'Nature' Urges More Masks, Air Purifiers, and Ventilation Instead of Disinfecting Surfaces (nature.com) 164
"Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public-health agencies need to clarify their advice," urges an editorial in Nature (shared by long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo):
A year into the pandemic, the evidence is now clear. The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted predominantly through the air — by people talking and breathing out large droplets and small particles called aerosols.
Catching the virus from surfaces — although plausible — seems to be rare. Despite this, some public-health agencies still emphasize that surfaces pose a threat and should be disinfected frequently. The result is a confusing public message when clear guidance is needed on how to prioritize efforts to prevent the virus spreading... People and organizations continue to prioritize costly disinfection efforts, when they could be putting more resources into emphasizing the importance of masks, and investigating measures to improve ventilation. The latter will be more complex but could make more of a difference.
Now that it is agreed that the virus transmits through the air, in both large and small droplets, efforts to prevent spread should focus on improving ventilation or installing rigorously tested air purifiers. People must also be reminded to wear masks and maintain a safe distance. At the same time, agencies such as the WHO and the CDC need to update their guidance on the basis of current knowledge. Research on the virus and on COVID-19 moves quickly, so public-health agencies have a responsibility to present clear, up-to-date information that provides what people need to keep themselves and others safe.
Catching the virus from surfaces — although plausible — seems to be rare. Despite this, some public-health agencies still emphasize that surfaces pose a threat and should be disinfected frequently. The result is a confusing public message when clear guidance is needed on how to prioritize efforts to prevent the virus spreading... People and organizations continue to prioritize costly disinfection efforts, when they could be putting more resources into emphasizing the importance of masks, and investigating measures to improve ventilation. The latter will be more complex but could make more of a difference.
Now that it is agreed that the virus transmits through the air, in both large and small droplets, efforts to prevent spread should focus on improving ventilation or installing rigorously tested air purifiers. People must also be reminded to wear masks and maintain a safe distance. At the same time, agencies such as the WHO and the CDC need to update their guidance on the basis of current knowledge. Research on the virus and on COVID-19 moves quickly, so public-health agencies have a responsibility to present clear, up-to-date information that provides what people need to keep themselves and others safe.
It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Informative)
Exposure is a function of dosage and duration.
Masks, even cheap cloth masks, help reduce dosage. They don't reduce them to zero, it's not absolute protection, but they do help reduce the dosage. However, if you are in an area of exposure for a long enough time, like your office or your school classroom, the duration becomes the primary concern and the mask's effectiveness are reducing dosage becomes nullified. The means that wearing a mask is highly effective at reducing spread for short term exposures (like going to the grocery store or a restaurant), but isn't adequate for long term exposures and we still need to keep offices and schools closed as much as possible.
Wear a mask when you go out.
If you can work from you you should.
If you can do distance learning you should.
All other exposure pathways you are concerned about are very rare.
This isn't that complicated people.
Masks and continued social distancing (Score:2)
Tangentially i am curious if the reduced load when wearing masks is a factor in the death rate now being lower than at the start of the pandemic.
Anyway, we should indeed continue work as much as possible/allowed from home. Soc
Re: (Score:2)
The decrease in death rate in the US is a myth. The case fatality rate has actually been increasing since November.
Re: Masks and continued social distancing (Score:2)
I'm not sure where on that page you are seeing the fatality rates you cite.
Personally I like to follow this guy's page:
https://91-divoc.com/pages/cov... [91-divoc.com]
He dies the best job of just about anyone I've seen at compiling the data from multiple sources and plotting it in many different ways. You can see how the fatality rates in many nation's have changed over time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where on that page you are seeing the fatality rates you cite.
You aren't looking very hard, then. The second graph on AC's linked page is where US cumulative cases and fatalities by date are displayed.
Personally I like to follow this guy's page: https://91-divoc.com/pages/cov... [91-divoc.com]
He dies the best job of just about anyone I've seen at compiling the data from multiple sources and plotting it in many different ways. You can see how the fatality rates in many nation's have changed over time.
You clearly haven't looked at your own source. Not at the CFR data anyway.
The very first graph on your guy's site shows the exact same data as AC's source (Johns Hopkins), because that's where your guy's site gets its data by default. If you switch the data source to any of the other sources offered, you see the US CFR dropping from ~2.5% last November to ~1.7% now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where on that page you are seeing the fatality rates you cite.
You aren't looking very hard, then. The second graph on AC's linked page is where US cumulative cases and fatalities by date are displayed.
Personally I like to follow this guy's page:
https://91-divoc.com/pages/cov... [91-divoc.com]
He dies the best job of just about anyone I've seen at compiling the data from multiple sources and plotting it in many different ways. You can see how the fatality rates in many nation's have changed over time.
You clearly haven't looked at your own source. Not at the CFR data anyway.
The very first graph on your guy's site shows the exact same data as AC's source (Johns Hopkins), because that's where your guy's site gets its data by default. If you switch the data source to any of the other sources offered, you see the US CFR dropping from ~2.5% last November to ~1.7% now. Dropping, not rising as you claim.
I guess you're just trolling.
You can't just grab a particular date out of thin air and divide the cumulative fatalities by the cumulative cases at that time, you dolt. That's because the fatalities follow the cases by about 21-28 days. (People don't die of covid until AFTER they get covid.) So it's easy to find days where cases are rising rapidly, but people haven't started dying yet. If you are going to compare fatality rates over time, you have to watch 30-day running averages.
Gawd, I would think readers of /. would understand basic
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just grab a particular date out of thin air and divide the cumulative fatalities by the cumulative cases at that time, you dolt.
That is exactly how you determine a CFR. [who.int]
You provided a source you say shows the US CFR increasing since November. Here [91-divoc.com] are [91-divoc.com] the [91-divoc.com] graphs from your guy's site showing the CFR for the data sources he supports, using the statistic he titles in his dropdown list as "Case Fatality Rate".
That's because the fatalities follow the cases by about 21-28 days. (People don't die of covid until AFTER they get covid.) So it's easy to find days where cases are rising rapidly, but people haven't started dying yet. If you are going to compare fatality rates over time, you have to watch 30-day running averages.
Gawd, I would think readers of /. would understand basic statistics like this.
If you just say "CFR" instead of "30 day running average C
Re: (Score:2)
The Doctors have got better at treating the disease, including things like not intubing people so quick and a couple of drugs that do help and even something as simple as putting people on their stomach seems to help.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no expert, but let's do some back of the envelope calculations.
If an 80% effective mask allows one to be safe in a 1-hour exposure, then a 95% effective (well-fitted N95) respirator will keep one safe in a 4-hour exposure in the same environment (assuming the particle size that defines effectiveness is the relevant one for viral transmission).
A 99% effective (well-fitted N99) respirator will keep one safe 20 hours in the same environment. And a 99.97% effective (well-fitted N100) respirator will keep o
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't mean it provides "No protection", it just means it hasn't been tested or certified and isn't warrantied to provide protection.
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:2)
Risk reduction is the key here. Don't stop cleaning the surfaces though. It's still a decent action to take that don't take much effort.
Everyone is responsible for doing their part. Avoud flying unless you must fly. It's known since a long time that it's a good way to spread diseases. Leisure shopping is also something to avoid.
We just have to accept that the way we live packed too tight have to change.
"If you can work from you you should." (Score:2)
Work from me? Eh? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's amazing how many people commented on this without actually reading it. Well done.
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Now scientists say the opposite of all these things. Why should be believe them?
Because generally, knowledge is accumulated, not lost. The guidance from scientists was based on the information available at the time it was issued. As time goes by, more information becomes available and guidance changes to match the sum total of that knowledge. Guidance becomes - in most cases - better over time.
Re: (Score:3)
>the guidance from scientists was based on the information available at the time it was issued.
Well, kind of but advice was also given for political or non-scientific reasons. The advice that "masks don't work" was specifically promulgated so that people would not hoard masks or reduce the supply for medical workers, though by mid-february, 2020 before lock-downs were announced masks were already hard to find, and in fact at the time Chinese people were buying up the supply to ship to relatives in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you had the farce of Nancy Pelosi telling people go go visit Chinatown.
And at the same time, you had that shit-for-brains orange moron Trump saying the fucking coronavirus would just go away when the heat comes. [cnn.com]
Anybody who takes scientific or medical advice from any politician is a smooth-brained mouth-breathing dipshit.
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Informative)
> For some reason, scientists and doctors who study these things professionally told us that this new unknown respiratory virus was somehow different than the every other respiratory virus we've encountered
I must've missed this part - masks, social distancing, and better ventilation of indoor spaces have always been part of the recommendations.
No real scientist or doctor ever said masks don't work - at best, they advised prioritizing self-quarantine over walking about in public with a mask because health related and other essential workers needed the masks more and supplies were not secured. It's long been said that masks provide only moderate protection for you, but the whole point of wearing them was to protect others in case you were infected, because wearing a mask significantly reduces the spread from an infected person to the environment.
So either the people you heard anything else from either weren't doctors/scientists, or you weren't listening to what they were actually saying.
=Smidge=
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:3)
Dr Fauci and the surgeon general were both on national tv numerous times telling the public not to use masks just wash hands and social distance. The Fauci apologists say well thatâ(TM)s what the science told us at the time and thatâ(TM)s false weâ(TM)ve always known how respiratory viruses spread and how to reduce the spread
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is wrong with changing your opinion when new data comes in? The last thing I want is people who are too stubborn to change their mind. If they admit they were wrong, so much the better (but that is probably much less likely to happen).
In the beginning I think people believed it was mainly transmitted via surfaces. Now just about everybody is convinced it is primarily airborne transmission.
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Informative)
> Dr Fauci and the surgeon general were both on national tv numerous times telling the public not to use masks just wash hands and social distance.
The context being that there weren't enough masks to go around, and essential workers needed them more than the average John Q Public who could just stay home and not need a mask.
There was also a lack of information on if or how people could spread it without having symptoms, so recommendations were set based on what was known at the time. It wasn't until a few months later that the recommendations changed based on the better information. Not "false" as you claim, but incomplete.
And no, not all respiratory viruses spread the same. THAT is a lie.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Another wrinkle was that the role of asymptomatic/presymptomatic people in spreading the virus wasn't initially known.
It's still uncertain how much protection a mask provides an average person, given the average person doesn't follow the strict anti-contamination protocols that medical professionals follow. But we now know that masks can play a significant role in protecting other people from the mask wearer, who may well be highly contagious with no symptoms at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:2)
Social distancing is more important than wearing masks in the hierarchy of not breathing bad things.
Avoid stuff you're not supposed to breath first, wear mask second, it's simple. Early on, I think they wanted to emphasize that the general public wearing masks and standing in line ass to teakettle for a burger, or sitting elbow to elbow in a packed church with poor ventilation isn't effective mitigation.
Also, mask in Feb 2020 meant "the blue thing doctors wear" that you order over the internet, and were su
Re: (Score:2)
I must've missed this part - masks, social distancing, and better ventilation of indoor spaces have always been part of the recommendations.
Good grief, and how can anyone argue otherwise and keep a straight face? We have photos from the freaking 1918 flu pandemic showing regular people wearing masks, signs encouraging distancing... and outdoor winter dining and court hearings!
https://www.timesunion.com/new... [timesunion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just need soap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Surgeon General of the United States is a scientist? The list on Wikipedia is full of top brass, but I don't see any scientists there.
That's a low-IQ response. Having a rank doesn't mean you're not a scientist. Hell Trump's Surgeon General had a Bachelor of Science, a medical degree, a psychology degree, a Masters in Public Health specializing in disease prevention and was a certified anesthetist, all before he became the editor of the scientific journal in the medicine field and a professor at a medical school.
Their "top brass" rank is given to them on account of the Surgeon General position being part of the United States Public Health
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Trusting what a politician says is your first mistake (the Surgeon General is a politically appointed post), especially one from an administration which wanted to minimize the response as much as possible (but in general, any politician of any party is a bit suspect).
Most scientists have been consistent is saying that masks work (though less consistent with the degree in which they are needed). In the beginning, I think there was a lot of doubt over how much spread was happening via airborne spreading, but within a couple of months much of that doubt was removed and hence recommendations for wearing masks have consistently become stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
Trusting what a politician says is your first mistake
Not quite. The politician in this case was managing a very real front line worker mask shortage, and the scientists absolutely agreed that in a shortage people in close continued contact with the virus should be prioritised.
His tweet could have been worded better, but his policy of "people don't buy masks, leave them for the medical workers" was absolutely aligned with what scientists and epidemiologists, and the WHO as well were saying.
Re: (Score:2)
They were downplaying them to avoid a rush on masks for the healthcare workers. Masks are good (but not perfect) for mitigating short term exposure and always have been--look at Japan for an example, there's almost 100% mask wearing there.
You're not wrong that it feels like gaslighting sometimes, because they were lying to manipulate us then.
Re: (Score:2)
The Surgeon General
Let me stop you right there. The Surgeon General is a political figure in the federal government appointed by the president. While they have scientific / medical backgrounds they are not impartial and answer to the president.
Hell the Surgeon General of the USA famously chain smoked his way through a presentation of the first definitive study that cigarettes cause cancer and declared at the end of it he doesn't believe it.
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:4, Informative)
Part of the messaging around masks early on was to make sure the (at the time) limited stock of masks went to the people who really needed them like medical personnel.
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling lies to the public about the effectiveness of PPE is not a benefit if the disease rate skyrockets (which it did). Now they have to put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak and in the long run this creates a fundamental lack of trust in the government. Under the circumstances thatâ(TM)s deserved - the government doesnâ(TM)t deserve our trust
Re: (Score:2)
> Telling lies to the public about the effectiveness of PPE
Who was telling lies? It wasn't the doctors or scientists, that's for sure.
Not the real ones anyway. No shortage of dipshits in lab coats but with no relevant qualifications spewing lies...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how toy can accuse me of gaslighting while linking to an article that supports what I've been saying.
What he said is essentially correct; they are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching the virus - the general public does not have access to the full gamut of PPE that health care professionals do, as well as the training to use them properly, and masks alone only marginally reduce your change of catching the virus.
The reason mask mandates started becoming a thing a few weeks la
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:4, Insightful)
That was the reason, but in many places that was, at least initially, not the message. The message was that there was no evidence for the effectiveness of masks, and even that masks would do more harm than good.
True, there was no evidence. But there was a growing body of indications, and there was no real evidence for transmission by contaminated surfaces.
It was a big stupid mistake, eroding public trust in official guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the reason, but in many places that was, at least initially, not the message. The message was that there was no evidence for the effectiveness of masks, and even that masks would do more harm than good.
False. That was never the message. The message was there was no evidence for the effectiveness of HOME MADE masks, and that they may do more harm than good. At the same time that message was coming out the parallel message was that medical facemasks are mandatory for everyone caring for COVID patients and that governments facing mask shortages should prioritise front line workers. There was *NEVER* any doubt as to the efficacy of a medical face mask.
While this was going on the WHO commissioned multiple stud
Re: (Score:2)
False. It really was the message, I remember that very well. Maybe not where you live, but certainly where I live. There were two reasons stated. First, using masks could, they said, lead to a false sense of safety, leading people to not respecting a safe distance anymore (Didn't even the WHO refer to studies like that for some time?). Second, the general public doesn't know how to properly put masks on and off, doesn't have the discipline to disinfect their hands before and after, and that would allegedly
Re: (Score:2)
False. It really was the message, I remember that very well.
What you remember is irrelevant. The public record is relevant. You can go to the WHO now look at the most recent recommendation from the document titled "WHO/2019-nCoV/IPC_Masks" and review all historical revisions right back to the end of January including references to the science underpinning it.
You seem to be confusing political messages with science. The science and the messages from epidemiologists was very clear from the beginning and has sent a completely unified and singular message. What was fed
Re: (Score:2)
See https://youtu.be/6K9xfmkMsvM?t... [youtu.be], (Dr April Baller from the WHO):
Re: (Score:2)
It was a big stupid mistake, eroding public trust in official guidelines.
Yes, it eroded trust and made it worse later on, but at the time the hospitals needed masks, while Joe Schmoe could do without it for a bit longer.
As a public health expert, you can't simply direct mask suppliers to stop selling to ordinary folks. Maybe the idiot-in-chief could have issued an executive order or congress could've passed a law, but one still denies its seriousness and the other is, well, congress.
If you were in that position, could you have done anything differently?
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you want a lot of dead people.
Scientists weren't running blindly. This isn't the first pandemic to have affected humanity. Looking back, there are plenty of scientists saying "we don't know exactly what this is or how it will act, but based on previous pandemics, here's how we stop it from killing everyone."
They gave us their best estimate on how to solve it then, and surprise, it generally worked according to how well we followed the instructions. Places that managed to do full lockdowns with populations that actually isolated generally had pretty good results. Unsurprisingly, when governments and people did the minimum required, we got the minimally successful result.
Now scientists have more information, they can make better predictions and provide better information.
This is literally how science works. It is an iterative process where they keep learning and keep making better. Scientists will never know everything about anything. That doesn't make their insight any less valuable.
Also, remote learning isn't destroying the future, it is enabling it. There are a lot of people out there for whom this big push into online learning is finally opening doors to allow them access to college and university programs that have been - until now - locked to everyone who can't relocate for some reason.
As for the economy... Well, it'll adapt. It always has, and always will. According to the stock market (an admitedly poor indicator of economic wellbeing) this past year has been great for the economy.
To quote the Washington post with the numbers:
Re: (Score:3)
Remote learning is an only sometimes-mitigated disaster for young children (up through about middle school). It works a lot better for children in high-resource households, whether that is money or extra family around, than for disadvantaged children. Even for well-off children, it is less effective and more stressful, leading to worse outcomes in mental health. Many well-off children have transferred from public school systems to private schools because the latter offer in-person education and are doing
Re: (Score:2)
Remote learning is an only sometimes-mitigated disaster for young children (up through about middle school). It works a lot better for children in high-resource households, whether that is money or extra family around, than for disadvantaged children. Even for well-off children, it is less effective and more stressful, leading to worse outcomes in mental health. Many well-off children have transferred from public school systems to private schools because the latter offer in-person education and are doing a better job.
It doesn't work better for *all* children in high-resource households, although it might for some. It has been and continues to be a total fucking disaster for my kids, despite: my and my spouses backgrounds in IT, totally available network and computing resources in our household, the ability to overcome any/all technical/app problems, and great computer use skills on the parts of our kids. My son with great SAT scores was already struggling with high school; in person classes were his high point, indepe
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Insightful)
*People in the US* won't abide lockdowns or masks. However, in other countries not populated predominantly by conspiracy theorists and selfish assholes, lockdowns and masks work quite well and have allowed their societies to return to normal life.
Re: (Score:3)
https://ourworldindata.org/mor... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Old people can afford to stay home. The rest of the world needs to make a living. Where's you empathy for that majority?
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Informative)
WTF, I'm close to 60 and can't afford to stay at home, not to mention the others in the household. Should my wife and son stay home as well?
You'd think wearing a mask and staying 6 ft apart was so hard that it is impossible. Perhaps for you even putting pants on is a huge attack on your freedoms, and fuck everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Health is everyone's responsibility, it is part of living in society. We have things like health inspectors going around to restaurants making sure rats aren't shitting in the food and also mandate things like not shitting in the streets or water supply to protect everyone's health.
It's also as a society, we will lockup people who threaten others health, look up Mary Mallon for a somewhat recent example of someone having their rights removed for no fault of her own besides needing to make a living.
The tribe
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of excess deaths where? China? New Zealand? Australia? In the US, it looks like it is running about 25%-30% extra deaths per week at the current time (and >10% for the entire year):
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
(Note: data still comes in for about 10 weeks from a given date, so the last few weeks will still go higher).
Re: (Score:2)
I have only looked at US numbers. Last 5 years on average, each year was 1.963% more than than the previous year. 2020 was down to 1.79%. For the 60+ crowd, there was a reduction of around 0.5%.
As for your link, follow the tabs to https://public.tableau.com/pro... [tableau.com] to see specifically changed. Respiratory diseases dropped. Circulatory diseases are what spiked.
Re: (Score:2)
2020 was down to 1.79%
Whut? Your link shows the opposite. Can you even read?
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, that is true. A couple key caveats, though.
A) "Stronger" in terms of resisting diseases is not necessarily "stronger" in terms of q
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, no one should listen to so called experts until they actually have real historical data to study and analyze.
There is literally nobody better to listen to than experts. There is no "so-called" involved. The options are: expert and non-expert.
Non-experts have less useful guidance because they not only have less access to existing information, but they also have significantly less background to let them intelligently interpret that information.
That you don't like experts claiming to understand things you do not makes no difference. That you don't like that expert guidance advises against doing what you want to do makes no difference. That you don't like that so many topics are complicated beyond the ability of the lay-person to be able to use "gut instinct" or "common sense" with makes no matter.
Destroying the economy and the future with remote learning is stupid.
The economy is not being "destroyed". Yes, many individuals and small businesses are suffering. Yes, governments are issuing historic levels of debt. But overall the economy is doing just fine. Further, "the economy" is merely one element of the human condition. Our overall condition as a species is about more than the value of our stock portfolio. Add in that the lowest earners are also those most likely to be killed or suffer massive health consequences that the US for-profit health system will cripple them economically for... the best thing all around is to get rid of this plague as quickly as possible.
Finally, the topic of remote learning. Even if the munchkins were to take a year off from schooling, it's not going to somehow miraculously cause brain-damage. Yes, it's a set-back... compared to what education was like a year earlier. But it will return to normal relatively quickly, and that normal is massively ahead of what schooling was like say... 50 years ago. Kids will be fine. Their job prospects will be fine as well given that many countries have had to close their in-person schooling. Unless you're really worried about Australia and New Zealand taking all the jobs... because admitting to that fear is basically admitting that lock-downs work.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been no standout experts in the US. There have been Democrat experts and Republican experts, and this whole thing has been politicized. Locking a small fraction of the productive class into their homes with no income, insufficient help, and no hope has been an abysmal choice. This cannot be continued or repeated. It made it clear that the better choice is to risk illness than for your family to lose everything it has.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you guys voted in a totally unqualified reality TV star who's mode of operation was to divide, and doubled down on your unqualified reality TV star when it became obvious that he was incapable of actually governing, what else do you expect?
Most all other countries, the politicians worked together, especially at the start, because the idea of governing is supposed to be looking out for all your people, not saying, those guys don't agree that I'm the greatest, fuck them.
Re:It's about exposure reduction (Score:5, Interesting)
>There is literally nobody better to listen to than experts.
Unfortunately expertise doesn't also confer impartiality or doing what's in the best interest of the country. Experts are not immune from parochialism and ideological circling of the wagons. And in fact experts tend to be very stubborn and closed to new or contradictory information since they're so certain they know better than everyone else.
That's all true. But doesn't outweigh ignorance. And ignorant people (meant literally, not condescendingly to denote non-experts) are equally not-immune to their own biases. Discounting experts' opinions relative to those of non-experts because they come from experts is... irrational. Humans are humans and mistakes can be made by anyone. But you'd never ask a non-expert for opinions on techniques for removing a brain tumor, regardless of any entrenchment-of-views type arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now scientists say the opposite of all these things. Why should be believe them?
The extremely easy answer to this question is to say that scientists, pundits, politicians, people, etc. should not be believed or discounted solely on the basis of authority. Examine the data and the analysis form opinions based on the data.
Re: (Score:2)
but for months we were told confidently by scientists: masks do not work
We were *NEVER* told by scientists that masks do not work. We were told that there's not enough information available on home made masks to judge their efficacy. From the very beginning right up until now mask recommendations and mandates have been in place especially for hospital workers. In April some studies were done, concluded even home made masks works, and the mandate was strengthened.
no evidence it is airborne
Airborne has a strict definition that is insanely difficult to separate from aerosol transmission. Airborne transmiss
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"... and we still need to keep offices and schools closed as much as possible."
Here is where you go off the rails. Florida has been open in terms of schools since August and the kids are doing great. I am not sure if there was one fatality from kids traced to schools. There has been a teacher or two but statistically much less than other areas of occupation. Meanwhile lockdown states like California and NY not only have more deaths but severe economic issues.
You don't get to tell the world how to die just because you are afraid to live. Thankfully we don't have a full dictatorship yet.
Ah. A Trump imbecile. Allow me to retort:
COVID rates in Florida are higher than those in California. California has more COVID infections and deaths because it has twice the number of people. NY has higher rates than Florida because it has over 8 million people crammed into NYC's 2.5 million apartments and consequently social distancing is really tough.
Do you understand now? Or is some remedial mathematics necessary? Perhaps some puppets could help you count on your fin
Re: It's about exposure reduction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure if there was one fatality from kids traced to schools.
Does Florida trace cases to the extent that they basically know where they all come from? I would be surprised if they could rule out schools, since kids tend to not have symptoms. But I don't know how well tested Florida is.
Re: (Score:3)
They do not. There is virtually zero contact tracing being done anywhere in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What they do is shorten the distance the virus particles you exhale travel. Easy to test, using smoke or if cold enough, just water vapor outside, blow without a mask and observe how far the cloud travels, repeat with a mask.
Masks are not a panacea, which is one of the reasons they weren't pushed at first, they do cut down how far your germs travel. Social distancing is still the best and even then, the ideal distancing varies, a sneeze can easily travel over 6 ft unless slowed down by a mask or even a hand
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. Cloth masks are not warrantied and certified filtration devices. You are right, they aren't going to block everything, and not even enough to be effective over long duration -which was literally what I said in the original post.
But if they reduce particulate counts from 100% without a cloth mask to 30% with -yeah that's not going to get them certified for ANYTHING- but it's till a reduction of 70%.
It's not like using a chain-link fence to block mosquitoes. It's like using a chain link fence t
And, the wrong message was sent... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very happy with clean shopping carts and baskets, and people actually washing their hands, thank you. I don't care at all what the reason behind it is. Please don't discourage people.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that, but what if one of the big reasons we're not seeing many cases based on touching surfaces is that we've finally started being responsible and cleaning more surfaces? Maybe it's only a small number of surfaces that really need to be cleaned, because people handle them for extended periods or touch them in some way other than simply brushing hands over them and thus ensure that they transfer things from them; obviously I'm thinking of shopping cart handles and PIN entry pads here. If people are
This might be meaningful (Score:2)
One interesting bit of data is that "regular" flu cases are down. [healthline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the reason the flu is almost absent this year, but the flu isn't COVID.
FWIW, I've considered it obvious that air borne transmission was the dominant cause ever since the Chinese restaurant case, where air flow was the only plausible case. And the first Washington state superspreader event was a choir practice, where people were being careful about surfaces.
That aerosol transmission was important was less blatant, but it still seemed plausible to me about a year ago.
Re:And, the wrong message was sent... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have had *so* many people watch me dutifully drench the cart in sanitizing spray, then they grab about 20 wipes, and use them as gloves to push the cart around, until they manage to drop the wipes somewhere for us to pick up. The sad part is, the sanitizing spray is Alcohol and Peroxide based, so pretty safe to touch. The cart wipe packaging recommends washing your hands after handling wipes.
Re: (Score:2)
I am very happy with clean shopping carts and baskets, and people actually washing their hands, thank you. I don't care at all what the reason behind it is. Please don't discourage people.
Most stores where I live have had antiseptic wipes available at the entrance for shopping carts for at least the last decade. I don't particularly care if I do it or an employee does.
Rare still happened in NZ. (Score:2)
Let's not forget that the October outbreak (of 2) people in NZ was traced back to specific items that were touched and surface transmission in the quarantine facility. Leading them to redo their entire quarantine procedures.
Re: And, the wrong message was sent... (Score:2)
Bingo. My girlfriend regularly sprays things down with alcohol and has me use soap 3 or 4 times in the few hours we are together. Can be as simple as touching a dirty sock... But I cannot explain to her that this effectively leads to cases where people are more likely to get sick or other skin conditions.
Profit! (Score:3, Funny)
Step 2: Commission studies that show that N95 underwear probably reduces transmission ass-to-ass from seats and ass-to-respiratory from flatulence.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: PROFIT!
(/s for the humor impaired.)
And with forest fires, ariborne sparks set few... (Score:3)
Catching the virus from surfaces â" although plausible â" seems to be rare. Despite this, some public-health agencies still emphasize that surfaces pose a threat and should be disinfected frequently.
And in a forest fire, almost all the transmission to new trees is byflame/superheated gas contact, radiant heat, or falling burning limbs. But that doesn't mean squat if one spark crosses your fire line and ignites another patch beyond it.
As of next Tuesday my wife and I - at extreme risk due to our age and health conditions - have been sequestered for 11 months, with only a handful of short excursions (masked, gloved, face-shielded, and immediately stripping and feeding the clothes to the washer). We've had everything delivered and handled it with gloves until rubbed down with alcohol or left for days to weeks (depending on the material) for any surface virus to degrade, like the biohazard each piece might be. We haven't caught it yet.
My first vaccine dose was two weeks back and my wife (different health provider) is scheduled for hers next Friday. Damned skippy we're going to continue the practice for another couple months, until we've both had the second dose and 10+ days for the rated immunity to develop. (And then we'll continue with masking and sanitation until the mutant strains have died out, too. 95% is still one in twenty.)
(If we're just "keeping the elephants away", fine. We'll keep it up anyhow. But there seem to be a lot of elephants nearby, and there aren't any in the room.)
The result is a confusing public message when clear guidance is needed on how to prioritize efforts ...
Oh the "poor dumb benighted public, with minds too small to hold more than one idea or do more than one thing". Rent a clue, "best and brightest" - they average brighter than you, and even those much dimmer are competent to walk and chew gum at the same time. (They're not like housecats, which manage to be smart enough to be very competent cats using brains the size of walnuts by only paying attention to one thing at a time.)
If you want to avoid catching this, and maybe dying or being debilitated for the rest of your life, you do it ALL, and as close to ALL THE TIME as you can manage. A year sequestered means squat if you and your housemates handle "rarely transmitting" contaminated surfaces several times a day for hundreds of days - and one person in your household "wins the COVID-19 lottery" just once.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Having spent 12 years in the US school system I can say the kids aren’t missing much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered that being "the last man standing" may not be a particularly perspicacious course of action?
So if you take all these precautions to prevent infection, what happens when the water-works fellows all die and your washer no longer washes? Or all the cow slaughterers die and you can no longer get dead cow as the supermarket?
You also claim that you have "health conditions" which presumably means that you need expensive medications or other supports that require a huge number of OTHER PEOPLE.
Oh okay, put everyone in hazmat suits (Score:2)
Meanwhile you can't get dumbass religious people to stop stuffing themselves into churches, where documentably they end up being super-spreader events, you can't get dumb teen and twenty-somethings (and even dumber older people) to stop having parties (more super-spreading), and you can't get pants-on-head idiots to stop being def
Re: (Score:2)
"You have to put everyone in hazmat suits."
Hazmat suits are PPE. They are not OPE.
The rest of your rant seems concerned with OPE. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from taking whatever Personal Protective measures using whatever Equipment (see that, PPE) your little heart desires.
Why do you insist that OTHER PEOPLE take measures to protect YOU? Are you too fracking stupid to take measures to protect yourself?
If all the SDF's (Stupid Dumb Fucks) would just exercize some personal responsibility an
Re: (Score:2)
Infection Routes In Graphics ... (Score:2)
This El Pais article [elpais.com] nicely illustrates how infections occur, based on what is happening in Spain.
There are many factors including: masks, ventilation, duration in shared air, speaking vs. singing/shouting, ...
Re:Over a hundred year we knew (Score:2)
Re: obviously (Score:2)
Because in March we had scientists on national tv telling people masks wouldnâ(TM)t help them and that washing hands and social distancing were enough. That idea got cemented in peoples heads as the truth and now here we are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you skin has a natural barrier to infection unless it is "broken" (ie, you have a non-sealed non-bleeding wound) or you wash the protective layer off with "natural protectant remover" (aka soap and water or hand sanitizer).
Re: (Score:2)
Poison Ivy and Poison Oak (and Skunk spray) are not infectants. They are oil-based irritants (or in the case of Skunk spray, pungents). They do not work by "entering" your body. They work by "sticking to your skin and hair", in the case of Poison Ivy and Poison Oak (which are not poison) causing an allergic reaction. "Tear Gas" (which is a particulate) works in a similar fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
But, if you rub your eyes, bite your finger, or touch the inside of your nose, then the virus, if its on your fingers from touching a surface, will now be in your system.
This is one wel [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
With how few people dying from Corona-chan, it still seems more like noise than trends
Take a look at the graph of excess deaths from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
I think it is very, very obvious that Covid has an effect that is well beyond the noise. You can spot it easily. The deaths rise and fall with peaks of Covid in the US. Current trends are 20-30% above normal death rate for this time of year. (Note: recent data is not complete - they say it takes up to 10 weeks to get it all in, so any recent numbers will go up).
Re:It's nothing to sneeze at! 5% still gets thru N (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wonder is if getting the virus via surfaces is rare, why is so many millions of dollars and so much effort spent on spraying and wiping sanitizing taking place if it's not even a thing.
That is simple: organisations can then say that they have done something and so be seen as being good guys. It is much easier to spray/wipe surfaces than it is to ensure that people who visit you wear face masks correctly; if a visitor objects and makes a fuss then you have a PR problem. Saying that you disinfect is good, easy PR.
Re: (Score:2)
This failure also happens on an individual level. It's easier to wash your hands a couple extra times than change your habits about eating out, going to church, and social visits. It doesn't mean stop washing your hands, but it does mean you're throwing dollars away to save pennies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are wearing a mask and everyone else around you is wearing a mask plus everyone is social distancing, isn't that already double masking plus social distancing?
Once more for the people in the back.
Re: (Score:2)
The virus is transmitted in aerosolized liquids. It doesn’t fly around on its own. N95 masks are overkill for most situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, how many masks to get to 0%?
That's easy. An infinite number. (For the statistically small percentage of Slashdotters who can't figure out his point.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You may need guidance -- some of you seem to prefer to outsource your thought to others. Others (the ones more likely to survive in the event of a major catastrophe) choose self-reliance and do not depend on the ramblings of others.