sharetrader
Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 848545556575859 LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 1167

Thread: Coronavirus

  1. #1141
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I take your point BP, and at the same time your post has suggested to me an interesting thought experiment.

    --------

    Suppose a person was to travel to Auckland and wished to use public transport to get around the city. A public bus pulls up, scattered with a whole lot of passengers not wearing masks, in amongst others who are wearing masks. As the person at the bus stop, do you get on that bus? Explain why or why not, as you justify your decision.

    ---------

    SNOOPY

    PS. This question as posed doesn't have a right or wrong answer (although other circumstances may determine that) and is open to anyone to answer. Not just BP!
    I think your perspective is still too much related to the safety of the individual. From a societies perspective any person wearing a mask is reducing the transmission risks. As soon as the R0 falls below 1 (and this does not require everybody to wear a mask, just a sufficient number of people) the virus is petering out. However individuals still might get infected.

    Still - back to your scenario. If we are talking about a bus in today's Auckland and we are talking low or no community transmissions (as at current), I certainly would get on the bus (low infection risk). Still would try to stay away from people wearing no mask and point out to the appropriate authorities that there are opportunities for them to distribute $300 tickets.

    BTW - I am speaking sort of from experience. I used to catch previously regularly quite evil flues while sitting on the plane next to reckless and selfish people liberally spreading their virus around ... and the problem with Covid is that the carriers are already transmitting the virus while they don't show symptoms. People using public transport while being sick without trying to protect their environment are dumb and selfish bastards.

    If above scenario would be however at current in New York, Madrid or London where the virus is rampant - No way I would get onto this bus without wearing full PPE. Ways too risky.

    But again - important is to reduce the infection rate for society, the reduction of the risk for the mask wearer is related to this policy only a beneficial side effect.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  2. #1142
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Irresident
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I take your point BP, and at the same time your post has suggested to me an interesting thought experiment.

    --------

    Suppose a person was to travel to Auckland and wished to use public transport to get around the city. A public bus pulls up, scattered with a whole lot of passengers not wearing masks, in amongst others who are wearing masks. As the person at the bus stop, do you get on that bus? Explain why or why not, as you justify your decision.

    ---------

    SNOOPY

    PS. This question as posed doesn't have a right or wrong answer (although other circumstances may determine that) and is open to anyone to answer. Not just BP!
    I have a mask, I have a small bottle of hand sanitizer, I get on the bus. Absent those things, why am I outside in Auckland, considering public transport?

  3. #1143
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Pfizer vaccine works.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-breakthrough

    Based on a large double-blinded trial of a very safe vaccine(based on mRNA) .
    In this trial ultra cold vaccine storage used and so far 94 participants have caught coronavirus infection with the vaccine showing 90% effectiveness at prevention(after 2 vaccinations)
    This really looks like a game changer for next year.

    The study is ongoing and many questions remain to be answered-but its happening and there is a very high chance it will be in mass use in a few months
    Megan Woods says we could have deliveries of this vaccine by March -1.5 million doses ordered-enough for 750,000 people .
    With many other vaccines in progress it looks as if we have the answer to Covid and markets should respond positively .

  4. #1144
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Masks
    I've been flying a bit domestically recently. As a general rule, I sit in the first few rows of the plane usually in the aisle and have worn a P2/N95 mask - even when it wasn't compulsory (I also wear a pair of non-prescription glasses, I'll come to that in a moment*).

    When it wasn't compulsory to wear a mask, I've had late arriving passengers see me wearing a mask and ask the cabin crew about it, who were responding "It's optional at this time." They weren't offering a mask even though they have a supply and I volunteered to someone who look a bit bewildered - "If you want a mask, ask because they can give you one." That met with a slight scowl from the flight attendant and a request from the passenger for a mask which was duly fulfilled.

    Most folk don't wear a mask until they get onto the plane but that's been changing over time - more are wearing a mask in the lounge or as they line up. Generally, I wear a mask in the Koru Lounge unless I'm drinking my socially distanced coffee but almost no one else does.

    I observed a guy brandishing a valved mask on my last flight - which essentially affords him some element of protection but due to the exhaust valve means that if he had Covid then his mask while providing him with a modicum of additional comfort was actually offering a reduced level of protection but bugger all protection to his neighbouring passengers. In the same way, I could wear my industrial half face respirator which has a P2 particle filter and an AX class organic vapour and particle filter which would afford me an extremely high level respiratory protection but the exhaust valve isn't filtered so I'm not actually reducing my R level meaningfully if I inadvertently contracted Covid and was infectious.

    I observe that I wear a mask in places where most folk don't see the need - I wear a more comfortable but less effective cloth mask as opposed to an N95 or surgical mask when I visit a supermarket or a shopping mall, and I carry a bottle of sanitiser and scan myself every occasion on the covid tracker app.

    I don't generally choose not to take public transport other than flying but conversely I do eat in restaurants and don't wear a mask in my 'work bubble' - when I do start heading overseas for business next year, I will adjust the risk profile to suit the environment - part of taking a more active prophylaxis approach is to build some habits so the adjustment will be less overt and less likely to be inadvertently forgotten in the moment.


    * There's a number of studies that indicate that wearing protective eye wear including wearing glasses has significant prophylaxis in the real world - I happened to have a pair of inexpensive blue light filter glasses that I purchased for extended days working on screens that I now wear when flying - I could wear the non vented goggles that I wear with the respirator but even I think that's going a bit far.

    Likewise there's a recent study that having had the MMR vaccine may have afforded a level of protection for children from contracting Covid too.

  5. #1145
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default Three takes on mask wearing on Buses

    --------

    Suppose a person was to travel to Auckland and wished to use public transport to get around the city. A public bus pulls up, scattered with a whole lot of passengers not wearing masks, in amongst others who are wearing masks. As the person at the bus stop, do you get on that bus? Explain why or why not, as you justify your decision.

    ---------

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    If we are talking about a bus in today's Auckland and we are talking low or no community transmissions (as at current), I certainly would get on the bus (low infection risk). Still would try to stay away from people wearing no mask and point out to the appropriate authorities that there are opportunities for them to distribute $300 tickets.

    If above scenario would be however at current in New York, Madrid or London where the virus is rampant - No way I would get onto this bus without wearing full PPE. Ways too risky.
    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    I have a mask, I have a small bottle of hand sanitizer, I get on the bus. Absent those things, why am I outside in Auckland, considering public transport?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rep View Post

    Masks

    I observe that I wear a mask in places where most folk don't see the need - I wear a more comfortable but less effective cloth mask as opposed to an N95 or surgical mask when I visit a supermarket or a shopping mall, and I carry a bottle of sanitiser and scan myself every occasion on the covid tracker app.

    I don't generally choose not to take public transport other than flying but conversely I do eat in restaurants and don't wear a mask in my 'work bubble' - when I do start heading overseas for business next year, I will adjust the risk profile to suit the environment - part of taking a more active prophylaxis approach is to build some habits so the adjustment will be less overt and less likely to be inadvertently forgotten in the moment.
    Three views on taking a bus with a scattering of unmasked travellers and only two would be comfortable getting on. There is no right or wrong answer here because what you are comfortable with is the right answer.

    Of the two who would get on, one would have their bottle of hand sanitizer at the ready. The other would reduce their risk by socially distancing. The odd time I have jumped on a bus myself in Christchurch in the last month there haven't been many people on it. Is that my ride timing? Or is 'fear of Covid-19 on buses' taking hold? I arrived at Wellington Airport today and noticed the Airport bus is to be cancelled permanently (there was a hint some new service may re-emerge next year, but we heard the same about soft plastic recycling last year). During the last couple of days of operation, one bus pulled away with what looked like no passengers. Traditionally these buses were 2/3 full.

    A couple of our potential riders admit to a more nuanced approach. One says any hint of Covid-19 rampant in the city and it would take full PPE gear to allow them to comfortably navigate a bus. Another said that in less risky circumstances they would trade off mask effectiveness for a more comfy mask (implying that their preferred mask for disease prevention wasn't that comfortable?)

    It would certainly be sad if Covid-19 caused the demise of buses, as well as the demise of bank branches. But let's recall how the fear of buses manifested itself in NZ.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 25-11-2020 at 07:35 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  6. #1146
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default Aerosol Covid-19 cases in NZ

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    It would certainly be sad if Covid-19 caused the demise of buses, as well as the demise of bank branches. But let's recall how the fear of buses manifested itself in NZ.
    A St Luke's mall worker, subsequently linked to the refrigeration cluster, apparently caught Covid-19 on a bus. It seems likely that this worker was 'down the back of the bus' with two Covid-19 positive people on 12th August, as Auckland moved to Alert Level 3 (bus passenger positive test result announced on 21st August) . The total trip took two and one half hours, or much longer than any scheduled air flight in NZ. This was extraordinary because with no traffic, the trip would have only taken three minutes. And the trip could be walked in 11 minutes.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...ovid-19-emerge

    There were 16 passengers on the trip (plus the driver). That doesn't draw a picture of excessive overcrowding to me. Although neither would it preclude strangers sitting in adjacent rows. The article says that 11 were considered close contacts, but doesn't explain why only 11 (maybe the others were seniors or a parent with a pram using the readily accessible disabled seats at the front?)

    The article then says that a second passenger was reported as testing positive on August 24th (I don't recall this being highlighted at the time). Subtraction of that case means 9 of the close contacts on the bus did not end up catching the virus.

    I guess what I am getting at here is that we had one or two persons virus shedding for maybe more than two hours in quite a confined space. So it does look like 'social distancing' just a couple of seats away without masks was sufficient protection to avoid being infected in this instance.

    The other point I wanted to make is that while this is assumed to be a case of 'aerosol infection', we don't know that. If an infection can be transferred by a lift button, it could also be transferred by a 'bus request stop' button. Or simply taking hold of the same vertical rail as you exited the bus.

    This case combined with the Health Worker from a later cluster, who apparently nebulised vast quantities of Covid-19 virus into a gym class on the North Shore and yet ended up not infecting anyone else, would suggest to me there are no confirmed cases of aerosol transmitted Covid-19 in New Zealand. Thus this would suggest the 'science' behind mask wearing in New Zealand is actually pretty weak. And while I wouldn't like to see masks banned, it does seem a bit draconian and 'junk science brigade' to threaten to fine people for not wearing them.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 25-11-2020 at 08:22 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  7. #1147
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default R0 factor or K factor?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    I think your perspective is still too much related to the safety of the individual. From a societies perspective any person wearing a mask is reducing the transmission risks. As soon as the R0 falls below 1 (and this does not require everybody to wear a mask, just a sufficient number of people) the virus is petering out. However individuals still might get infected.

    Important is to reduce the infection rate for society, the reduction of the risk for the mask wearer is related to this policy only a beneficial side effect.
    The above is of course predicated on the aersol transmission theory being valid.

    Another paper I read suggested that the 'R0' factor is less important than the 'K' factor. The K factor measures the consistency with which a disease spreads

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/th...to-understand/

    "Research has shown that as much as 80 per cent of transmission events come from just 10 per cent of all infected individuals. This means that most people with COVID-19 don’t seem to pass it on."

    This would suggest that the risk of any individual passing on Covid-19 is much lower than the average infection rate for all the population would lead you to believe. And that is another argument against fining the general population for not wearing a mask.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 25-11-2020 at 10:04 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  8. #1148
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    The above is of course predicated on the aersol transmission theory being valid.

    Another paper I read suggested that the 'R0' factor is less important than the 'K' factor. The K factor measures the consistency with which a disease spreads

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/th...to-understand/

    "Research has shown that as much as 80 per cent of transmission events come from just 10 per cent of all infected individuals. This means that most people with COVID-19 don’t seem to pass it on."

    This would suggest that the risk of any individual passing on Covid-19 is much lower than the average infection rate for all the population would lead you to believe. And that is another argument against fining the general population for not wearing a mask.

    SNOOPY
    Your crusade against mask wearing requirements might be quite compatible with right wing populism, but this does not make it right.

    You are saying that because less than 10 percent of all infected individuals are likely to be super spreaders, we should not fine the general population for not wearing masks. This suggestion is as sensible as to propose that we should not fine car drivers for texting or for drink driving, given that (probably ways) less than 10 percent of these infringers cause accidents while driving drunk or texting.

    Sure, requiring somebody to wear a mask in certain circumstances is a reduction of their liberty to spread any virus they carry liberally around and infect anybody as they please, but I think we need to balance this against the right of other people to stay healthy.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  9. #1149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Your crusade against mask wearing requirements might be quite compatible with right wing populism, but this does not make it right.

    You are saying that because less than 10 percent of all infected individuals are likely to be super spreaders, we should not fine the general population for not wearing masks. This suggestion is as sensible as to propose that we should not fine car drivers for texting or for drink driving, given that (probably ways) less than 10 percent of these infringers cause accidents while driving drunk or texting.

    Sure, requiring somebody to wear a mask in certain circumstances is a reduction of their liberty to spread any virus they carry liberally around and infect anybody as they please, but I think we need to balance this against the right of other people to stay healthy.
    People have their little hates and this seems to be Snoopy's.
    For me, wearing a mask isn't the sole answer to anything but it doesn't hurt and, while annoying (especially for someone with glasses) has little downside.

  10. #1150
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Your crusade against mask wearing requirements might be quite compatible with right wing populism, but this does not make it right.
    Your diversionary tactic to label me a 'right wing populist' is noted. Now back to the argument

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    You are saying that because less than 10 percent of all infected individuals are likely to be super spreaders, we should not fine the general population for not wearing masks. This suggestion is as sensible as to propose that we should not fine car drivers for texting or for drink driving, given that (probably ways) less than 10 percent of these infringers cause accidents while driving drunk or texting.
    No, I am saying that the 'science' of mask wearing as a potential tool for preventing the spread of Covid-19 is weak. I am saying that if the atomised spray theory of Covid-19 theory is valid, then the actual probability of passing on the virus is far less than you think because R0 is not uniform for everyone - it changes depending on the person. R0 is very high for a small number of people, the K spreaders.

    I am suggesting that a better tactic for stopping Covid-19 spread is dealing with K spreaders. It is unclear whether K spreading is a behavioural thing or an innate biological thing or maybe a combination of both. But it is probable that 'any old mask' will not be effective with K Spreaders in controlling the spread of Covid-19.

    If you must have an analogy, and I don't particularly like analogies in this situation because much about Covid-19 is still unknown, I am suggesting that -as an example- if you want to prevent drunk driving, you would have a better hit rate targeting drivers with more than one drunk driving conviction, not targeting all drivers at random. Of course the problem with that analogy is that you can identify who repeat drunk driving offenders are. But it isn't clear who a K spreader for Covid-19 is.

    The idea of assuming everyone is an extremist (K spreader), adopting an unproven theory on how the spread is happening (atomised spray particles from the nose and mouth), using a dodgy tool to address a possible problem (a mask that meets no standards), and then fining people if they don't comply is going too far - IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Sure, requiring somebody to wear a mask in certain circumstances is a reduction of their liberty to spread any virus they carry liberally around and infect anybody as they please, but I think we need to balance this against the right of other people to stay healthy.
    The problem is, the actual act of putting a mask on and off is in itself a mechanism for transferring virus particles from your hands to your nose and mouth area. Often in these cases where the mechanism of transferring the bug is not clear the precautionary principle applies. But if the precautionary act in itself is likely to increase the chances of passing on Covid-19 should you do it? At the very least I don't think you should be fined for not wearing a mask until the science around what is happening becomes clearer.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 26-11-2020 at 06:54 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  11. #1151
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Your diversionary tactic to label me a 'right wing populist' is noted. Now back to the argument
    SNOOPY
    This is not what I did. I did say that your argument is "quite compatible with right wing populism". I referred to your argument and I didn't label you in any way. Different thing. I am surprised that you don't bother anymore to read my statements before you trash them. Are your standards slipping?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I am suggesting that a better tactic for stopping Covid-19 spread is dealing with K spreaders. It is unclear whether K spreading is a behavioural thing or an innate biological thing or maybe a combination of both. But it is probable that 'any old mask' will not be effective with K Spreaders in controlling the spread of Covid-19.

    If you must have an analogy, and I don't particularly like analogies in this situation because much about Covid-19 is still unknown, I am suggesting that -as an example- if you want to prevent drunk driving, you would have a better hit rate targeting drivers with more than one drunk driving conviction, not targeting all drivers at random. Of course the problem with that analogy is that you can identify who repeat drunk driving offenders are. But it isn't clear who a K spreader for Covid-19 is.

    The idea of assuming everyone is an extremist (K spreader), adopting an unproven theory on how the spread is happening (atomised spray particles from the nose and mouth), using a dodgy tool to address a possible problem (a mask that meets no standards), and then fining people if they don't comply is going too far - IMO.



    The problem is, the actual act of putting a mask on and off is in itself a mechanism for transferring virus particles from your hands to your nose and mouth area. Often in these cases where the mechanism of transferring the bug is not clear the precautionary principle applies. But if the precautionary act in itself is likely to increase the chances of passing on Covid-19 should you do it? At the very least I don't think you should be fined for not wearing a mask until the science around what is happening becomes clearer.

    SNOOPY
    Look - I am sure that scientists can analyze this domain ad infinitum and they always will learn something new. That's what scientists do. Similar to global warming. I am as well sure that there always will be people who want to appear smart or just like to be difficult who will always point out that we don't know yet everything and that therefore it is best to do nothing.

    However, wearing a mask to reduce infection risk during pandemics is a method proven over centuries. They used this method already with success many centuries ago. Many Asian countries use this method for a long time to protect the environment against the spread of airborne diseases (like coughs and the flu). We know well, that it does not make things worse for the wearer (but some discomfort) and that it reduces infection rates.

    Isn't it better to ask people to do something now which doesn't harm anybody but will at least reduce the infection risk instead of playing the smart.... and suggesting we better do nothing because we might know more in some years (when it is too late)?

    Anybody who is concerned about infecting him/herself through the wearing of infected masks is very welcome to apply appropriate hygiene measures. Problem solved.
    Last edited by BlackPeter; 27-11-2020 at 08:23 AM.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  12. #1152
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    28,030

    Default

    One good reason why the Pakistani cricket should be sent home ...immediately ...arrogant bugger

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...r-tour-threats
    “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end”

  13. #1153
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    One good reason why the Pakistani cricket should be sent home ...immediately ...arrogant bugger

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...r-tour-threats
    I'd second that. Send them home now and stop foreign sports people from coming in unless we can cater first for our own people and any essential workers the country needs.

    Mindboggling that our government forces our own people to wait sometimes months abroad before they can manage to coordinate their flights with free quarantine places, while foreign sports people apparently get the red carpet and a quarantine place whenever they please.

    Sickening priorities.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  14. #1154
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobby41 View Post
    For me, wearing a mask isn't the sole answer to anything but it doesn't hurt and, while annoying (especially for someone with glasses) has little downside.
    Are you sure about that? Here is what epidemiologist Janine Jagger has to say on the subject. It reinforces the point I have made before about the unregulated quality of masks deemed 'acceptable' for wearing by the wider NZ public.

    https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....8.769108/full/

    ---------

    The effectiveness of the mask as PPE depends on what it is made of. PPE was not invented by COVID-19. Todays PPE is an evidence based body of regulated technology most of which was designed and folded into the OSHA Blood borne Pathogens standard in the wake of the AIDS pandemic. All PPE is based on its effectiveness as a fluid barrier. As such, all pre-existing PPE that was made of cotton (such as surgical gowns) was kicked to the curb. There is no such thing as cotton PPE - not a mask, not a gown, nothing. COVID-19 has brought with it an avalanche of unregulated DIY, PPE - and here comes the cotton - it's back again. Whose seat of the pants idea was that?

    The commercial medical mask is an approved, well-designed piece of technology. It is a two sided fluid barrier and relative to respiratory viral disease serves as a two-way barrier to droplet spray. DIY "cloth" masks can mimic the properties of the commercial medical mask simply by the right choice of fabric. Either polyester or nylon have appropriate "hydrophobic" properties - think rain gear. Cotton is absorbent and pulls fluid and its viral contents through the mask and delivers it to the wearer - at the intake of respiration. One clinical trial on the incidence of respiratory disease in nurses wearing medical masks found a rate 13X higher in those wearing cotton masks than in those wearing commercial medical masks. There was no benefit of the medical mask documented in the 1918 pandemic. All masks were cotton at that time. The commercial medical mask has been shown to reduce the incidence of SARS in healthcare personnel. The medical mask does indeed have its place in COVID-19 prevention. But get rid of the cotton asap and choose a hydrophobic fabric.

    ---------

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 27-11-2020 at 09:49 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  15. #1155
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Are you sure about that? Here is what epidemiologist Janine Jagger has to say on the subject. It reinforces the point I have made before about the unregulated quality of masks deemed 'acceptable' for wearing by the wider NZ public.

    https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....8.769108/full/

    ---------

    The effectiveness of the mask as PPE depends on what it is made of. PPE was not invented by COVID-19. Todays PPE is an evidence based body of regulated technology most of which was designed and folded into the OSHA Blood borne Pathogens standard in the wake of the AIDS pandemic. All PPE is based on its effectiveness as a fluid barrier. As such, all pre-existing PPE that was made of cotton (such as surgical gowns) was kicked to the curb. There is no such thing as cotton PPE - not a mask, not a gown, nothing. COVID-19 has brought with it an avalanche of unregulated DIY, PPE - and here comes the cotton - it's back again. Whose seat of the pants idea was that?

    The commercial medical mask is an approved, well-designed piece of technology. It is a two sided fluid barrier and relative to respiratory viral disease serves as a two-way barrier to droplet spray. DIY "cloth" masks can mimic the properties of the commercial medical mask simply by the right choice of fabric. Either polyester or nylon have appropriate "hydrophobic" properties - think rain gear. Cotton is absorbent and pulls fluid and its viral contents through the mask and delivers it to the wearer - at the intake of respiration. One clinical trial on the incidence of respiratory disease in nurses wearing medical masks found a rate 13X higher in those wearing cotton masks than in those wearing commercial medical masks. There was no benefit of the medical mask documented in the 1918 pandemic. All masks were cotton at that time. The commercial medical mask has been shown to reduce the incidence of SARS in healthcare personnel. The medical mask does indeed have its place in COVID-19 prevention. But get rid of the cotton asap and choose a hydrophobic fabric.

    ---------

    SNOOPY
    Many on this thread have been aware since February that a N95 mask is best to reduce the risk of transmission and obtained supplies.
    It is so negligent that Chris Hipkins has still not supplied front line workers at high risk with this necessary protection .
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...s-not-supplied
    Last edited by fish; 28-11-2020 at 05:45 AM.

  16. #1156
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    274

    Default

    A P2 or N95 mask or surgical grade mask affords a higher level of protection than a cloth mask. In the same way, a six point harness, Snell certified helmet and a HANS device provides much more protection for a race driver than a lap/sash seat belt and a drivers airbag when heading to the shops.

    In real close proximity then you’d want a N95, a clean cloth mask when maintaining a level of social distancing is better than not wearing one - all other things being equal.

  17. #1157
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    274

    Default

    D9DBB921-75AD-4AA9-B280-53D87D8118C3.jpg

    By the way one alternative outcome to a mask is intubation.

  18. #1158
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default Snoopy Position on Masks (Nov 2020)

    Let me outline my current position on masks.

    I own a mask. I went to the trouble of getting one with adjustable straps, for comfort purposes. It is made of organic cotton (gulp!) and the reason I chose that material is that I thought it would be easy to wash and dry overnight if I was away from home on a trip. It also has a piece of pipe wire at nose level so that it can be shaped to hug my nose bridge and be a 'shaped fit'. It also has replaceable woollen filters. In addition, it comes with a pouch. That means when I finish with it, I can put the mask back in its own pouch and it doesn't contaminate anything else in my pocket or bag.

    It is not N95. But for something to be used in public away from anyone with known Covid-19 disease it is IMO the best mask I could find to buy (that was before I found out about the dubiousness of cotton as a mask material though! - Hopefully the extra woollen filter goes some way to address this issue).

    I reckon one filter should be good for eight hours (OK I made that up, but it is akin to replacing your disposable filter each day which 'sounds about right'). Once I am out of the situation where masks are required, I remove it to preserve the remaining life in my mask filter.

    I am telling you all this to show that I take mask wearing seriously. So why do I wear a mask if I don't think it is any good? I accept that some masks may do some good in some conditions. But what masks in what conditions? I think the science is still undecided on that. So the best course of action is to 'go with the flow'. Continue with the 'mask experiment' and see what happens.

    What I do object to is pseudoscientific over-reaction which pre-judges the effectiveness of all masks and seeks to provide penalties for not wearing them. Remember Covid-19 was eliminated in New Zealand without the use of masks. It seems wrong to scare-monger people into action by enforcing behaviour of 'doubtful provenance'. And it seems absolutely wrong to fine them for the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rep View Post
    In real close proximity then you’d want a N95, a clean cloth mask when maintaining a level of social distancing is better than not wearing one - all other things being equal.
    That doesn't accord with what epidemiologist Janine Jagger had to say does it.

    "Cotton is absorbent and pulls fluid and its viral contents through the mask and delivers it to the wearer - at the intake of respiration. One clinical trial on the incidence of respiratory disease in nurses wearing medical masks found a rate 13X higher in those wearing cotton masks than in those wearing commercial medical masks."

    I will spell that out straight for those that don't get it.

    In certain situations, wearing a cotton mask will likely increase your risk of getting Covid-19, compared with wearing no mask.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 28-11-2020 at 02:32 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  19. #1159
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Let me outline my current position on masks.

    I own a mask. I went to the trouble of getting one with adjustable straps, for comfort purposes. It is made of organic cotton (gulp!) and the reason I chose that material is that I thought it would be easy to wash and dry overnight if I was away from home on a trip. It also has a piece of pipe wire at nose level so that it can be shaped to hug my nose bridge and be a 'shaped fit'. It also has replaceable woollen filters. In addition, it comes with a pouch. That means when I finish with it, I can put the mask back in its own pouch and it doesn't contaminate anything else in my pocket or bag.

    It is not N95. But for something to be used in public away from anyone with known Covid-19 disease it is IMO the best mask I could find to buy (that was before I found out about the dubiousness of cotton as a mask material though! - Hopefully the extra woollen filter goes some way to address this issue).

    I reckon one filter should be good for eight hours (OK I made that up, but it is akin to replacing your disposable filter each day which 'sounds about right'). Once I am out of the situation where masks are required, I remove it to preserve the remaining life in my mask filter.

    I am telling you all this to show that I take mask wearing seriously. So why do I wear a mask if I don't think it is any good? I accept that some masks may do some good in some conditions. But what masks in what conditions? I think the science is still undecided on that. So the best course of action is to 'go with the flow'. Continue with the 'mask experiment' and see what happens.

    What I do object to is pseudoscientific over-reaction which pre-judges the effectiveness of all masks and seeks to provide penalties for not wearing them. Remember Covid-19 was eliminated in New Zealand without the use of masks. It seems wrong to scare-monger people into action by enforcing behaviour of 'doubtful provenance'. And it seems absolutely wrong to fine them for the same.




    That doesn't accord with what epidemiologist Janine Jagger had to say does it.

    "Cotton is absorbent and pulls fluid and its viral contents through the mask and delivers it to the wearer - at the intake of respiration. One clinical trial on the incidence of respiratory disease in nurses wearing medical masks found a rate 13X higher in those wearing cotton masks than in those wearing commercial medical masks."

    I will spell that out straight for those that don't get it.

    In certain situations, wearing a cotton mask will likely increase your risk of getting Covid-19, compared with wearing no mask.

    SNOOPY
    Snoopy,

    good on you for owning a mask and (I presume) wearing it on public transport. Our household is in possession of 2 washable masks per person ... however, we do not use public transport (I would like to, but there is no suitable connection at our place).

    Looking at the recent dialogue I feel however that we are talking cross purpose.

    I think that you want to convince us that not all masks are perfect in protecting the wearer against Covid-19. I think we all know that and agree vehemently.

    I read as well in your posts that some mask-wearing may increase the risk of the wearer to catch Covid-19. I think that the risk of this is minute as long as we assume that the wearer does use his or her brain for the intended purpose. I understand however that some people use less suitable parts of their anatomy for thinking, and yes - if they e.g. first use their mask to tidy up the splutter of a Covid-19 patient and afterwards use the same mask to protect their face, than they are not just incredibly dumb but as well more likely to catch the virus.

    However - what I think you don't get is that the primary purpose of these masks is to protect the general public from the wearer of the mask, who might have already caught the virus but still be symptom free. This is the way they (if used) reduce the community transmission of the virus.

    Your mask is protecting everybody else around you - and the masks these people are wearing are protecting you against the virus they might spread. Isn't this an amazing concept? People can do something for the general public just by wearing a mask ...

    This most important task of masks is performed well by basically all available masks (as long as they don't have a valves), and this is the reason masks are compulsory in some situations where social distancing does not work.

    If your mask is protecting you as well, than this is just a bonus ... but not really required to stop the spread of the disease as long as everybody else close to you is wearing a mask as well (which will protect you) instead of grandstanding against them.
    Last edited by BlackPeter; 28-11-2020 at 04:40 PM.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  20. #1160
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    That doesn't accord with what epidemiologist Janine Jagger had to say does it.

    "Cotton is absorbent and pulls fluid and its viral contents through the mask and delivers it to the wearer - at the intake of respiration. One clinical trial on the incidence of respiratory disease in nurses wearing medical masks found a rate 13X higher in those wearing cotton masks than in those wearing commercial medical masks."

    I will spell that out straight for those that don't get it.

    In certain situations, wearing a cotton mask will likely increase your risk of getting Covid-19, compared with wearing no mask.

    SNOOPY
    I think we clarified already that protecting the wearer is in our pandemic situation not the most important role of these masks anyway. However - I think you are misinterpreting the presented data.

    What I read out of above lines is that cotton masks protect the wearer not as good as medical masks against infection. Granted.

    However - it does not say anywhere that wearing a cotton mask does not provide any protection for the wearer nor does it say (as you claim) that it is worse for the wearer to wear a cotton mask than to wear no mask at all.

    I suggest you re-read and re-think your statement
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •