Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#100,376
#100,376
Septic said:
Yawn. More peer reviewed, empirical evidence for you to dismiss.

TL; DR Version: Masks reduce the amount and distance of expelled particles



On the utility of cloth facemasks for controlling ejecta during respiratory events

SARS-CoV2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, infects cells in the upper respiratory system. Transmission of Covid-19 is currently believed18,19,20 to happen primarily through shedding of virus particles in droplets ejected as infected people speak, cough or sneeze, or through contact with viable infective virus deposited on surfaces. When people cough or sneeze21 (or even simply talk loudly22,23), they eject droplets of mucosal fluid. Large droplets ~O(100 µm) fall due to gravity and, under no wind conditions, are transported over lateral distances of the order of 1 m. However, turbulent flows resulting from violent expulsions during sneezing or coughing suspend finer droplets and transport them over large distances, of the order of 7-8 m.24,25,26 Therefore, it has been suggested that transmission of infection through fine droplets be investigated.27,28,29 The effect of surgical masks and N95 respirators on airflows (but not spread of droplet ejecta) during expiratory events has been experimentally imaged.30 Here, we employ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to address the influence of homemade face masks on the turbulent clouds that result due to sneezing events, and on the lateral extent of spread of ejecta. Our emphasis is on understanding the effect of face masks in altering the flow field and droplet dispersion due to the respiratory event.

Wearing a mask has a significant impact on the spread of cough ejecta. We observe the time dependent trajectories of large and small droplets with time from the respiratory event (Figure 2). Without a mask (Figure 2, top panel), large drops are not convected by the flow and rapidly fall to the ground: drops > 200 µm fall within a lateral distance of 0.2 m, while drops > 125 µ m extend to about 2 m (SI, Figure S6). In contrast to the large drops, smaller drops (< 25 µ m in size) are convected by the turbulent cloud. They shrink in size as their water content is completely evaporated, and are transported to significant distances, as far as 5 m from the face (SI, Figure S7). We observe that the non-volatile content in these drops continues to stay suspended for as long as 60 s. Our data is consistent with the experimental literature.25 Wearing even a simple cotton mask restricts the spatial transport of droplets (Figure 2, bottom panel). Large droplets (> 4 µm) are trapped by the mask while smaller droplets are transported by the flows through the surface of the mask and through the openings on the sides. At t = 0.4 s, droplet ejecta is transported over less than 0.3 m (as compared to well over 2 m, without a mask). Thus, large droplets are trapped by the mask while the damping of the turbulent flow field by the mask leads to smaller droplets being transported only over relatively short distances. Flow through the openings around the mask convects small droplets along the face, in contrast to the case without a mask.
Click to expand...
TLDR: you now know that article was **** and we’re forced to try and go find something else that might have substance. Not wasting time on this one 🤡

Funny. The word “aerosol” appears no where in that peer reviewed tripe you quoted😂
 
#100,377
#100,377
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Rocky_Top_Vol13, midnight orange and 4 others
#100,379
#100,379
NorthDallas40 said:
TLDR: you now know that article was **** and we’re forced to try and go find something else that might have substance. Not wasting time on this one 🤡
Click to expand...

It was an independent study that backs the findings of the one that you believe you've proven wrong with feels.

Collect your participation ribbon at the door on the way out.
 
#100,380
#100,380
kiddiedoc said:
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
Click to expand...
Hey, you might have missed it but has there been any review of a connection between PCOS and the HPV vax?
 
#100,381
#100,381
Septic said:
It was an independent study that backs the findings of the one that you believe you've proven wrong with feels.

Collect your participation ribbon at the door on the way out.
Click to expand...
200.gif
🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#100,383
#100,383
kiddiedoc said:
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the mask has become a symbol. It's efficacy in real-world comparisons is not important. Symbols are not held to an efficacious standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Vol70, Rocky_Top_Vol13, midnight orange and 3 others
#100,385
#100,385
kiddiedoc said:
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
Click to expand...

What's your take on why South Korea is doing so much better than the US? They have near universal mask usage along with mandatory and observed quarantining, and they are having way fewer cases despite a much greater population density. What are they doing that we're not, or vice versa?
 
#100,386
#100,386
bamawriter said:
What's your take on why South Korea is doing so much better than the US? They have near universal mask usage along with mandatory and observed quarantining, and they are having way fewer cases despite a much greater population density. What are they doing that we're not, or vice versa?
Click to expand...
starving
 
#100,387
#100,387
bamawriter said:
If 65-70% is normal, then we've suddenly entered a phase wherein most locales are well below normal.
Click to expand...

A possible explanation for lower than normal occupancy would be lower HC utilization overall.

My point is that we are not running at close to capacity. The busier states are showing occupancy rates in the 70s which isn't considerably higher than the mean occupancy rate we typically see (for example)

ICU Days and Occupancy Rates
HCRIS tracks ICU days and days available for each ICU bed category. The AHA does not track ICU days or any other parameter of ICU bed use (i.e., daily census or admissions). Days can be used as a loose proxy for bed use (24), and therefore, an average of all midnight ICU occupancy rates for the studied hospitals can be calculated (days/days available) from HCRIS (1). For example, using HCRIS data, we reported that ICUs in larger hospitals (>500 beds) have higher occupancy rates than in smaller (<300 beds) hospitals (25). HCRIS data has also shown that between 2000 and 2005, national ICU occupancy rates ranged from 65% and 68% (1). In 2010, the average national ICU occupancy rate was 66% (unpublished data).

We recognize that the occupancy data calculated from HCRIS is limited by its lack of granularity and nuance. Ideally, we want to know much more than basic midnight ICU bed occupancy rates (26). For example, the 2003 SCCM survey determined an “effective occupancy rate,” based upon six throughput parameters (patients in ICU, patients waiting to get into ICU, patients awaiting transfer from ICU, total beds in ICU, closed ICU beds, expansion ICU beds) by ICU type, hospital type and by hospital size (27). Occupancy was highest in Surgical ICUs (79%), ICUs in federal hospitals (80%), and ICUs of hospitals with 301–750 beds (77%). An analysis of ICUs participating in Project Impact (2005–2007) studied occupancy as a continuous time variable (mean hourly occupancy 68.2%), and by ICU size (higher in ICUs with fewer beds) and hospital type (higher in academic hospitals) (24). A second study also using Project Impact data found that mortality remained stable despite high and low occupancy (census) days (28).

It appears from the chart I posted that Covid cases are representing about 10% of ICU beds and that jibes with a 66% normal rate going to 76% (say in Texas).

I can't say why many states are closer to 50-55% than 66% other than possibly lower HC utilization in general.

Big picture - there appears to be plenty of ICU capacity
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#100,389
#100,389
It sure looks like this Delta variant is hitting kids worse than the alpha:

Out of all the kids who show up to Texas Children’s concerned they may have COVID-19, “Currently, roughly 10 percent of those children who test positive do require hospitalization,” said Dr. Jim Versalovic, Pathologist-in-Chief and Interim Pediatrician-in-Chief at Texas Children’s Hospital, “and roughly one-third of those may require critical care.”
Click to expand...

Texas Children's Confirms It Has Some COVID Kids On Ventilators [UPDATED]
 
#100,390
#100,390
bamawriter said:
What's your take on why South Korea is doing so much better than the US? They have near universal mask usage along with mandatory and observed quarantining, and they are having way fewer cases despite a much greater population density. What are they doing that we're not, or vice versa?
Click to expand...

IIRC they are (and have been since the beginning) highly efficient at contract tracing and quarantining.
 
#100,391
#100,391
kiddiedoc said:
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
Click to expand...


Jesus.

Masks are effective by creating a barrier to wider spread dissemination of the virus - literally no one is saying that they prevent the transmission of the virus in totality but as someone who I assume prescribes to evidence based science, how can you read this article and say "masks don't help?"

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% of particles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).

Discussion and Recommendations Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (10–16); non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#100,392
#100,392
Septic said:
Jesus.

Masks are effective by creating a barrier to wider spread dissemination of the virus - literally no one is saying that they prevent the transmission of the virus in totality but as someone who I assume prescribes to evidence based science, how can you read this article and say "masks don't help?"

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% of particles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).

Discussion and Recommendations Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (10–16); non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
Click to expand...
lol 🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc and NorthDallas40
#100,393
#100,393
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#100,396
#100,396
bamawriter said:
What's your take on why South Korea is doing so much better than the US? They have near universal mask usage along with mandatory and observed quarantining, and they are having way fewer cases despite a much greater population density. What are they doing that we're not, or vice versa?
Click to expand...
Healthier people.

Cancer, largely not preventable, is their leading cause by a factor of 2. Over heart disease.

Heart disease, largely preventable, is our number 1. About 16% more than cancer.

Have they done different therapeutics? Which vaccine are they using?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#100,397
#100,397
volinbham said:
this may or may not be true (Delta worse than Alpha for kids) - this article does not contain the data to make that statement. we'd need to know what % of those with Covid required some hospitalization under Alpha.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. A comparison is being drawn without giving the data for one of the items being compared.
 
#100,399
#100,399
bamawriter said:
Obesity rates would explain a difference in severe infections. I'm not sure it explains such a drastic difference in total cases.
Click to expand...
Total cases require a test. Someone with very mild symptoms may never be tested.

I looked for differences in how SK conducts its PCR compared to America but couldn't find any information. I didn't check on the number of South Koreans tested...I'll check it now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top