Coronavirus Health - Health and Wellbeing

[servodude]

FWIW How to adapt and improve BiPAP NIV to be effective and safe for COVID treatment has been keeping me busy for a few weeks.

-sd

Well done you. Is that similar to the Mercedes device?

Seems like a much more worthwhile exercise that the very visible but ultimately failed government push with ventilators.

John

I'm in OZ where sleep science and treatment (where PAP is regularly used) is quite a well established industry.
It's a commercial project but there has been a decent state govt grant thrown to the team.
It's retro-fitting features we'd been working on for our next gen device in to an older product that we have existing tooling for; one of those tear up the schedule things.

-sd

[redsturgeon]

Well done you. Is that similar to the Mercedes device?

Seems like a much more worthwhile exercise that the very visible but ultimately failed government push with ventilators.

John

I'm in OZ where sleep science and treatment (where PAP is regularly used) is quite a well established industry.
It's a commercial project but there has been a decent state govt grant thrown to the team.
It's retro-fitting features we'd been working on for our next gen device in to an older product that we have existing tooling for; one of those tear up the schedule things.

-sd

One thing that has been refreshing to see is that cycles of work that used to take months and years are now taking days and weeks. Not that we should ignore the need to carefully evaluate and test for both efficacy and safety.

John

[ReformedCharacter]

I note that some here, including IIRC Uncle Ebenezer have reported feeling unwell last December with a 'lurgy', interesting to read today:

Yves Cohen, head of intensive care at the Avicenne hospital in Paris, caused a stir by telling BFM TV that tests had been repeated on samples from 24 patients admitted to the hospital for pneumonia in December and January, and that one from December 27 was positive. The patient, a 53-year-old man, had not travelled to China.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... can-eased/

RC

And maybe earlier:

The Covid-19 pandemic may have started as early as October, according to a new joint study of its genetic make-up by researchers at University College London and the University of Reunion Island.

The pathogen wreaking havoc on the world, known scientifically as SARS-CoV-2, is thought to have made the jump from its initial host to humans at some point between October 6 and December 11 last year.

The findings, which are based on analysis of more than 7,000 genome sequence assemblies collected from around the world since January, will be published in an upcoming edition of Infection Genetics and Evolution, a scientific journal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... nch-study/

RC

[sg31]

Immunology. Current state of play. This paper is an excellent overview of the current state of play. I've currently only scratched the surface but it covers a number of seperate studies I've read recently. Well worth you time if you have an interest in the field.

https://www.cell.com/immunity/pdf/S1074 ... owall=true

There's a lot of it.

[Mike4]

Sg31, the board software seems to be interfering with your link stopping it working.

Using tinyurl.com to produce a shorter link works (for me at least):

https://tinyurl.com/ybef2qsx

[sg31]

Sg31, the board software seems to be interfering with your link stopping it working.

Using tinyurl.com to produce a shorter link works (for me at least):

https://tinyurl.com/ybef2qsx

Thanks Mike.

[Charlottesquare]

I note that some here, including IIRC Uncle Ebenezer have reported feeling unwell last December with a 'lurgy', interesting to read today:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... can-eased/

RC

And maybe earlier:

The Covid-19 pandemic may have started as early as October, according to a new joint study of its genetic make-up by researchers at University College London and the University of Reunion Island.

The pathogen wreaking havoc on the world, known scientifically as SARS-CoV-2, is thought to have made the jump from its initial host to humans at some point between October 6 and December 11 last year.

The findings, which are based on analysis of more than 7,000 genome sequence assemblies collected from around the world since January, will be published in an upcoming edition of Infection Genetics and Evolution, a scientific journal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... nch-study/

RC

Without testing impossible to say what it was, but my son picked something up whilst visiting his girlfriend in New York going down with it on his return to UK on the 19th December, I then went down with it (very quickly as was fine on the 25th) on the 26th.

Whilst it may have just been a bad flu the symptoms were pretty similar to Covid, temperature, shivering, sweating, no appetite for 2-3 days, then sore throat until circa day 4/5 which then went and was followed by really bad dry coughing for another circa 4 days (lighter coughing carried on well into January). When we got to the coughing part I could not sleep lying down but sat upright in a chair for four nights and only started feeling better circa 4th/5th January.

[1nvest]

The Covid-19 pandemic may have started as early as October

It's Covid-20 you should be more concerned about, and even more so about Covid-21 as that coincides with Brexit and with all the infections will have mutated/evolved into something much more deadly.

Illuminati have decided the world only needs 2 billion max, and are also addressing the over-pollution issues.

[AleisterCrowley]

It's confusing and contradictory
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease ... -use-masks

Lady on the left , about 0:39, 'there is no evidence they (masks) protect people who are not sick'
Following on immediately with 'however, ...if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19 you should wear a mask..'
Hmm, go figure.
Then there's the bullet point:
If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

So, masks don't protect healthy people but healthy people should wear one if in contact with a sick person
Surely if they don't work to protect the wearer, just other people, the patient should be wearing the mask not the carer??
(Obviously not a good plan if they have breathing difficulties)

What's the truth? I suspect that masks , when used correctly, do offer some protection but they want to maintain supplies for front line staff and carers. Any decent unbiased info out there?

[Lootman]

At the margin masks must provide some kind of barrier to inhaling airborne viral particles. And since you don't know who has them it makes sense to wear one to protect yourself, regardless of whether the main purpose is to protect others.

I have a N99 mask which is reusable - just wash and dry after use. I wear it whenever I am inside a building that is not my home, or in public outside if there are annoying joggers and cyclists who, I feel, are exhaling aggressively.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

It's confusing and contradictory
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease ... -use-masks

Lady on the left , about 0:39, 'there is no evidence they (masks) protect people who are not sick'
Following on immediately with 'however, ...if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19 you should wear a mask..'
Hmm, go figure.
Then there's the bullet point:
If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

So, masks don't protect healthy people but healthy people should wear one if in contact with a sick person
Surely if they don't work to protect the wearer, just other people, the patient should be wearing the mask not the carer??
(Obviously not a good plan if they have breathing difficulties)

What's the truth? I suspect that masks , when used correctly, do offer some protection but they want to maintain supplies for front line staff and carers. Any decent unbiased info out there?

Have one of the research universities in the UK said that Covid 19 can enter through the eyes?

AiYn'U

[Itsallaguess]

What's the truth?

I suspect that masks, when used correctly, do offer some protection but they want to maintain supplies for front line staff and carers.

That's been my exact thoughts for a while AC, although I've also got to say that given they'll know much more about the potential for a 'supply-shock' to those front-line staff than we ever will, if we all thought that we needed to go out and start buying medical masks ourselves, then I probably can't blame them for having to play the poor hand they've clearly got, in the way that they're currently having to - which is an unfortunate situation all round, of course...

In terms of whether they offer any sort of real protection, then I fail to understand how they can devise a 'safe-working-distance' of 2m between people for social-distancing, to allow for droplet-velocity to be minimised, and then not give a mechanical element placed directly over the nose and mouth any credit when it will clearly give at least some protection over much of the same specific danger....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[AleisterCrowley]

Obviously at the extreme some masks do work , otherwise military NBC gear wouldn't work against bio-weapons

I can appreciate that masks worn by inexperienced people may increase risks as they may touch their faces more often to adjust the mask. Also, a false sense of security may reduce hand washing and distancing

[Mike4]

There seems to me to be quite a large body of opinion that masks should not be worn, just in case they make no difference.

[AleisterCrowley]

There seems to me to be quite a large body of opinion that masks should not be worn, just in case they make no difference.

That doesn't make any sense
If you have to swim across a crocodile infested river, and there's a 50% chance wearing red trunks repels crocodiles compared with all other colours, you're not going to avoid red trunks cos they may not work...

[DrFfybes]

It's confusing and contradictory
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease ... -use-masks

If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

So, masks don't protect healthy people but healthy people should wear one if in contact with a sick person

Correct. It is a bit confusing, but AIUI they are talking about different situations.

They seem to be saying that normal everyday going about your business life, wearing a mask offers little or no extra protection PROVIDING you observe social distancing and handwashing procedures.

However IF you are going to be in close contact with someone you know or suspect to be infected, then a properly fitted mask of the correct rating will offer SOME protection against infection, PROVIDED you also maintain handwashing. IMO a face mask is probably better, as it also covers your eyes.

And Yes, I suspect it is to help preserve supplies for those who most need them.

Paul

[Mike4]

There seems to me to be quite a large body of opinion that masks should not be worn, just in case they make no difference.

That doesn't make any sense
If you have to swim across a crocodile infested river, and there's a 50% chance wearing red trunks repels crocodiles compared with all other colours, you're not going to avoid red trunks cos they may not work...

I agree, it seems nonsensical to me to argue against implementing a cheap and simple measure because the evidence in favour of it is circumstantial, but if you look in the other C19 threads there is plenty of opposition to madating face coverings in public for this reason.

The absence of conclusive proof is seen as a strong argument against trying out masks in public, just in case they don't help.

[tjh290633]

There is a school of thought that wearing of masks can actually lead to more infection, rather than less. Handling and adjusting the mask with gloved or ungloved hands offers further contamination and the risk of infection.

Having said that, I can see the logic on insisting on facemasks in public transport or in close face to face encounters, such as at the dentist or the opticians.

TJH

[kempiejon]

There is a school of thought that wearing of masks can actually lead to more infection, rather than less. Handling and adjusting the mask with gloved or ungloved hands offers further contamination and the risk of infection.

Having said that, I can see the logic on insisting on facemasks in public transport or in close face to face encounters, such as at the dentist or the opticians.

TJH

How would the dentist would get to my teeth?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

It's confusing and contradictory
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease ... -use-masks

Lady on the left , about 0:39, 'there is no evidence they (masks) protect people who are not sick'
Following on immediately with 'however, ...if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19 you should wear a mask..'
Hmm, go figure.
Then there's the bullet point:
If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

So, masks don't protect healthy people but healthy people should wear one if in contact with a sick person
Surely if they don't work to protect the wearer, just other people, the patient should be wearing the mask not the carer??
(Obviously not a good plan if they have breathing difficulties)

What's the truth? I suspect that masks , when used correctly, do offer some protection but they want to maintain supplies for front line staff and carers. Any decent unbiased info out there?

Ah ha!

Is this "probability" theory?

• Two people ... one wearing mask ... one not
• Statement: The person wearing the mask is not protected as much as the person who isn't
• Counter-intuitive? If neither party has C19 neither party is at risk - therefore, no need for masks
• If one party has C19 then the other is at risk - probability masks may help
• Assume the infected party wears the mask
• They [partially] protect the other party from their "exhalations"
• Assume the non infected party wears the mask - they do not offer any protection as they are not infected
• Assume both parties are infected - no requirement for mask

Summary

• Two subjects
• Neither infected - no need for masks
• One infected - infected party to wear mask (but which one)
• Both infected - no need for masks

Which I think may be why the government want to increase testing. Because the probability of masks preventing the spread of the virus is low, unless everyone wears a mask. And ultimately there aren't 70 million face masks available. Probability suggests wearing masks will help, but only when it is known who has the virus and who doesn't. And then if we knew that there are better methods of dealing with that knowledge and decreasing both the R value and fatalities.

There is an argument to suggest that if you're on a packed tube train then everyone should wear a mask. Failing which if only some do then it simply doesn't stack up and no one should bother. Wearing a mask does not protect the wearer if others aren't doing the same. It's an all in option only.

AiYn'U