OT: Covid-19 personal protection ideas, and related

N

N_Cook

Guest
Consulting a couple of medics about this, they seem to be as much in the
dark about this and just use what they are given.

With no hand-sanitizing gel available anywhere, use methylated spirits
or isopropal alchohol, decanted into a small bottle , to reduce any fire
hazard, when used in public places. My attempts at gelling meths just
ended up with snot/slime.

Converting a one-way valve-type dust mask , with strong cords around the
back of the head.
Cover the outer surface with micro-fibre cloth that you can spray
coronavirus-specific disinfectant to.
To hold the cloth in place:10 mm /3/8 inch silicone sleeving, length of
the periphery. Cut axially and staple the join, the bit of overlap
giving just the stretch to hold in place and pull out the ruckles from
curving the sleeving.

Converting over-the-specs type of basic plastic goggles to a closer fit.
Again the same sleeving. With a slivver of wood or something pushed
along inside the sleeving , punch a line of holes. Then lines of hotmelt
glue along the goggles edges, squashing the sleeving onto the glue, some
of it splurging thru the holes for holding the silicone in place.

Any other idea?

As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
to get going again?

Ignor ethe sig, cancelled for the duration, like all the other local
scicafs, talks series, repair cafes and similar presumably


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>
 
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.

As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction, must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.

Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and sealed.. Short of that, never mind.

So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:
As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
to get going again?
Click to expand...

from someone in the medical world

The local hospital has a very large medical electronics department who
keep all the
kit running with specialist engineers in various modalities. In the
anaesthetics department they have a museum/store of old kit which
includes anaesthetic and ICU variants of ventilator. I would suspect that
equipment is being serviced as we speak. In the past, excesses of
redundant equipment like this would go to 'the Third World' and vets.

So an Emergency Powers Act government requisition of all large-animal
ventillators from vets would make more sense than building new from a
currently next to zero manufacturing base, a concept put out to the UK
media.

--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>
 
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:
As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
to get going again?

from someone in the medical world

The local hospital has a very large medical electronics department who
keep all the
kit running with specialist engineers in various modalities. In the
anaesthetics department they have a museum/store of old kit which
includes anaesthetic and ICU variants of ventilator. I would suspect that
equipment is being serviced as we speak. In the past, excesses of
redundant equipment like this would go to 'the Third World' and vets.

So an Emergency Powers Act government requisition of all large-animal
ventillators from vets would make more sense than building new from a
currently next to zero manufacturing base, a concept put out to the UK
media.
Click to expand...

I doubt that obsolete equipment will be allowed to be put back into service. Once the OEM stops supporting it, They cant be insured. Unless the UK system is extremely shoddy, they will not allow it to be used anywhere other than on a movie or TV sound stage. I have personally scraped thousands of pieces of medical electronics that all had a 1/4" hole drilled through the case and the man PC board. It is a process called 'Certified Destruction'.
 
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:
As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
to get going again?
Click to expand...

Two doors down from my office was a Medical Maintenance shop that served two major acute care hospitals, Hahnemann University Hospital, in which basement it was, and St. Christopher's Hospital for Children that sent all its equipment over for servicing. Hahnemann is now closed, and the shop moved over to St. Chris. As Michael suggests, obsolete stuff was obsolete stuff. It would either be sold to 3rd-world nations for a nominal sum (typically, $1..00 per container load) or sent to a crushing yard with a paper-trail. Either method got it 'off the books' for insurance purposes.

I am in an interesting position. Drexel still has a medical school (on hiatus) that is my client, but the hospital is largely a ghost town - and COVID19 is not changing that. I am on orders from my company and owner to work from home when at all possible - not always the case. But, I have access to hand-sanitzer in bulk, toilet paper in bulk, and whatever sorts of other apparatus I might want. But, common sense, clean hands and no hugging strangers about covers it.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:48:29 PM UTC-4, pf...@aol.com wrote:
and no hugging strangers about covers it.
>

That pretty much puts the kibosh on lap dances...
 
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, John-Del wrote:
That pretty much puts the kibosh on lap dances...
Click to expand...

Those who engage in that sort of activity - well, my guess is that they really just don't care...

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 13:40:39 -0700 (PDT), "pfjw@aol.com"
<peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, John-Del wrote:

That pretty much puts the kibosh on lap dances...

Those who engage in that sort of activity - well, my guess is that they really just don't care...

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Click to expand...
I certainly care. That's why I started wearing rubber suits when I do
lap dances.
Eric
 
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-4, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
I certainly care. That's why I started wearing rubber suits when I do
lap dances.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that kill your tips? ;-)
 
On 17/03/20 15:01, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.

As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction, must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it's >70% rather than 60%.

> As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.

So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are
complaining about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect
patients? I don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV
about use of masks. So this page is a waste of time?
<https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks>.
I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street
and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better
off wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks
to me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more
effective.

You get idiotic information such as here:
<https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html>. Quote "A
more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against
the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker
than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease
Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not
at this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to
put on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said."
Junk, as later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the
effect is likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of
*some* use, they should be used in the current situation. Anything that
helps to cut down transmission is better than nothing.

Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said
most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles
coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size
(<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651099>). Most of these would be
caught by a decent mask.

And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help
a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye.
Close-fitting goggles would be a lot better.

> Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and sealed. Short of that, never mind.

If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.

> So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.

No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's
unnecessary, why do it at all?

--

Jeff
 
On 18/03/2020 14:06, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/03/20 15:01, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the
healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.

As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction,
must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

I think you'll find it's >70% rather than 60%.

As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from
spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets.
Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider
exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing.
Similarly, goggles.

So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are
complaining about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect
patients? I don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV
about use of masks. So this page is a waste of time?
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks>.
I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street
and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better
off wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks
to me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more
effective.

You get idiotic information such as here:
https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html>. Quote "A
more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against
the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker
than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease
Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not
at this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to
put on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said."
Junk, as later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the
effect is likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of
*some* use, they should be used in the current situation. Anything that
helps to cut down transmission is better than nothing.

Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said
most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles
coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size
(<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651099>). Most of these would be
caught by a decent mask.

And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help
a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye.
Close-fitting goggles would be a lot better.

Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and
sealed. Short of that, never mind.

If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.

So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary
travel, eat well.

No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's
unnecessary, why do it at all?
Click to expand...

One consideration is the gelling agent must reduce the alcohol content
proportion.

Part of my mask design is the outer micro-fibre cloth , as used for only
an hour is damp, from the disinfectant spray, which I assume is better
at trapping aerosols than dry.
A functional note, the loop of silicone sleeving requires 4 small thin
C-clips to reliably hold the cloth around the underlying dust mask.
I sliced up some crimp connector plastic sheathing.


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>
 
On 18/03/20 18:30, N_Cook wrote:
On 18/03/2020 14:06, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/03/20 15:01, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the
healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.

As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction,
must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

I think you'll find it's >70% rather than 60%.

As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from
spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets.
Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider
exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing.
Similarly, goggles.

So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are
complaining about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect
patients? I don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV
about use of masks. So this page is a waste of time?
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks>.
I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street
and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better
off wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks
to me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more
effective.

You get idiotic information such as here:
https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html>. Quote "A
more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against
the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker
than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease
Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not
at this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to
put on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said."
Junk, as later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the
effect is likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of
*some* use, they should be used in the current situation. Anything that
helps to cut down transmission is better than nothing.

Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said
most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles
coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size
(<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651099>). Most of these would be
caught by a decent mask.

And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help
a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye.
Close-fitting goggles would be a lot better.

Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and
sealed. Short of that, never mind.

If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.

So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary
travel, eat well.

No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's
unnecessary, why do it at all?


One consideration is the gelling agent must reduce the alcohol content
proportion.
Click to expand...

I think there is some misconception about the need for it to be a gel.
Of course, a gel stays on the hand for longer, but really even a
non-viscous solution will do the job if you make sure you wipe all your
hands' surfaces carefully. I make my own; see final line here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_sanitizer#Composition>

Part of my mask design is the outer micro-fibre cloth , as used for only
an hour is damp, from the disinfectant spray, which I assume is better
at trapping aerosols than dry.
A functional note, the loop of silicone sleeving requires 4 small thin
C-clips to reliably hold the cloth around the underlying dust mask.
I sliced up some crimp connector plastic sheathing.
Click to expand...

That sounds sensible. Anything which adds to the effectiveness of a mask
is worthwhile.

You might also want to consider close-fitting googles (see Screwfix ones
which hold on with an elasticated band around the back of the head - not
one which uses ear bars).

--

Jeff
 
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/03/20 15:01, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.
As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction,
must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

I think you'll find it's >70% rather than 60%.

As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from
spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider
the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly
how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.

So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are complaining
about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect patients? I
don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV about use of
masks. So this page is a waste of time?
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks>.
I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street
and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better off
wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks to
me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more effective.

You get idiotic information such as here:
https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html>. Quote "A
more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against
the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker
than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease
Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not at
this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to put
on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said." Junk, as
later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the effect is
likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of *some* use, they
should be used in the current situation. Anything that helps to cut down
transmission is better than nothing.

Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said
most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles
coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size
(<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651099>). Most of these would be
caught by a decent mask.

And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help
a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye. Close-fitting
goggles would be a lot better.

Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and
sealed. Short of that, never mind.

If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.

So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.

No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's
unnecessary, why do it at all?
Click to expand...

A mask helps prevent you from touching your mouth area with finger.

Greg
 
OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away.

d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not.. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.

Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Please.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
Correction to c): That would be Vaccine.....

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On 19/03/2020 11:20, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away.

d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.

Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Please.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Click to expand...

Where does the doseage effect come into play?
Where a medic , despite normal PPE practices, gets infected, it seems to
be more acute in its effect, presumably because ne/she has had multiple
sources of infection over days and weeks.
If that is the case, then on the other end of the scale, any reduction
of the doseage to a joe-public person rarely coming into contact with
the virus, would be advantageous, ie reducing the doseage, perhaps
redusing the degree of any infection.


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>
 
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:16:51 AM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
On 19/03/2020 11:20, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away.

d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.

Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining.. Please.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Where does the doseage effect come into play?
Where a medic , despite normal PPE practices, gets infected, it seems to
be more acute in its effect, presumably because ne/she has had multiple
sources of infection over days and weeks.
If that is the case, then on the other end of the scale, any reduction
of the doseage to a joe-public person rarely coming into contact with
the virus, would be advantageous, ie reducing the doseage, perhaps
redusing the degree of any infection.
Click to expand...

I wondered the exact same thing when I first read of the Chinese doctor who died of Covid19 despite being young and otherwise healthy.

Others have reported the effect being like a cold or even less, so it makes me wonder if the level of exposure is like having a single trooper storming a barricade, or thousands.

Worse, it's speculated that those that have recovered from Covid19 are not immune from reinfection.

Weird times.
 
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number

Please quit speculating and get some knowledge.

There are two (2) strains of COVID19 (at least) in circulation. Similar enough that immunity should cross between.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/03/15/can-you-get-infected-by-coronavirus-twice-how-does-covid-19-immunity-work/#dd8a5695c0f8

But this virus is too new and the tests, bluntly, too crude to be fully certain.

Generally an otherwise healthy individual does not get the same virus twice.. But, as with flue, viruses mutate and change about as often as some here change their underwear, and more often than they change their socks. So one may get many cases of the "flu", just not exactly the same one twice.

Once again, this venue demonstrates that speculation, false information, poor logic, false equivalencies, and the need to do things without encumbrance by the thought process are the preferred means for any action, or an excuse for otherwise wretched behavior. If you think I am being snarky - bad information, information based on poor or false understandings, and unsupported advice in this case is, bluntly, fucking around with the lives of Human Beings - and if that is not enough to get one to simply stop doing it....

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On 19/03/2020 12:23, John-Del wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:16:51 AM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
On 19/03/2020 11:20, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away.

d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.

Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Please.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Where does the doseage effect come into play?
Where a medic , despite normal PPE practices, gets infected, it seems to
be more acute in its effect, presumably because ne/she has had multiple
sources of infection over days and weeks.
If that is the case, then on the other end of the scale, any reduction
of the doseage to a joe-public person rarely coming into contact with
the virus, would be advantageous, ie reducing the doseage, perhaps
redusing the degree of any infection.


I wondered the exact same thing when I first read of the Chinese doctor who died of Covid19 despite being young and otherwise healthy.

Others have reported the effect being like a cold or even less, so it makes me wonder if the level of exposure is like having a single trooper storming a barricade, or thousands.

Worse, it's speculated that those that have recovered from Covid19 are not immune from reinfection.

Weird times.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how much the mortality rate drops, when
antibody testing of the more general public comes in and all the minor
cases are addid in.
I know someone in the UK who probably had "atypical" Covid19, he just
put down to food poisoning and ordinary flu, not the pandemic.

Mid Feb 2020 an extended period of disabling dry coughing. Because of
the early date and no fever/temperature/tiredness or headaches , he
dismissed it.
Also about 3 days before he'd serious diarrhoea, intense tiredness and
nausea for a day but not actually vomiting, eating next to nothing, put
down to food poisoning as no other symptoms. He could not think of a
source of such poisoning though, as totally normal food consumption.
About 2 clear days between the "food poisoning" and the unremitting
coughing,so assumed it was separate issues.
Now there is more detailed symptomology out there, there is such as this.


https://www.sciencealert.com/latest-research-on-covid-19-reveals-the-pattern-of-symptoms-to-watch-for
Early symptoms could also include diarrhoea

The new study also found that patients who ended up in the ICU had more
abdominal pain and appetite loss than patients with milder coronavirus
cases.

The researchers noted some early, "atypical" symptoms as well: They
found that 14 patients developed diarrhoea and nausea one to two days
before their fever or difficulty breathing set in.

This might suggest another way the virus is spreading. According to the
study, one patient with abdominal symptoms was sent to the surgical
department, since the symptoms didn't align with typical coronavirus cases.

That person went on to infect at least four other hospitalised patients
– all of whom showed "atypical abdominal symptoms" as well – and at
least 10 healthcare workers.


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top