OT: Pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19...

[Bill Sloman]

Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 29/07/2020 09:11, Cydrome Leader wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an
interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t
showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread
of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid
contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are
crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose
primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem
reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website
about wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.
They encourage the use of cloth muzzles.

It is almost impossible to make practical filters that will stop viruses
effectively (at least outside of clean room air filter technology).

The origin of the word was for infectious agents too small to see with a
light microscope and impossible to detect or filter out with any
technology available at the time of their discovery. You wouldn\'t be
able to breathe through a filter that was capable of stopping viruses
and it would clog up in no time flat from all the other junk in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology

Making filters that would reliably stop all bacteria what what enabled
viruses to be discovered as non-filterable infectious agents. It
required an electron microscope before they were actually discovered.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a
facemask meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

It is probably sensible. Most members of the general public do not use
PPE effectively and so higher grade kit would be wasted on them. No
point if they fail to observe basic inside clean outside dirty rules.

In any case the main effect of wearing a mask is to prevent the wearer
exhaling infectious aerosol material into the environment. It doesn\'t
need to stop individual virus particles to work pretty well.

Whilst you can in theory catch it from a single virus that gets lucky
the cellular defences take down most attackers pretty quickly so that
you need an initial viral load in the hundreds or thousands before you
are likely to be infected. It is a numbers game.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:

Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose. At least one, a Big issue seller(!), continued after
I pointed out the error. No, I didn\'t buy one.

Of course there\'s this justly famous \"Make America Grate Again\" photo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lvnitup22/status/1277283475419258883/photo/1

 

[Don Y]

On 7/29/2020 3:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher
grade kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic
inside clean outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose. At least one, a Big issue seller(!), continued after
I pointed out the error. No, I didn\'t buy one.

Of course there\'s this justly famous \"Make America Grate Again\" photo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lvnitup22/status/1277283475419258883/photo/1

I keep my eyeglasses on (a driving \"restriction\") when I\'m out shopping
as they act as a bit of a shield for them (though of dubious efficacy).

Many masks are poor-fitting. I notice this for the \"loops-over-the-ears\"
style; they don\'t hug the face to minimize air entry/egress around the
edges. And, are often not fitted to the bridge of the nose at all
(even if capable of being so).

Sad to see folks still trying to make do with a T-shirt or bandana...

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 29/07/20 11:36, Don Y wrote:

On 7/29/2020 3:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher
grade kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic
inside clean outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose. At least one, a Big issue seller(!), continued after
I pointed out the error. No, I didn\'t buy one.

Of course there\'s this justly famous \"Make America Grate Again\" photo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lvnitup22/status/1277283475419258883/photo/1

I keep my eyeglasses on (a driving \"restriction\") when I\'m out shopping
as they act as a bit of a shield for them (though of dubious efficacy).

The URL gives the gist...
https://www.thelocal.ch/20200715/only-those-with-plastic-visors-were-infected-swiss-government-warns-against-face-shields

Many masks are poor-fitting.  I notice this for the \"loops-over-the-ears\"
style; they don\'t hug the face to minimize air entry/egress around the
edges.  And, are often not fitted to the bridge of the nose at all
(even if capable of being so).

They won\'t do much to protect the wearer, but they do reduce
the \"puff my breath in your face\" transmission vector, and do
serve as a reminder not to touch eyes/nose/mouth until after
cleansing hands.


> Sad to see folks still trying to make do with a T-shirt or bandana...

Better than nothing, a sign to themselves and others that
the problem is here, and is a wide area double layer thing
better than a small impermeable thing?

So, better than nothing, IMHO.

 

[Don Y]

On 7/29/2020 4:08 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 29/07/20 11:36, Don Y wrote:
On 7/29/2020 3:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose. At least one, a Big issue seller(!), continued after
I pointed out the error. No, I didn\'t buy one.

Of course there\'s this justly famous \"Make America Grate Again\" photo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lvnitup22/status/1277283475419258883/photo/1

I keep my eyeglasses on (a driving \"restriction\") when I\'m out shopping
as they act as a bit of a shield for them (though of dubious efficacy).

The URL gives the gist...
https://www.thelocal.ch/20200715/only-those-with-plastic-visors-were-infected-swiss-government-warns-against-face-shields

Yes, but they were relying on the shield to protect their mouth and nose,
as well. \"Visors can be worn with masks to further enhance your own
protection\"

I have also found that a mask interferes with my vision, while driving
(no problem: don\'t wear it while driving!) I think this is a consequence
of it\'s proximity to my eyeglasses and infringing on my peripheral
vision around the edges of the glasses. There may also be some partial
reflection to the inside surface of the glass (the mask being more noticeable
than a reflection of skin/cheek tone)

Many masks are poor-fitting. I notice this for the \"loops-over-the-ears\"
style; they don\'t hug the face to minimize air entry/egress around the
edges. And, are often not fitted to the bridge of the nose at all
(even if capable of being so).

They won\'t do much to protect the wearer, but they do reduce
the \"puff my breath in your face\" transmission vector, and do
serve as a reminder not to touch eyes/nose/mouth until after
cleansing hands.

The poorly fitted ones that I\'ve seen (over the ears) seem to
result in a lot of \"fidgeting\" by the wearer -- they\'re continually
trying to \"reseat\" the mask as it droops from its intended position.
Our masks cinch up tight to the face; minimal air leak as well
as potential for shifting position while in use.

Sad to see folks still trying to make do with a T-shirt or bandana...

Better than nothing, a sign to themselves and others that
the problem is here, and is a wide area double layer thing
better than a small impermeable thing?

I just find it hard to believe that they can\'t find a better
covering. There are many groups giving away masks of all types
(surgical, handmade cloth, etc.). So, even if they don\'t want to
fall for the \"10 QUALITY masks for only $19.99\" spiel, they
can find SOME form of alternative.

> So, better than nothing, IMHO.

Yes. And, here, a token to gain entry to many establishments.

 

[server]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers. Sounds
like CDC and Illinois are still doing the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

He didn\'t have enough guts/respect for deplorables to tell them the
truth, or to use government power to allocate masks.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:14:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose.

Does breathing spray as many viruses as talking?

Vocal cords seem like pretty effective atomizers to me, with a direct
path to outside.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Don Y]

On 7/29/2020 7:27 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:14:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose.

Does breathing spray as many viruses as talking?

Vocal cords seem like pretty effective atomizers to me, with a direct
path to outside.

<https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them>

(from a few months ago)

Speaking is 10 times more effective radiator (i.e., to accumulate
a sufficient viral load, you need to be around \"breather\" ten times
longer than a \"speaker\" (all else being equal).

Note article refers to data compiled for influenza. Given that
this is more infectious than flu, it could require a smaller
viral load to infect. Or, different particle sizes...

 

[server]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:34:55 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 7/29/2020 7:27 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:14:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose.

Does breathing spray as many viruses as talking?

Vocal cords seem like pretty effective atomizers to me, with a direct
path to outside.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

(from a few months ago)

Speaking is 10 times more effective radiator (i.e., to accumulate
a sufficient viral load, you need to be around \"breather\" ten times
longer than a \"speaker\" (all else being equal).

Note article refers to data compiled for influenza. Given that
this is more infectious than flu, it could require a smaller
viral load to infect. Or, different particle sizes...

Sinuses are good particle filters, probably in the exhale direction
too.

When a person sings, and maybe shouts a lot in a noisy bar, they
inhale through their mouth, bypassing the intake sinus filtering. I
bet being in a brass or reed band is bad in both directions.

We prefer quiet neighborhood dive bars, where you don\'t have to shout,
or fight for a barstool or for service. Jessica pulls us an Archer
Blonde when she sees us walk in the door. Sometimes she forgets to
charge us.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Don Y]

On 7/29/2020 9:05 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:34:55 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 7/29/2020 7:27 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:14:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose.

Does breathing spray as many viruses as talking?

Vocal cords seem like pretty effective atomizers to me, with a direct
path to outside.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

(from a few months ago)

Speaking is 10 times more effective radiator (i.e., to accumulate
a sufficient viral load, you need to be around \"breather\" ten times
longer than a \"speaker\" (all else being equal).

Note article refers to data compiled for influenza. Given that
this is more infectious than flu, it could require a smaller
viral load to infect. Or, different particle sizes...

Sinuses are good particle filters, probably in the exhale direction
too.

When a person sings, and maybe shouts a lot in a noisy bar, they
inhale through their mouth, bypassing the intake sinus filtering. I
bet being in a brass or reed band is bad in both directions.

We prefer quiet neighborhood dive bars, where you don\'t have to shout,
or fight for a barstool or for service. Jessica pulls us an Archer
Blonde when she sees us walk in the door. Sometimes she forgets to
charge us.

I think the breathing vs. speaking issue relates to the fact that
*most* folks don\'t breathe through an open mouth and the volume
of air required to excite the vocal chords -- as well as resonate the
nasal cavity -- is greater and at a higher velocity.

Note that physical exertion should also be bad -- on both the \"giving\"
and \"getting\". Hence the reason to avoid exercise together.

Amusingly, the greater the gap between folks, the more air has to typically
be expelled, in speaking, to bridge that gap (in the presence of ANY
ambient noise). So, chatting at a dinner table, even in a quiet room,
places you in close proximity AND directly facing each others\' emitters
and \"detectors\".

\"Westerners\" tend to stand farther apart (larger personal spaces)
and not directly \"confront\" each other in discourse. By contrast,
city folk are usually used to smaller personal spaces and more \"direct
interaction\".

E.g., if I resort to the up-close interaction that I grew up with
(New England), many folk, here (southwest) feel like I\'m crowding
them and subconciously back off at the \"encroachment\".

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:22:50 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


> Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers.

False.
A lie is an attempt to deceive; that\'s not likely.
The \'reserve them for...\' might be accurate, though, because
some categories of mask were in short supply.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.

Oh, that\'s a long reach, just to support a comspiracy theory.
The theory isn\'t worth much, and distraction such as you describe
is worthless, as far as I can tell, to EVERYONE. So, why would any
rational person join a conspiracy if it\'s worthless?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 12:22:50 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.
Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers. Sounds
like CDC and Illinois are still doing the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

He didn\'t have enough guts/respect for deplorables to tell them the
truth, or to use government power to allocate masks.

He wasn\'t silly enough to risk saying anything that might have created a wave of panic buying. Lots of people are selective in understanding what they see and hear - you are a prime example - and it\'s wise to make sure that the message doesn\'t lend itself to being misunderstood.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.

Not true. Cloth masks are less effective than medical grade masks, but effective enough to be well worth wearing. Anything that reduces the probability of infection helps. Medical grade masks aren\'t 100% effective either, as we can all work out from the number of medical staff who get Covid-19 despite their elaborate personal protective equipment - which they are trained to use.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

Australian troll...

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:aed:3023:: with SMTP id 32mr29921771qte.37.1595990737835; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aed:364a:: with SMTP id e68mr13538556qtb.260.1595990737639; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=110.174.91.153; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 110.174.91.153
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7fb1c01b-3d59-4ecc-b65e-85d35159378dn@googlegroups.com
Subject: OT: Pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:45:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:603161

Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/>
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

--

Jeff

 

[Ricketty C]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 8:18:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 29/07/2020 09:38, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC+10, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.
The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.

Face masks don\'t stop virus particles.

At first consideration, that\'s what anyone would think, but it seems
more complicated. I\'ve referenced this (commercial) page previously, but
they give the scientific references they get their information from:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
(from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662779/>)

From the information presented there, it appears that even simple
surgical masks can stop a reasonably high percentage of virus-sized
particles (around 80%), although cotton handkerchiefs stop only 28%.

I think you are a victim of not reading the references. The one reference draws a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the bogus article claims it says.


Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.


Does that sound like good protection???

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/2020 09:11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an
interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t
showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread
of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid
contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are
crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose
primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem
reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website
about wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses.
They encourage the use of cloth muzzles.

It is almost impossible to make practical filters that will stop viruses
effectively (at least outside of clean room air filter technology).

The origin of the word was for infectious agents too small to see with a
light microscope and impossible to detect or filter out with any
technology available at the time of their discovery. You wouldn\'t be
able to breathe through a filter that was capable of stopping viruses
and it would clog up in no time flat from all the other junk in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology

Making filters that would reliably stop all bacteria what what enabled
viruses to be discovered as non-filterable infectious agents. It
required an electron microscope before they were actually discovered.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a
facemask meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

It is probably sensible. Most members of the general public do not use
PPE effectively and so higher grade kit would be wasted on them. No
point if they fail to observe basic inside clean outside dirty rules.

In any case the main effect of wearing a mask is to prevent the wearer
exhaling infectious aerosol material into the environment. It doesn\'t
need to stop individual virus particles to work pretty well.

Ok, can all the hospital workers just shut the fuck up then about their
PPE and get on with things with the stuff \"good enough\" for common folks?

It\'s this double standard stuff that irks me. I don\'t see visitors at
construction sites being offered paper cook\'s hats when everybody else has
a hard hat. That\'s how stupid this whole thing is.

n95 masks cost virtually nothing to make. If you want me to not cough
viruses on old people the grocery store, don\'t tell me to just drape what
looks like old underwear over my mouth. I\'m not going to wash it, it\'s
going to be in my pocket half the time. All my spit is just going to dry
out and blow out all everyone the next day.

Whilst you can in theory catch it from a single virus that gets lucky
the cellular defences take down most attackers pretty quickly so that
you need an initial viral load in the hundreds or thousands before you
are likely to be infected. It is a numbers game.

While this sounds valid, as it been proven? So far the \"experts\" in other
things are not experts in covid as it seems to be unlike anything else
ever seen before. There\'s lots of backpedalling and so forth as nobody
seems to even have any idea of what they\'re talking about.

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/07/20 09:38, Martin Brown wrote:
Most members of the general public do not use PPE effectively and so higher grade
kit would be wasted on them. No point if they fail to observe basic inside clean
outside dirty rules.

I\'ve seen too many people wearing masks over their mouth but not
their nose. At least one, a Big issue seller(!), continued after
I pointed out the error. No, I didn\'t buy one.

I though the mask is to prevent blobs of spit witj viruses from going over
the place.

Never seen anybody talk or blow spittle out of their nose. Not sure why
noses need to be covered in the first place, if that\'s what cloth muzzles
are for.

Of course there\'s this justly famous \"Make America Grate Again\" photo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lvnitup22/status/1277283475419258883/photo/1

 

[Cydrome Leader]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science has an interesting little paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/17513

Essentially it\'s an exploration of the fact that people who aren\'t showing symptoms of Covid-19 are responsible for most of the spread of the disease, and emphasises the well-known fact that rapid contact tracing and isolation of the potentially infected are crucial to preventing epidemic spread.

It\'s not a difficult concept to appreciate, but people whose primary interest is in getting everybody back to work seem reluctant to take it on board.

The CDC still makes no mention on the covid-19 part of their website about
wearing masks that might actually be rated to stop viruses. They encourage
the use of cloth muzzles.

The Illinois Department of Public Health still says \"Do NOT use a facemask
meant for a healthcare worker.\"

Guess they\'re not serious yet.

Fauci lied about masks to reserve them for medical providers. Sounds
like CDC and Illinois are still doing the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

He didn\'t have enough guts/respect for deplorables to tell them the
truth, or to use government power to allocate masks.

The home-made cloth masks are a distraction to prevent the public from
buying possibly-useful masks. Sort of like garlic and vampires.

Distraction sounds about right. Until they fess up, I\'ll gladly ignore the
rest of the \"advice\". You can lie to me once, then I stop listening.

Here\'s another amusing thing here in Illinois. The Illinois Department of
Public Health has a list of cities with covid testing. Chicago isn\'t
listed (why list the biggest city in the state?) and there\'s no
information on where to find testing sites here. As usual, goverment isn\'t
really good at much, and still doesn\'t understand how to use the internet
yet. Even something as dumb as text in a Word file on a website is
something they can\'t scrape up yet.