Coronavirus

[Long slender neck]

They'd have only messed that up too.

[Dunners]

From my work

The Covid-19 virus is very small-around 100 nm. A full stop on a printed page would contain about10,000 viruses if they could be stacked end to end.In human breath the typical size of the exhaled droplets are 5-10 microns (ca 1/10 of the width of a fullstop). These droplets tend to have a low buoyancy and subsequently deposit onto surfaces after travelling typically no more than 1-2 metres(unless under great force such as a large cough, shouting or opera singing). This is one of the reasons behind the Government’s 2-metrerule, as the droplets are the primary transfer vector for COVID-19,not the individual virus.Touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the mouth, nose and eyes is a key transmission route, hence the huge push for regular hand hygiene, avoiding touching the face,and regular deep cleaning of surfaces.

Under extremely high force and using artificial aerosols that are a lot smaller than from human breath the virus has been detected under lab conditions as airborne for 3hours. This is not the situation faced in an indoor space with people talking in a socially distanced fashion.Wearing a face covering in classroom settings offers a significant further layer of protection-even a simple cotton face covering and especially if it is made of multiple layers and materials.These face coverings trap the exhaled 5-10 micron aerosols quite effectively and help prevent onward spread.They will offer significant protection to the wearer of the face covering and people around them, if worn properly.The purpose for the vast majority of people wearing face coverings is that they help to protect the whole population in particular by trapping exhaled virus from an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic host

Yeah, fair enough, but the key phrase in all of that is; "if worn properly."

Look around the next time you're in a supermarket, and count how many people are wearing their masks properly. I see a lot of people with the mask adjusted so that either the nostrils or mouth are exposed, or even both. Then there is all the handling, as people use their hands to adjust them and then pick up objects or touch hard surfaces.

One of the arguments against masks, early on in the pandemic, was that unless you are trained on how to put them on and wear them, they would not be an effective barrier to transmission. Obviously that argument was partially made because there was a fear that the public would snap up all the supplies. And it feel right that wearing masks will have some overall benefit as opposed to everyone not wearing them. So, while I retain some degree of cynicism, I'm not fussed and am happy to wear mine.

[PoliticOs]

They can't be trusted to do that though, BoniO. If you suffer from terrible PTSD, to the point you cannot work or function in day to day life with ease and therefore would excessively panic with a mask, do you think THIS government would take it into account and give you an exemption? I highly doubt it. See also; chronic illness, those in the process of diagnosis etc

[BoniO]

They'd have only messed that up too.

Yeah, there is that. I'm sure they could have outsourced it to a reputable (friends/relations) company to get it done though.

[faldO]

The supply of a simple card if you fit the criteria would have fixed this. Why the government didn't do this is just one more indication of their ineptitude - as if we needed any more..

You mean like these: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-your-own

As explained on that page, wearing something of that nature should be a personal choice.

[PoliticOs]

That's not supplying them really though, faldO.

[BoniO]

The supply of a simple card if you fit the criteria would have fixed this. Why the government didn't do this is just one more indication of their ineptitude - as if we needed any more..

You mean like these: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-your-own

As explained on that page, wearing something of that nature should be a personal choice.

No. I don't mean like those. Anyone can print those off as far as I can see which makes them just about useless as a way of enforcing the rules.

If you're medically exempt, then your doctor/medical records should be able to support that. Only if you meet agreed criteria should you get an exemption card.

[Mick McQuaid]

if worn properly.

That's the problem. It is virtually impossible to wear one properly for any length of time.

Wearing one properly is putting it on and taking it off with sanitised hands and then dealing with it appropriately for example putting itstraight into a dissolvable laundry bag before using a new one or one washed at 60 degrees which has been kept in a sealed and disinfected cover since washing. Then when its on your face it needs to be not dislodged until you're changing into a new one.

Most people have one or two that get shoved in a pocket or bag and washed or disposed of when it gets smelly. Still better than nothing but not by much.

Wearing one in a shared working space is pointless. If someone else has it, resign yourself to getting it.

[Long slender neck]

Because of shared surfaces you will touch? Same document I was sent says

"No one yet around the world has been able to identify live infectious virus in air samples."

Which surprised me.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

But surely even if not worn properly, it will still assist?

Also, there's no need for an exemption card. I understand some people cant wear a mask but why can't they wear a face visor instead?

[BoniO]

But surely even if not worn properly, it will still assist?

Also, there's no need for an exemption card. I understand some people cant wear a mask but why can't they wear a face visor instead?

I genuinely don't know if masks and visors are of similar value for protecting you and others? If they're interchangeable then sure, wear a visor if a mask is uncomfortable.

However, there are plenty who will refuse to wear either unless it's enforced. Hence where a medically certified exemption card is still required, in my opinion.

[Mick McQuaid]

Face visors are for stopping spray getting in you eyes if you wear one. Naff all use for anything else because of the great big gap at the bottom.

Not just shared surfaces but that too. People will take their masks off for a breather, will stand right next to someone drinking a coffee and having a gossip, will pass someone a fag with an unwashed hand on a break. It's just impossible to keep up the vigilance needed.

Depends what you mean about detecting live virus in the air but the main reason is that it's pretty hard to do, it's not like you can waft a test tube about, seal it up and run a quick test. Doesn't really matter either, all the evidence is showing the longer you spend in enclosed spaces with others the higher the risk.

At work every time we have had a positive result we have found a cluster around the place of work, and that's with people supposed to be trained and using surgical face masks rather than a cloth.

[Mick McQuaid]

Of course the guidance is that as we've been wearing ppe there's no need to isolate if we have been in contact with someone at work, much easier and cheaper than the more effective and realistic alternative.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Just over 12.5k cases today. 393 in ventilator beds and 19 new deaths.

Edit : must have got to the data while it was refreshing. It's just over 14.5k cases reported today, 393 in ventilator beds is correct, but 76 new deaths.

[spen666]

Just over 12.5 cases today. ...

How do you get 0.5 of a case?

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Just over 12.5 cases today. ...

How do you get 0.5 of a case?

You can't, but you can get a total of over "n".5 of a case.

[Dohnut]

So now we have near 4000 scientists and doctors suggesting we need to develop herd immunity within the vast majority who suffer few if any lasting symptoms of Covid whilst protecting the vulnerable. The reasons being for the majority there is little real danger, however, the impact of lockdown could be an additional 74,000 deaths, a destroyed economy and a mental health crisis.

Other scientists completely disagree with this approach.

So after 6 months “experts” remain divided over the best way to move forward. Fantastic.

[Long slender neck]

That approach has seemed quite logical to me from the beginning. We cant go on like this.

[A Pedant]

Probably the biggest issue with that strategy though, and the reason scientific opinion is divided, is that we have no idea how long the body is immune to COVID-19 after being infected. What if it's only 3-6 months and "herd immunity" doesn't exist, how does that strategy work then? Plus we don't even know yet what the long-term effects of 'long COVID' are, even in the young, so to allow it to run rampant would be madness.

Who supports and provides services for all those 'vulnerable' people, anyway? That's right, the rest of the population. Sooner or later it would spread to those supposedly being shielded. So let's be honest what "protect the vulnerable" actually means, it's "lock up the disabled and sick".

[Max B Gold]

Probably the biggest issue with that strategy though, and the reason scientific opinion is divided, is that we have no idea how long the body is immune to COVID-19 after being infected. What if it's only 3-6 months and "herd immunity" doesn't exist, how does that strategy work then? Plus we don't even know yet what the long-term effects of 'long COVID' are, even in the young, so to allow it to run rampant would be madness.

Who supports and provides services for all those 'vulnerable' people, anyway? That's right, the rest of the population. Sooner or later it would spread to those supposedly being shielded. So let's be honest what "protect the vulnerable" actually means, it's "lock up the disabled and sick".

Johnson and Trump were both sick and they both need locking up. So I agree.

[Dunners]

Nobody will be locked up. What would be more likely is that those who fall into higher-risk categories would need to decide if they want to shield, or take their chances. And, to be fair, the number of people reporting longer-term health issues or in need of medical treatment are a very small proportion of those who have been infected.

There's no risk-free, pain-free solution to this. Any way out involves making decisions that will impact on us all to some extent, but on some more than others. So disagreement is inevitable.

[PoliticOs]

Nobody will be locked up. What would be more likely is that those who fall into higher-risk categories would need to decide if they want to shield, or take their chances. And, to be fair, the number of people reporting longer-term health issues or in need of medical treatment are a very small proportion of those who have been infected.

There's no risk-free, pain-free solution to this. Any way out involves making decisions that will impact on us all to some extent, but on some more than others. So disagreement is inevitable.

If they can afford to shield (or not, in every sense) would be more appropriate than if they'd want to. I get your point but it effectively locking up.

[Long slender neck]

Probably the biggest issue with that strategy though, and the reason scientific opinion is divided, is that we have no idea how long the body is immune to COVID-19 after being infected. What if it's only 3-6 months and "herd immunity" doesn't exist, how does that strategy work then? Plus we don't even know yet what the long-term effects of 'long COVID' are, even in the young, so to allow it to run rampant would be madness.

Who supports and provides services for all those 'vulnerable' people, anyway? That's right, the rest of the population. Sooner or later it would spread to those supposedly being shielded. So let's be honest what "protect the vulnerable" actually means, it's "lock up the disabled and sick".

Are they not already locked up though? Or at least risking their lives in public. Its just that the economy gets trashed more this way too, which will effect them and everybody else in the long term.

If theres no immunity then we're all screwed so any point in delaying the inevitable?

[A Pedant]

If theres no immunity then we're all screwed so any point in delaying the inevitable?

Nothing's inevitable, except that we all die eventually. But yes, there is a point - preventing the health system being overrun. And this is a new disease we're finding out more about as we go along, so we've no idea what the next few months will bring in terms of strain mutations or vaccines.

The one thing we know for certain is that a mass lockdown in the Spring got the infection and hospitalisation rates right down.

[spen666]

If theres no immunity then we're all screwed so any point in delaying the inevitable?

Nothing's inevitable, except that we all die eventually. ....

What about taxes?