don't pay a lot of attention to anyone else. It amazes me that so many here seem to notice so much about others' masks--how they fit and how they're wearing them (or not) and whatever else they are or aren't doing with them. At the most I make sweeping glances to kinda sorta get an idea of the percentage of people who are masking, then I get on with my business. But for the random person minding her own business who doesn't have a mask on--I assume she may have a valid reason for not wearing one. Thankfully I've never encountered an obnoxious person on either side of the debate, but if I did -- yeah, I'd tend to judge them. But not someone going quietly about her business.

Thank you for doing what you can.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

So you've decided to make people feel better without actually protecting them :-/. Frankly, I'd rather you wear nothing so I could stay further away from you if I needed to... 

I agree. It’s important to know who to avoid. Pretending to do the right thing makes it impossible for the rest of us to know if we are reasonably safe, or for rules and laws that protect us to actually be enforced.
 

I'm sorry wearing a mask is uncomfortable for you. Truly, many many many of us deal with the anxiety they can cause, especially now that it’s hot. But I feel like this is where that idea of personal responsibility comes in: if you can’t mask ( and again, I get it), then the responsible action is to stay home. Just as it is responsible for me to avoid places where people do not mask (or only pretend to). And this summer, because I have low heat tolerance, there will be days when I will feel too hot and sick to wear a mask and will instead *stay home*.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I agree. It’s important to know who to avoid. Pretending to do the right thing makes it impossible for the rest of us to know if we are reasonably safe, or for rules and laws that protect us to actually be enforced.

 

I believe that it needs to be masks plus Distancing, so I try to keep my distance whether people are masked or not. 

Quite a few disposable masks now being sold are probably substandard as well, but it is still better than nothing most likely—as sneezing into a chiffon hanky almost certainly would be better than just sneezing into air. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

In case you're still interested in an answer to the original question: I have claustrophobia and wearing a mask induces anxiety.  I'll wear it if required by the store, but I frequently pull it down to breathe or just give up and keep my nose exposed.  Yes, it defeats the purpose of the mask, but when the alternative is me having a panic attack.... suck it up.  I'm doing my best.

It's too bad you can't just not wear one, then, and explain that it's for medical reasons :-(. I totally get it. That's why I was saying in that case, I'd rather you not wear anything, so I'd know to stay away. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I know multiple people wearing masks (disposable, medical) in public, saying explicitly they are doing it to keep themselves safe. So if a nurse wears a mask, is that to keep the NURSE safe or the patient?? Surely it has at least *some* safety value for the wearer? 

I

Medical masks do provide quite a lot of protection against droplet transmission.

From a medical IPAC (infection prevention and control) point of view, the words "droplet" and "airborne" don't mean exactly the same thing.  Surgical/medical masks are quite effective in preventing droplet transmission - where droplets are defined as relatively heavy particles, and do not stay suspended in the air.  They are breathed/coughed/spit out, travel 1-2m, then fall to the ground.  They are relatively heavy and fall onto the mask.  They are heavy enough that they don't tend to travel around the corners (much) of the mask and get sucked in (much).  "Droplet precautions" = medical mask, googles and faceshield.  This combo is very effective against protecting against droplet transmission and is standard in hospitals across the province (usually combined with "contact precautions" which means gown and gloves).  Airborne transmission is usually defined as transmission caused by aerosols - very fine particles that stay suspended in the air, and waft with air currents.  Medical masks don't help with these - they do go around the corners of the mask.  "Airborne precautions" requires an N95 or elastomere respirator with appropriate cartridges. 

Most COVID transmission is thought to by respiratory droplets, not airborne/aerosols (as defined by medica IPAC standards).  That's why I (and all clinical staff at my hospital) wear a surgical mask for general patient care, even if caring for known COVID positive patients  (one mask per shift!), but swap out for an N95 only if I am doing an aerosol-generating procedure.  This practice is also standard across the province.  We have had zero COVID cases in our clinical staff (we have had approx 20 patients admitted for COVID, and many more outpatients).  We have had a few cases among non-clinical staff, that were thought to be community acquired.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 9

Share this post


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

 

I believe that it needs to be masks plus Distancing, so I try to keep my distance whether people are masked or not. 

Quite a few disposable masks now being sold are probably substandard as well, but it is still better than nothing most likely—as sneezing into a chiffon hanky almost certainly would be better than just sneezing into air. 

True. Anything is better than nothing.

What made me uncomfortable and prickly was the wording: “Not real effective but it meets the legal definition of a mask, is very breathable, and should be non-offensive to others who value mask wearing (I don't think it will be obvious how lightweight the material is).“ So she knows it isn’t helpful but doesn’t seem to care as long as she “ looks” like she’s doing something to those who care. I’d truly just rather know so I can walk down a different aisle and distance myself further.

I truly hope my post didn't sound like an attack. But I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of people trying to get away with things, especially when it puts public health in jeopardy.  I hope I’m misreading the sentiment. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

It's too bad you can't just not wear one, then, and explain that it's for medical reasons :-(. I totally get it. That's why I was saying in that case, I'd rather you not wear anything, so I'd know to stay away. 

 

Ah!

our different opinion on this may in part relate to density of where we live.  I can pretty much keep 6 (minimum) feet from people most of the time when I go to my nearest cities.

But in NYC you more have to be close to people due to density of population, small stores, narrow aisles, so deciding who to be farther or closer from could matter much more.  As you likely are going to be only a foot or two from someone at some points. 

It could be a good reason to add face shields for your own family when out in public. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Most COVID transmission is thought to by respiratory droplets, not airborne/aerosols (as defined by medica IPAC standards).  That's why I (and all clinical staff at my hospital) wear a surgical mask for general patient care, even if caring for known COVID positive patients  (one mask per shift!), but swap out for an N95 only if I am doing an aerosol-generating procedure.  This practice is also standard across the province.  We have had zero COVID cases in our clinical staff (we have had approx 20 patients admitted for COVID, and many more outpatients).  We have had a few cases among non-clinical staff, that were thought to be community acquired.

I thought there was actually evidence of aerosol transmission... did that turn out to be false? 

Share this post


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

We have had zero COVID cases in our clinical staff (we have had approx 20 patients admitted for COVID, and many more outpatients).  We have had a few cases among non-clinical staff, that were thought to be community acquired.

In NYC, the rate of COVID antibodies in hospital staff was lower than in the general population. So there is certainly evidence that masking works for medical professionals. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janeway said:

Here is the other thing I don't get. Supposedly, when you breathe, germs cannot get out of your mask. But they can get in. So, if you wear a mask, it only protects others from you but not you from others. 

I'm really really happy to hear you say you don't get it - seriously! It's okay not to get it! But when you say you don't get it - that's your brain admitting it wants more information - and we have that 🙂

Seriously though, the best description is from Wathe at the bottom quote, but to summarize:

Droplets are heavy, bigger, and don't go very far. That's mostly what you are stopping when you wear a mask - droplets that you are exhaling. Think of it as the equivalent of covering your mouth when you cough/sneeze. They move fast out of your mouth, hit the mask, stick (mostly, not all). If you are NOT wearing a mask, some of those droplets will dry up a bit, and disperse into smaller areosols, which a mask does not stop. (well, it stops SOME, as random motion means some hit the mask, some get through, some go around the sides ). So if you are not wearing a mask, and you breathe out and some areosols are there, some will likely get into my mask and I will breathe them in. If you wear a mask, and that filters out most of the droplets (major way it is spread) and I have  mask, which also filters some stuff, but not all, that is the safest scenario for me. 

 

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Is the logic the same on the paper/medical masks? (not the n95 but the blue, paper type) 

Yes. Surgical masks were NEVER meant really to protect the surgeon, but the patient. They are so the surgeon isn't spewing droplets into the surgical field. If the surgeon/doctor/whomever needs to be protected FROM the patient, they wear a different type of mask. 

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

That's a lot more nuanced than I even realized. So I'm just thinking through this really carefully. When the woman in Walmart (who claimed it was her asthma) came ACTIVELY COUGHING and said she was fine coming up close to me, she was totally wet, out of line, not evidence based. I mean, I was almost fisticuffs mad. 

So just to apply a little logic, singing could involve lots of air movement, much like coughing, therefore you'd need studies showing a particular mask actually blocks something or it's unlikely masks in church would make much difference. The force of the air would just make everything go out the sides.

It will help, but we don't know how much. Singing with a mask is considered safer than without, and not singing at all would be safest. Singing without a mask is the least safe, and probably worst thing you can do. That you haven't had cases yet means no one showed up with the virus to spread it. If and when someone does, then it will spread. That church in Oregon went from 0 cases in the congregation to over 200 in the congregation, quickly. 

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I missing it. That was actually my final knock against masks, the death blow. The stupid thing left hot misty germy air going straight up into my glasses. Not only could I not see, but it makes total sense that you're pushing those germs where they don't belong. 

Oh, did it have a nosewire? I made a mask for my daughter that she wears with her glasses without an issue. But definitely needs a nose wire, and to fit properly. Some masks are being sold online specifically for glasses wearers. And some people just like to stick a bit of medical tape on the mask to stick it to their skin so air can't escape up. 

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

But I'm just saying 100 people in a room is still 100 people. So they load will go up even when you reduce by percentages.

Yes, it will. Which is why the bigger the gathering, the worse the risk. But masks will reduce how far things travel, and how much virus is spread, which is a good thing. 

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

I can't read the whole 9 pages so if people moved on from OP, sorry, I'll just answer OP.

I am not "morally" or "philosophically" or "politically" opposed to wear one, I just have a very hard time breathing in one. But!!!! what makes me not wear it unless I am required to is simply this: people are hypocrites!!  You go into a place and people give you dirty looks for not wearing one and then what to they do??  Yep, they take them off to sneeze, to talk on their cell phones, to pick something out of their teeth (ALL has been seen with my own eyes). Not to mention that people clearly do not understand measurements and what 6ft really means. So, I feel no obligation to do something for "common good" if that's "common good" is being very superficial.

I went to get a pedicure yesterday. Our state doesn't require masks. Our town doesn't require masks. But this business did. So, I put one on. I get in my chair and I see that 2 employees are just sitting there, no masks, eating chips, licking their fingers. Needless to say, I pulled my mask off so I could actually breath. No one said anything and frankly, it didn't seem like they cared at all.

So because some people are careless with others health, you should be too? I mean, it's like the old "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" We are adults, we should do the right thing even when others are not. Heck, it becomes MORE important, for those that do know the right thing to do to do it. 

52 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

.  I'm doing my best.

That's all I am asking - for everyone to do their best. That would be a HUGE help. 

 

 

1 minute ago, wathe said:

Medical masks do provide quite a lot of protection against droplet transmission.

From a medical IPAC (infection prevention and control) point of view, the words "droplet" and "airborne" don't mean exactly the same thing.  Surgical/medical masks are quite effective in preventing droplet transmission - where droplets are defined as relatively heavy particles, and do not stay suspended in the air.  They are breathed/coughed/spit out, travel 1-2m, then fall to the ground.  They are relatively heavy and fall onto the mask.  They are heavy enough that they don't tend to travel around the corners (much) of the mask and get sucked in (much).  "Droplet precautions" = medical mask, googles and faceshield.  This combo is very effective against protecting against droplet transmission and is standard in hospitals across the province (usually combined with "contact precautions" which means gown and gloves).  Airborne transmission is usually defined as transmission caused by aerosols - very fine particles that stay suspended in the air, and waft with air currents.  Medical masks don't help with these - they do go around the corners of the mask.  "Airborne precautions" requires an N95 or elastomere respirator with appropriate cartridges. 

Most COVID transmission is thought to by respiratory droplets, not airborne/aerosols (as defined by medica IPAC standards).  That's why I (and all clinical staff at my hospital) wear a surgical mask for general patient care, even if caring for known COVID positive patients  (one mask per shift!), but swap out for an N95 only if I am doing an aerosol-generating procedure.  This practice is also standard across the province.  We have had zero COVID cases in our clinical staff (we have had approx 20 patients admitted for COVID, and many more outpatients).  We have had a few cases among non-clinical staff, that were thought to be community acquired.

 

What she said, lol. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

I thought there was actually evidence of aerosol transmission... did that turn out to be false? 

It depends who you read.  It looks like it's mostly droplet.  Certainly a province with 15 million people, second worst COVID rates in the country, with all hospitals using droplet precautions, and using N95 only for AGP, and relatively low HCP getting sick tells me "mostly droplet transmission" is probably true.  This was (and still is) also a necessary PPE conservation strategy.  If we could all be in N95 all the time I'm sure we would be, but there just aren't enough N95s in the country.

ETA Canada, for clarity

Edited by wathe
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

In NYC, the rate of COVID antibodies in hospital staff was lower than in the general population. So there is certainly evidence that masking works for medical professionals. 

I believe it.  And I think HCP are less likely to pick it up in the community as well, because we're all good and scared, and we know PPE works, and how to use it properly.  I'm more afraid of the grocery store that the emergency department, to be quite honest. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

It depends who you read.  It looks like it's mostly droplet.  Certainly a province with 15 million people, second worst COVID rates in the country, with all hospitals using droplet precautions, and using N95 only for AGP, and relatively low HCP getting sick tells me "mostly droplet transmission" is probably true.  This was (and still is) also a necessary PPE conservation strategy.  If we could all be in N95 all the time I'm sure we would be, but there just aren't enough N95s in the country.

Is droplet transmission consistent with the superspreader events in large gatherings? Do they get suspended in the air and recirculated? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, but that means for a group setting it's a joke. If you're going to put 100 people in a room and sing, the particles that escape will add up anyway. The percentage reductions make no difference at that point.

 

 Presumably, not all 100 of those people are infected, though. What you’re trying to prevent is the possible one or maybe two people in the room that have the potential to infect other people.

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

I do think the stress of the pandemic is part of what has fueled the protests.

I think the pandemic may have contributed to this being the moment that something is actually done about the race problem in America, but I think the protests were fueled primarily by the country watching a cop nonchalantly kneel on the neck a black man until he died, while onlookers and Floyd pleaded to let him breathe.  I personally think the impact of that moment was also primed ahead of time by the country seeing just a couple weeks earlier a black man literally hunted down and killed while jogging in his neighborhood 😢. So the protests seem entirely appropriate and justified, it’s just super unfortunate to have them coincide with a pandemic. Obviously the riots and looting are a different thing, but those are really a fringe distraction from the protests.

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

the virus is going to spread when you sing whether you wear a mask or not, possibly only reducing a percentage with masks, then that could explain why people are choosing not to wear them. Could be more explanations, sure, but that seems to me like it's probably part of it. 

Pretty sure that’s not it. 

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

I'm a little confused. Do you go to church? My sense is most churches in our state are open now and almost all are singing.

I go to church. Our church is not meeting in person yet. I don’t imagine there will be in person singing for quite some time, as my church is following the health guidelines and data carefully.  We are also a church that typically does a lot of singing. One of the things I look forward to most when this pandemic is over is being back in church with everyone else and singing together. That will be an emotional moment, truly. So it’s not because singing doesn’t matter to us.

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

I can't read the whole 9 pages so if people moved on from OP, sorry, I'll just answer OP.

I am not "morally" or "philosophically" or "politically" opposed to wear one, I just have a very hard time breathing in one. But!!!! what makes me not wear it unless I am required to is simply this: people are hypocrites!!  You go into a place and people give you dirty looks for not wearing one and then what to they do??  Yep, they take them off to sneeze, to talk on their cell phones, to pick something out of their teeth (ALL has been seen with my own eyes). Not to mention that people clearly do not understand measurements and what 6ft really means. So, I feel no obligation to do something for "common good" if that's "common good" is being very superficial.

I went to get a pedicure yesterday. Our state doesn't require masks. Our town doesn't require masks. But this business did. So, I put one on. I get in my chair and I see that 2 employees are just sitting there, no masks, eating chips, licking their fingers. Needless to say, I pulled my mask off so I could actually breath. No one said anything and frankly, it didn't seem like they cared at all.

Thanks for answering.  I agree, some people have really crummy mask hygiene, and it’s super useless when people wear a mask under their chin.  Some people doing it wrong to me doesn’t let others off the hook from doing better, though. Those of us practicing better mask hygiene can make up for some of those who don’t.  If you are the one who happens to be carrying the virus when you are out and about, it doesn’t matter how badly others are using their mask, if you are using yours, you can protect the people you coming contact with.

47 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I'm making a mask out of a double layer of a black chiffon-like material.  Not real effective but it meets the legal definition of a mask, is very breathable, and should be non-offensive to others who value mask wearing (I don't think it will be obvious how lightweight the material is).

Well, even though your intention wasn’t to make an effective mask, it actually turns out that chiffon has good electrostatic properties that help trap virus particles. If you could substitute one of those layers with a layer of cotton, or just add a layer of cotton, your mask would actually offer really high filtration. See this study: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I believe that it needs to be masks plus Distancing, so I try to keep my distance whether people are masked or not. 

I keep my distance from everyone while I’m out, but if somebody is not wearing a mask, I try to stay at least 20 feet away. Last time I went to the store, there was only one person in the whole store not wearing a mask, and he was also the one person talking on his phone, which meant he was spewing respiratory particles. It was really inconsiderate. Even when people are masked, I maintain as much distance as possible, always at least 6 feet. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Is droplet transmission consistent with the superspreader events in large gatherings? Do they get suspended in the air and recirculated? 

By definition, they don't get suspended in in the air and recirculated.  But can by pushed by air currents as they are falling.  I think droplet transmission is consistent with most of these events (I'm thinking of the restaurant case).  If they were airborne/aerosol, it shouldn't really matter where you were sitting in the room. Just being in the room at all would be all it takes.

The choir were mingling and socializing as well as singing, I think.  So droplet fits with that too.

ETA:  ditto the funeral - any event with mingling and talking

Edited by wathe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If aerosol transmission were a significant means of transmission, we should have a whole lot more sick HCP in my province, that's for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I believe it.  And I think HCP are less likely to pick it up in the community as well, because we're all good and scared, and we know PPE works, and how to use it properly.  I'm more afraid of the grocery store that the emergency department, to be quite honest. 

It’s seem to me like we are now having fewer healthcare providers become infected than what was happening in other countries early on. Do you think that’s true? Do you think there has been some change in protocols that has helped achieve that?

Share this post


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

It’s seem to me like we are now having fewer healthcare providers become infected than what was happening in other countries early on. Do you think that’s true? Do you think there has been some change in protocols that has helped achieve that?

I think we are less overwhelmed.  So people are actually following the protocols an making fewer mistakes.  PPE is more available.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

By definition, they don't get suspended in in the air and recirculated.  But can by pushed by air currents as they are falling.  I think droplet transmission is consistent with most of these events (I'm thinking of the restaurant case).  If they were airborne/aerosol, it shouldn't really matter where you were sitting in the room. Just being in the room at all would be all it takes.

The choir were mingling and socializing as well as singing, I think.  So droplet fits with that too.

ETA:  ditto the funeral - any event with mingling and talking

So you would think that the person at the choir was in close proximity to every single person who got infected? How would that work with the restaurant cases? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something I found about aerosol transmission: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-coronavirus-spreads-through-the-air-what-we-know-so-far1/

It basically just lists all the cases that make people wonder if aerosols are part of the problem. I'd agree that we don't know yet, but it doesn't seem like it's been ruled out. 

Share this post


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

Here's something I found about aerosol transmission: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-coronavirus-spreads-through-the-air-what-we-know-so-far1/

It basically just lists all the cases that make people wonder if aerosols are part of the problem. I'd agree that we don't know yet, but it doesn't seem like it's been ruled out. 

Another possible aerosol Route:

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-spread-building-pipes.html

(Discussion following a couple SARS2 cases that might have related to apartment sewage pipes:)

“...SARS coronavirus could get into feces and thus into raw sewage. The pipes that carry raw sewage are "usually kept separate from people," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist and a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. But if there are leaks or breaches in the pipes, it could allow people to be exposed. For example a faulty piping system could allow the virus to become "aerosolized" out of a pipe and get into the surrounding air, Adalja said.

At the time of the SARS outbreak, an investigation at Amoy Gardens indeed found problems with drainage pipes.

Here's how that could happen: Typically, bathroom drains have a U-shaped trap that prevents fluids and odors from coming back up, but at Amoy Gardens, officials found that air would flow backward through the drains under certain circumstances, according to a Washington Post article published during the 2003 outbreak. ...”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/06/iupui/releases/17-fairbanks-isdh-second-phase-covid-19-testing-indiana-research.html

Linking this here as well as another thread. It’s phase 2 of a statewide study here in Indiana. Both phase 1 and phase 2 show that more than 40% of people who test positive are not showing symptoms. So, masks are important even for those who don’t feel sick.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So because some people are careless with others health, you should be too? I mean, it's like the old "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" We are adults, we should do the right thing even when others are not. Heck, it becomes MORE important, for those that do know the right thing to do to do it. 

 

 

 

 

I don't want to get on a soap box so I'll try to be concise. First, I try very hard not to put my own health at the hands of the others. Since March 12th, I have worked really hard to do what *I* think would help me and my family not to get this stupid virus. Second, I am usually not a fan of general mandates as it's hardly ever solves a problem. And third, since I was not originally convinced that wearing masks was really a "doing the right thing", it has nothing to do with people jumping off the bridge. It has to do with me not making an extra effort for people who don't seem to care enough.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wear a mask when I go out, but don't feel it's needed because I only go out every 2-3 weeks so I can't be contagious when I actually do go out.  I do it just to make others feel better, but would rather not.

Share this post


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

I wear a mask when I go out, but don't feel it's needed because I only go out every 2-3 weeks so I can't be contagious when I actually do go out.  I do it just to make others feel better, but would rather not.

It probably does give you some protection, just not as much as it protects others. If that helps? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Second, I am usually not a fan of general mandates as it's hardly ever solves a problem.

Many, many, many laws are general mandates. There are probably some you don’t think about.

I was born in Ukraine. When you go back there, people will NOT wear a seatbelt, even in cars that have them. They are usually hidden and you can’t find them.

Oh, and lots of roads don’t have lane markings. People drive three cars wide on roads that are really only wide enough for two cars.

My point is that we take many things for granted. Cultural shifts can start with mandates. Mandates are not pointless.

Edited by square_25
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, like, at some point, wearing shoes was a huge imposition on personal liberty, but most people don't bat an eye now. Stopping at red lights, etc. Some people don't follow the rules, and cause crashes, but if we used that as an excuse for everyone to give up and stop following the rules, we'd have a heck of a lot MORE accidents. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danae said:

The fact that this is the first time you've heard this points to a MASSIVE messaging failure on the part of public health departments. This is what the whole "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" thing is based on. And why "masks for those who want to" doesn't work. The point of masking is to stop the majority of infectious droplets from getting into the air in the room.  Once they're dispersed you'd need a higher quality filter and tightly fitted mask to keep from breathing them in. 

 

Adding also that masks help stop the majority of droplets getting everywhere, not just in air of room or floor and surfaces of room, but on other people’s hair, skin, clothes, glasses, wallets, cellphones etc...   it reduces all of that. 

(There’s also been some research I saw that suggests that the virus can stick onto pollution particles and mask wearing could help stop that too.)

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/06/iupui/releases/17-fairbanks-isdh-second-phase-covid-19-testing-indiana-research.html

Linking this here as well as another thread. It’s phase 2 of a statewide study here in Indiana. Both phase 1 and phase 2 show that more than 40% of people who test positive are not showing symptoms. So, masks are important even for those who don’t feel sick.

Which is really the basis for every policy that’s been put forth so far.
 

How do you manage a virus where a % of the population is contagious but shows little to no symptoms? Presymptomatics (contagious before showing symptoms) and paucisymptomatics (mild enough or atypical symptoms to discount it could be COVID) don’t present severely enough to know they have it and can spread. This plus problems with testing and contact tracing an extremely large population, make it nearly impossible to manage. Therefore you must treat everyone as if they have it and prevent the spread through isolation/quarantine, encouraging good hygiene, masking, social distancing.

That’s all we got folks. We don’t have any other tools in the Covid-prevention toolkit. 🦠 🧰 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:


 

I wear my N100 mask to medical appointments where I am crowded into elevators and am around more sick people (even if they don’t necessarily have COVID19). The gatekeepers at the big medical complex where I go screen for COVID19 with questions and a temperature check. They also require that everyone change their regular mask for theirs because as someone else said, theirs works the same way but is clean. They make an exception for those of us wearing respirators. We keep our respirators on because they know that ours protects us better. But we are asked to put their mask over the respirator. That’s because my respirator has a one way valve in front that lets my air out so technically I could be expelling droplets even though they can’t get in.  
 

 That is important for people to realize. If a person is wearing a mask with an exhalation valve, they have protection, but the exhalation is mostly unfiltered.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Many, many, many laws are general mandates. There are probably some you don’t think about.

I was born in Ukraine. When you go back there, people will NOT wear a seatbelt, even in cars that have them. They are usually hidden and you can’t find them.

Oh, and lots of roads don’t have lane markings. People drive three cars wide on roads that are really only wide enough for two cars.

My point is that we take many things for granted. Cultural shifts can start with mandates. Mandates are not pointless.

I didn't say they were pointless, I said they are hardly ever solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wear a mask when a business I am going to requests it or if for some reason I will need to be in closer proximity to others who's feelings on the matter I don't know, out of courtesy to them.  But otherwise, I am not bothering now. 

The point was to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming the medical system--I have no illusions that we will avoid all catching it eventually.  And in my area, now would be a really good time to catch it if one is assuming that it has to happen sometime.  There are still low numbers of cases here, and the hospitals are below normal numbers as people who can wait on going are still doing so.  So if my case does turn out to be a bad one, now is the perfect time.  We aren't going to church or sports, so we aren't likely to cause a great deal of community spread.  Also for my family personally, now during the summer when there's plenty of Vitamin D going around and the kids are out of school would be the perfect time to deal with it.

If cases jump up here we will return to masking as needed in order to maintain the original goal of not overwhelming the medical system.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I didn't say they were pointless, I said they are hardly ever solve the problem.

In NY, between the mandates, the good messaging, and the first wave, everyone is masking. It’s not the whole answer, but it can help.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

I wear a mask when a business I am going to requests it or if for some reason I will need to be in closer proximity to others who's feelings on the matter I don't know, out of courtesy to them.  But otherwise, I am not bothering now. 

The point was to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming the medical system--I have no illusions that we will avoid all catching it eventually. 

 

But the longer you wait, the more likely it is than the treatments get better.

Also, it’s not clear to me that we do want it to spread to everyone...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

But the longer you wait, the more likely it is than the treatments get better.

Also, it’s not clear to me that we do want it to spread to everyone...

I read an interview with epidemiologist who said that there is a very good chance that 70-80% of people will get this. (if I understood him correctly) and there is also a chance that we won't have a vaccine for this as some viruses you just can't get a vaccine for it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

But the longer you wait, the more likely it is than the treatments get better.

Also, it’s not clear to me that we do want it to spread to everyone...

 

I don’t think that what we want is relevant.  Covid is pretty certainly going to be endemic, just like the flu.  Any vaccine they eventually create has a higher likelihood of being about as effective as the yearly flu vaccines than as a measles vaccine.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better treatment doesn’t mean a vaccine. I think most are aware a vaccine might not work but I also think most believe we will eventually figure out which medications/methods will make this virus less deadly and debilitating. That’s what many people mean when they talk about wanting to get it later rather than sooner because there will be better treatments.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

I don’t think that what we want is relevant.  Covid is pretty certainly going to be endemic, just like the flu.  Any vaccine they eventually create has a higher likelihood of being about as effective as the yearly flu vaccines than as a measles vaccine.

Which is still a good thing.  Now that I'm finally healthy enough to get flu vaccines they keep me out of the ER every year.  The first patient here in Washington just got a $`1.2 million dollar bill for his COVID19 experience.  Now he probably won't have to pay all that and I don't know how much he will be stuck with but even if he's stuck with 20% of that (which would be with a traditional 80/20 plan) then it is still a lot of money.  No thank  you.  I am going to do my darnedest not to get this and will get a yearly vaccine if that is what I have to do. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Better treatment doesn’t mean a vaccine. I think most are aware a vaccine might not work but I also think most believe we will eventually figure out which medications/methods will make this virus less deadly and debilitating. That’s what many people mean when they talk about wanting to get it later rather than sooner because there will be better treatments.

Except, depending on when it is diagnosed and treated and the secondary symptoms, there already seems to be at three treatments that are effective to some degree.

  • Like 1

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...