I predict that gap will close and we'll be ahead again within a month. Unless we get a rapid reverse-ferret.
Couple of deletions. This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions. Thanks - Chris
I have wondered myself whether masks might paradoxically increase infections. If the mask is providing any protection at all then the virus must accumulate on either the inside or the outside of the mask, or both. Then people keep touching them, removing them and putting them back on, placing them on the pub or restaurant table, putting their hands here and there, and so on.UncleEbenezer wrote:Seems [those in power] have declared masks mandatoy in England again. So now the scene is set for us to close the gap in infection rates with Wales, and resume the lead we consistently had before the [Deletion] rule was dropped in England in July.
I predict that gap will close and we'll be ahead again within a month. Unless we get a rapid reverse-ferret.
I don't see how that was political. It's not even as if there's an opposition party opposing it!Moderator Message:
Couple of deletions. This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions. Thanks - Chris
Contributing to the spread.XFool wrote: ...You think it's masks causing COVID infections?
I understood it was something about a variant of concern whose characteristics are not yet understood.And, since the masks have been brought back due to increasing incidents of an even more infectious variety, that seems to me a bet you can't 'lose'!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mutationsUncleEbenezer wrote:Contributing to the spread.XFool wrote:...You think it's masks causing COVID infections?
I understood it was something about a variant of concern whose characteristics are not yet understood.
Why?UncleEbenezer wrote:But in any case, I wasn't talking about a rise or fall in raw numbers. I was talking about the comparison between two samples, England and Wales. That's as near as we're going to get to a proper controlled experiment:
- The two samples are mostly-similar populations. As near to all-else-being-equal - from cultural influences to vaccine rollouts - as we're likely to get.
- A change has just been announced for one (England) but not for the other (Wales). The change brings back a fairly close alignment of the rules.
- There is a baseline: the rules were aligned before July. Back then, Welsh infection levels were consistently lower than English ones.
- Between July and today, there has been one substantial difference in the rules. Namely, those masks.
- Other rule changes (such as schools, workplaces and leisure returning) have affected both populations, but have not substantially differed.
- During that time, Welsh infection levels have soared above English levels.
- Now our rules are re-aligning.
Not this again. No, there is pretty overwhelming evidence that masks are a massive net positive - this is an airborne disease, you need to worry about it getting into your lungs not a handful of virus particles getting onto your hands. Have a read of this thread :Lootman wrote:I have wondered myself whether masks might paradoxically increase infections. If the mask is providing any protection at all then the virus must accumulate on either the inside or the outside of the mask, or both. Then people keep touching them, removing them and putting them back on, placing them on the pub or restaurant table, putting their hands here and there, and so on.
So could face coverings actually be powerful vectors for the virus, which otherwise would just dissipate in the atmosphere, fall to the ground and die off?
Professional medical staff know how to handle masks, how often to change them, and so on. But I am fairly certain people wear the same face covering for days at a time, maybe weeks at a time, coughing into them, sneezing into them. It's kind of disgusting when you think about it, like using the same cloth handkerchief for days when you have a cold.
The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.Hallucigenia wrote:Not this again. No, there is pretty overwhelming evidence that masks are a massive net positive - this is an airborne disease, you need to worry about it getting into your lungs not a handful of virus particles getting onto your hands. Have a read of this thread :Lootman wrote:I have wondered myself whether masks might paradoxically increase infections. If the mask is providing any protection at all then the virus must accumulate on either the inside or the outside of the mask, or both. Then people keep touching them, removing them and putting them back on, placing them on the pub or restaurant table, putting their hands here and there, and so on.
So could face coverings actually be powerful vectors for the virus, which otherwise would just dissipate in the atmosphere, fall to the ground and die off?
Professional medical staff know how to handle masks, how often to change them, and so on. But I am fairly certain people wear the same face covering for days at a time, maybe weeks at a time, coughing into them, sneezing into them. It's kind of disgusting when you think about it, like using the same cloth handkerchief for days when you have a cold.
https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/sta ... 3479089154
and for something more formal :
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html
You don't generally get "bare" viruses staying viable for long as they dehydrate, the threat comes from viruses in fine aerosols, that are roughly the same size as bacteria.Sorcery wrote:The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.Hallucigenia wrote:
Hallucigenia wrote:img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCOxqx2UcBY ... name=small[/img]
You don't generally get "bare" viruses staying viable for long as they dehydrate, the threat comes from viruses in fine aerosols, that are roughly the same size as bacteria.[/quote]Sorcery wrote:The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
Size
Bacteria are giants when compared to viruses. The smallest bacteria are about 0.4 micron (one millionth of a meter) in diameter while viruses range in size from 0.02 to 0.25 micron. This makes most viruses submicroscopic, unable to be seen in an ordinary light microscope. They are typically studied with an electron microscope.
That would be an occasion of Poe's Law (been mentioned round these parts a couple of times and I'm glad it has a name)GrahamPlatt wrote:When I read the OP there weren’t yet any replies. I didn’t reply because I couldn’t understand what was meant - I thought it was a form of sarcasm.
Before I saw this post I had rolled my eyes, cracked my knuckles, poured a coffee (Aeropressed Ethiopian single origin) and sat down to compose a post that would have been identical save for a couple of oblique sweary words and an emoji.daveh wrote:The point is that the fine aerosol droplets (containing virus particles) are about the same size as bacteria, so will be stopped by a mask in the same way as the bacteria have been in the picture.
Compelling on a very limited subject that bears little resemblance to real life. And it's comparing abnormal things: how many people (other than small children) sneeze without covering the mouth/nose for the instant of the sneeze?Sorcery wrote: The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
Ah come on! - the point you quoted was tin foil hat bad science tosh don't give it airUncleEbenezer wrote:Compelling on a very limited subject that bears little resemblance to real life. And it's comparing abnormal things: how many people (other than small children) sneeze without covering the mouth/nose for the instant of the sneeze?Sorcery wrote: The picture is quite compelling evidence until you realise it's about bacterial spread and not viral.
It doesn't account for the effects of masks on making you breathe harder. When you're panting and sweating, you're into a whole different ballgame to breathing normally (including talking or singing - and I hate to think what they call singing with a mask). And if you have the merest hint of a cough - or of the mucus that causes it - you're going to cough a whole lot more in a mask.
Neither does it account for masks worn and then left casually in so many places, like on a table in a train, rather than disposed of in a proper hospital incinerator.
Of course! I was positing possible explanations. The evidence (insofar as any exists) is in the statistics, not in my observations nor in that picture.servodude wrote: - but it's a really long bow to take those and extrapolate to "masks increasing transmission"
- sd
Err yep, I'm familiar with the fact that viruses are generally smaller than bacteria. As it happens, SARS2 is a relatively big virus, about 0.1 micron.Sorcery wrote:From https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... differenceSize
Bacteria are giants when compared to viruses. The smallest bacteria are about 0.4 micron (one millionth of a meter) in diameter while viruses range in size from 0.02 to 0.25 micron. This makes most viruses submicroscopic, unable to be seen in an ordinary light microscope. They are typically studied with an electron microscope.
Along the lines of this ?XFool wrote:The only thing approaching a proper controlled experiment would be two equal populations: one masked, one not.
From July to now we had something close to that. Wales with the mask rule, England without. Welsh infection rates soared above English ones.XFool wrote:The only thing approaching a proper controlled experiment would be two equal* populations: one masked, one not.