COVID 19 Facts and Science

Would that be active cases then? What would be the X per 100K for removal of masks? County level? Seems like wishful thinking in this by-partisan trash heap during an election year.

Actually, it just says 20 or more cases. I assume 20 or more daily new cases???

suzuki wrote:

Cases up and deaths declining sound like the virus could be weakening?

From what I’ve seen, there are studies supporting weakening and studies supporting strengthening. Most of these aren’t peer reviewed so there’s really nothing conclusive.

So Matt, what do you think of this? Sounds like both the WHO and CDC do not feel there is enough evidence to change any guidelines.

airborne transmission

And the debate on masks continues, although Brosseau seems to be an expert in the field…
Lisa Brosseau is a research consultant for the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:

Noting that the guidance doesn’t include the use of face coverings in public, Brosseau said that that is probably because they “will do very little to prevent the spread or stop the inhalation of small particles.”

From a different article about the same research letter:
Dr. Trish Greenhalgh, a primary care doctor at the University of Oxford in Britain.

There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it’s not. So at the moment we have to make a decision in the face of uncertainty, and my goodness, it’s going to be a disastrous decision if we get it wrong, so why not just mask up for a few weeks, just in case?

Don Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland:

Even cloth masks, if worn by everyone, can significantly reduce transmission, and the W.H.O. should say so clearly

You beat me to it.

b-curtis wrote:

From a different article about the same research letter:
Dr. Trish Greenhalgh, a primary care doctor at the University of Oxford in Britain.

Primary care doctor? Mask up for a few weeks? She’s lost credibility with me.

I think the point of the article is to put the focus on more effective preventative measures. Masks have been the poster child for emotional and political reasons. Seems anytime with a MD or PhD weighs in whether they are experts in the field or not.

I got my haircut yesterday. It’s been almost 6 months. Fantastic Sams was busier than anytime I’ve been there before the pandemic. It was essentially full. The number of people wearing masks correctly inside was pretty good. Everywhere else like retail stores and places they aren’t mandatory is atrocious.

The studies that have concluded benefit have always relied on 3 things. 1. Proper fit. 2. Worn correctly. 3. Proper type. When I go out in public less than half are wearing ones with a proper fit. Half of those are wearing them correctly and the studies that show any benefit from crude cloth masks show maybe a 10% reduction of droplets >5 μm. Aerosols are particles <1 μm. The virus is approx 0.1-0.2 μm. I couldn’t find any studies showing effectiveness of cloth masks on aerosols.

b-curtis wrote:

Don Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland:

Even cloth masks, if worn by everyone, can significantly reduce transmission, and the W.H.O. should say so clearly

Could you link this one? I am curious.

Some more news by the U of M yesterday. A study preprint that still needs review.

http://www.kare11.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/u-of-m-researchers-study-indoor-spread-of-covid-19/89-56f00a52-172e-4218-bbb5-1a79f27727c3

“There are a lot of practical guidelines we can derive from this research and one important thing is naturally we need to ventilate we need to actually optimize how we ventilate. So in the classroom setting with just ventilating air from one particular location, that is not very efficient,” Hong said.

biggill wrote:

Could you link this one? I am curious.

Pretty good on the WHO in general.

NYT

Good article. This was infuriating.

Aerosols may play some limited role in spreading the virus, said Dr. Paul Hunter, a member of the infection prevention committee and professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

But if the W.H.O. were to push for rigorous control measures in the absence of proof, hospitals in low- and middle-income countries may be forced to divert scarce resources from other crucial programs.

“That’s the balance that an organization like the W.H.O. has to achieve,” he said. “It’s the easiest thing in the world to say, ‘We’ve got to follow the precautionary principle,’ and ignore the opportunity costs of that.”

In interviews, other scientists criticized this view as paternalistic. “‘We’re not going to say what we really think, because we think you can’t deal with it?’ I don’t think that’s right,” said Don Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland.

Looks like this is a followup to the NYT article.

Now what

Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech

Physical distancing is still very important. The closer you are to an infected person, the more aerosols and droplets you may be exposed to. Washing your hands often is still a good idea. What’s new is that those two things may not be enough. “We should be placing as much emphasis on masks and ventilation as we do with hand washing,” Dr. Marr said. “As far as we can tell, this is equally important, if not more important.”

I just noticed too that Don Milton is one of the authors of the letter to the WHO. Marr was one of the contributors.

So they both say wear a mask, but it isn’t in the open letter to do so. Maybe because that is already a recommendation?

Who the hell knows at this point. You know my position. I have no problem with recommendations but we can’t rely on their effectiveness to reduce other measures or even ignore others.

I’m seeing more people now than ever wearing them, I don’t think a mandate is going to have much of an effect on compliance. I am really surprised that Walz hasn’t done it yet. Part of me wants the mandate now to see how the experiment plays out. We’re one of the few states where transmission is still low and steady. When cases rise the argument is going to be that people aren’t complying.

That’s right Matt. When the cases go up in the presence of masks, it’ll be because people are non compliant.

Remember when this was about flattening the curve?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

I am not fooled. A hole in a mask that is bigger than the particle that you are trying to stop is the same as not wearing one or damn close.

biggill wrote:

Who the hell knows at this point. You know my position. I have no problem with recommendations but we can’t rely on their effectiveness to reduce other measures or even ignore others.

I’m seeing more people now than ever wearing them, I don’t think a mandate is going to have much of an effect on compliance. I am really surprised that Walz hasn’t done it yet. Part of me wants the mandate now to see how the experiment plays out. We’re one of the few states where transmission is still low and steady. When cases rise the argument is going to be that people aren’t complying.

I wonder if part of the reason for no mandate (yet) is because he feels that people will only play by the rules for a short period of time and then get lazy with it. Currently the state’s numbers are very manageable. If they make masks mandatory now, people will “follow” the rules for a while but then get tired of them and do what they please, similar to the stay at home orders back in April and May. At least that’s my feeling. This whole year has showed so much evidence on how short our attention spans are.

Yeah, maybe he feels the topic is too political and fears backlash. Hard to know for sure. I really don’t think it’s because CIDRAP doesn’t support it.

Based on how these mandates are being implemented, they’re really no different than Menards enforcing their policy. If you don’t wear one, you can’t enter. It’s private property after all, they have that right.

I saw some rumors about restaurants and bars being shut down to indoor dining again. I would hope that they wait for a situation where it’s absolutely necessary and not do it out of pure abundance of caution. There’s no room for that for a lot of bars and restaurants right now.

I am seeing a lot more mask wearers now, I guess the second wave with higher infection numbers are making people nervous.

I do like the occasional chuckle I get when I see people in a car or riding a bike wearing a mask. That will be pure comedy gold if say COVID gets under control, but people still wear the mask in a car.

I’ve chuckled a little when seeing people wear them in the car too. But maybe they forget that they have them on or don’t want to mess with it with dirty hands? People have mentioned on here that they forget that they’re wearing their life jackets when they get in the vehicle.

I know Walz had made comments about the possibility of closing down indoor dining and bars, if they saw spikes in cases related to such establishments. He made those comments a couple of weeks ago when there were infections among people at bars in Mankato and in MPLS. He didn’t say such closures were imminent, but are a possibility if instances like that become more common.

joe-winter wrote:

I am not fooled. A hole in a mask that is bigger than the particle that you are trying to stop is the same as not wearing one or damn close.

Yes, the microscopic individual virus particles (virions) are very, very tiny, and smaller than the mesh openings of a simple surgical mask, and of course, the openings at the side of the mask. That is only when they are floating all alone, not attached to anything, like spit. However, when the virions are carried by droplets of spit from speech and droplets of spit/respiratory secretions from coughing/sneezing, they are much bigger than the mesh holes. This is considered droplet transmission, and it is much more common and already established, per the research. Simple surgical masks, like those worn by staff at the dentist office, are appearing to prove effective enough in slowing the spread of Covid to make them useful if a person is forced into a close-quarters situation, like a noon trip to Menards on your only day off.

The problem leading to so much confusion and cynicism is that the research and results are very fluid at this point, so messages from experts are changing to a small degree more frequently than one would like. It makes the scientific community lose credibility. The Star Trib article citing all the hundred of scientists who now believe there’s a larger airborne component than previously believed, for example, really threw a kink into the surgical mask and droplet research. So what is it? Droplet (surgical mask) or airborne (N95), or both (N95)?

I would really like to see more public education provided about the difference between droplet and airborne transmission. It is not well understood outside of the scientific and medical fields. The example we were taught was using a perfume spray bottle analogy. The spray from the bottle, visible to the naked eye as the droplets travel to the floor, is droplet transmission. It’s the same as the spit flying off your lips during speech. The goal of six-foot social distancing is to prevent this very thing. The scent, traveling out into the hallway, are the airborne molecules. Those are much smaller than the visible droplets and are able to travel longer distances and stay in the air much longer. Wearing a surgical mask will not prevent you from smelling (inhaling) the tiny odorous molecules of perfume when standing in the hallway, but an N95 mask, properly fitted, will do so. That’s the difference between droplet and airborne transmission.

Does this make sense? Not trying to pick any fights.

So do we know why the EU is doing so much better? The graph I keep seeing is showing the EU is doing well and the US is a poopshow. Is it the US is just doing that much more testing? Are there mandates in the EU countries to wear a mask, along with the other guidelines? Maybe other guidelines?

One good thing for me is my wife wants to do one of those European river cruises but can’t do it this year since the EU has banned US travelers.

Good post Bass Thumb. I roll my eyes everytime I hear make that argument about the molecule smaller than the holes in a mask, as if the saliva spewing from your yap is all in individual molecules.

blank wrote:

Good post Bass Thumb. I roll my eyes everytime I hear make that argument about the molecule smaller than the holes in a mask, as if the saliva spewing from your yap is all in individual molecules.

I suppose if your walking around burping and spitting or spit when you talk or a habitual mouth breather it could be a problem. Lots of slovenly people out there but not all are like that. I’ve seen the infrared films of breath travel outside of masks. Me breathing through my nose is not spreading anything any further. If I cover my mouth with my hand to cough it blows out the side just like a mask. (I haven’t coughed in public this year)
Ever walk into a stinky public bathroom stall? That’s more or less how I react in public areas. Very cautious about breathing in and out. I do everything right. I just dont wear a mask.

blank wrote:

I’ve chuckled a little when seeing people wear them in the car too. But maybe they forget that they have them on or don’t want to mess with it with dirty hands? People have mentioned on here that they forget that they’re wearing their life jackets when they get in the vehicle.

If a person had two separate errands to run and the stores were close together, it would not seem odd to me to just leave the mask on between stores.

Bass Thumb – I appreciate your informative response. I am a healthcare professional. I do know of what you speak.

This is our country’s first pandemic in the modern age. But it is not even close to first throughout the world. Public masking has never been shown to change outcomes. Look to CIDRAP in June for a reference. This info isn’t not valid because of the infancy of COVID 19. It is from years of eveidence through out the world is dealing with airborne virus and pandemics to the like.

What works is stay the F at home and nothing else.

We decided as a country that we would not allow that to happen and are much better off (free) because of it. The downside is in times like this the vulnerable will be just that, vulnerable. Those of us who lived life to the fullest and understand the life cycle and know that God has something better for us in store, are ok with what Mother Nature hands us.

So with that said . As Matt has said here many times the masks won’t save you. If you are vulnerable you must stay home to be truly safe.

If you are one of these folks, going to public indoor places and feeling safe because I am wearing a mask is fools gold and is nowhere supported by science.

Brazil’s President has tested positive for the virus.

suzuki wrote:

I suppose if your walking around burping and spitting or spit when you talk or a habitual mouth breather it could be a problem. Lots of slovenly people out there but not all are like that.

Everyone generates droplets when they talk, not just slobs.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800?query=featured_home

joe-winter wrote:

Bass Thumb – I appreciate your informative response. I am a healthcare professional. I do know of what you speak.

No worries. Just trying to do my part. I am a healthcare professional as well, and like most of my colleagues, am plenty upset with the fear-mongering, misinformation campaigns, and politicization going on. Viruses don’t vote.

gimruis wrote:

Brazil’s President has tested positive for the virus.

And currently if he lived in Minnesota he would have 99.92% chance of surviving without a masking mandate.

joe-winter wrote:

And currently if he lived in Minnesota he would have 99.92% chance of surviving without a masking mandate.

But wait, his military back ground will make him tougher and he’ll be better equipped to survive it. The virus is like rain. You’ll get wet, but it won’t kill you.

joe-winter wrote:

Bass Thumb – I appreciate your informative response. I am a healthcare professional. I do know of what you speak.

This is our country’s first pandemic in the modern age. But it is not even close to first throughout the world. Public masking has never been shown to change outcomes. Look to CIDRAP in June for a reference. This info isn’t not valid because of the infancy of COVID 19. It is from years of eveidence through out the world is dealing with airborne virus and pandemics to the like.

What works is stay the F at home and nothing else.

We decided as a country that we would not allow that to happen and are much better off (free) because of it. The downside is in times like this the vulnerable will be just that, vulnerable. Those of us who lived life to the fullest and understand the life cycle and know that God has something better for us in store, are ok with what Mother Nature hands us.

So with that said . As Matt has said here many times the masks won’t save you. If you are vulnerable you must stay home to be truly safe.

If you are one of these folks, going to public indoor places and feeling safe because I am wearing a mask is fools gold and is nowhere supported by science.

Yet many experts including the ones this letter to the WHO are saying masks do help. And many experts say they don’t work. So ???

You should also keep religion out of a ‘facts and science’ thread.

Just out of curiosity…Are you saying they don’t work at all? Or maybe they reduce aerosol/droplets spread by 20%? Is that worth it? OR does it need to be 100% effective? 90%? The aerosol research I believe is saying 6 feet may not be enough in a poorly ventilated area. Does that mean don’t bother distancing at all because it isn’t perfect?

It is weird how people ‘follow guidelines’, right up to the mask guideline. I’m currently in that boat but heading back to wearing a mask, at least when I am in the metro.

I’m exhausted by the mask discussion at this point. Until CIDRAP concludes on their study, I’m not much interested in discussing it. Or I’ll see what Osterholm has to say tomorrow.

We should get back to comparing the mortality rate to the flu.

It’s not the FLU MATTT!!!!

mplspug wrote:

It’s not the FLU MATTT!!!!

You’re right.

It’s the kung-flu.