COVID-19 Useful Information to help us all surive

I was concerned about this getting buried in one of the many threads we have going so thought it needed it's own thread as this is for posting information that will actually help people.

Although we have some governments and agencies suggesting people use Banana's and other ineffective DIY masks that do not actually do much to protect you and others from the virus, we do have some better DIY options that DO help. For example this Physician has provided a good DIY on how to make a safer mask using a HEPA filter Vacuum bag:

https://mikeshouts.com/doctor-explains-how-to-make-the-safest-face-mask/

We are all dealing with all sorts of problems that arise during this, so if anyone else has anything they think might help others please share it here!

I thought masks were to prevent the giving of the virus. They do next to diddly squat in protecting the uninfected from the virus. Regular washing is the best defence.

Having checked out the video- it kinda looks like he's talking about using the masks for people who have the virus too.

That said, it does look robust. Much better than the standard fare masks

Squilookle:
I thought masks were to prevent the giving of the virus.

My understanding is that a lot of evidence is suggesting it's possible to be contagious while asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic. So wearing masks even if you don't believe yourself to be sick could just be a "stay on the safe side" move.

Also, people, please don't be an idiot and try to burn down a cell phone tower out of some moronic belief that 5G wireless Internet is spreading the coronavirus. Because that's actually happening and it's basically a step away from accusing people of witchcraft.

Squilookle:
I thought masks were to prevent the giving of the virus. They do next to diddly squat in protecting the uninfected from the virus. Regular washing is the best defence.

Having checked out the video- it kinda looks like he's talking about using the masks for people who have the virus too.

That said, it does look robust. Much better than the standard fare masks

Pointless and gives people a false sense of protection. I believe only those N95 masks work but those are only useful in medical settings and there is a shortage of them. Viral particles are too small for dust masks and surgical masks are only useful for mouth bacteria to not contaminate the wound. Sneeze and viral particles will erupt from around the mask and through the mask and tear ducts are also unprotected. I bet most people with those stupid masks wear them multiple times or are otherwise contaminated so that they breathe more difficult through infected garbage. It's hysteric group think that gives a false sense of control. Wearing those masks in public comes from Asian cultures but it's more from collectivist group think and it hasn't exactly helped them. What probably would have helped is changing those disgusting eating habits and stop abusing animals.

Maintaining a few meters distance from people and washing hands regularly is the only effective method to prevent further spread or infection. 'Effective' being relative ofcourse with an endemic virus that spreads through water droplets that are potentially aerosol and for which a vaccine is still years away.

My mother-in-law is a biochemist and virologist (specializes in SARS) and she's my go-to source of info for these situations.

She's sensible and level-headed and I trust her opinion. Of course here I'm some rando, which makes her a rando twice removed for you, of the "my uncle works at Nintendo" kind, but make of this what you will. I promise it's a reliable source.

According to her, face masks ARE useful but not THAT useful and only good for about 4 hours. The virus itself isn't airborne but can survive in the air for about 2 hours from an unguarded cough or a sneeze. The face mask just minimizes (without 100% cancelling) the risk from getting it that specific way.

In my personal opinion governments are likely to downplay the effectiveness of the face mask either because they don't want the population to panic in the face of a shortage and/or they don't want to lure them to a false sense of security either.

The greater risk remains tactile, ie. touching an infected surface and then touching your face. On a surface the virus can survive for about 24 hours. Wash your hands regularly, carry some alcoholic gel with you, wear latex gloves and discard them as soon as you get home. Also rinse with detergent or alcohol all of your groceries, as well as the soles of your shoes (leave them by the door). Hell it's probably prudent to take off your clothes and wash them as soon as you get back home too.

As of right now there're 1.3 million cases of Covid-19 and 75,000 dead around the world.
Take this seriously people. In this case there's no such thing as being too careful.

There's quite a lot of info out there about the virus. Face masks are a lot more useful against this virus than most because you are possibly most contagious when asymptomatic and someone just talking puts droplets into the air, not only stuff like coughing and sneezing. Sure sitting next to someone for awhile (hanging out, talking, etc.), the mask probably won't help too much over that extended period with lots of possible transmissions but going to the store to get groceries with little interaction, the mask will help quite a bit. There's pretty solid data from countries that are handling the virus well where masks are consistently used. There was a graph (that I forget where I saw it) of South Korean infections prior and after people started wearing masks, and the infection rate went down quite a bit. There's also a video from the Czech Replubic about the effectiveness of masks.

You shouldn't be so paranoid about getting the virus (unless you do have pre-existing conditions or interact with people that do) because for most people, it really isn't very bad along with the fact that you will probably get it at some point unless you're lucky enough to be in a country that has it on lockdown like Taiwan. The whole point of flattening the curve isn't to stop people from getting it but to change when they get it. The virus becomes dangerous when health care is overwhelmed and people can't get medical assistance. The one telltale sign that you probably do have the virus is a symptom you probably won't get that colds/flus usually do give you, which is a runny nose. So if you get a fever and cough (plus 1 or 2 other covid symptoms) but not a runny nose, it's probably a good chance you have it. That's from scouring all sources I could find as everyone reacts differently, but (not) a runny nose seems like the best overall indicator. I personally think I had it because I got sick for the 1st time in my life without getting a runny nose. Overall it wasn't even as bad as a normal cold for me. A big problem in the US is that you can't really get tested.

Overall, just be smart and use common sense. Use some kind of mask in public places. You can feel fine seeing a few friends in very small gatherings, don't let the stay-at-home freaks guilt you into literally not leaving the house. The objective is to flatten the curve (in the US) and you'll be helping out and doing your part very much if you limit human interactions by 90+% (which you can easily do assuming you're not working). Remember the numbers really don't tell you anything at all (testing in the US is totally not where it should be) and places like New York City had all those transmissions happen BEFORE the stay-at-home orders because even perfectly accurate numbers show what happened about 2 weeks ago (incubation periods and everything). The only numbers that will tell you if it's getting better or not will be looking at hospital capacity numbers and seeing the change (up or down) of those.

Phoenixmgs:
You can feel fine seeing a few friends in very small gatherings, don't let the stay-at-home freaks guilt you into literally not leaving the house.

Here I would disagree. Leaving the house for a walk in the neighbourhood or groceries when you can keep 2 meters distance ok. I would go insane if I couldn't go for a walk. But actually meeting people is a real risk of catching the virus even if the risk for yourself is low you have to think about parents or sick people for which this could be deadly. That's why I also think with masks people think I can do this and I can do that when..no. In China recently thousands of people again in a park. But they wore a mask. It's fucking stupid.

Unfortunately the most responsible thing to do is put your social life on indefinite hold. It fucking sucks but what can you do.

stroopwafel:

Here I would disagree. Leaving the house for a walk in the neighbourhood or groceries when you can keep 2 meters distance ok. I would go insane if I couldn't go for a walk. But actually meeting people is a real risk of catching the virus even if the risk for yourself is low you have to think about parents or sick people for which this could be deadly. That's why I also think with masks people think I can do this and I can do that when..no. In China recently thousands of people again in a park. But they wore a mask. It's fucking stupid.

Unfortunately the most responsible thing to do is put your social life on indefinite hold. It fucking sucks but what can you do.

Meeting other people in small groups is fine as long as everyone involved understands that they should cancel the moment they have symptoms of Covid-19 (no "it is my allergy" or "I just have a cold" excuses, you cancel) or someone close to them, like people in the same home, exhibit symptoms. For those of us who are introverts it is a lot easier to just go "let's meet on Discord and game" then it is for those that are extroverts and absolutely need to meet people regularly to stay sane. The balancing act between wanting to stop the spread, maintaining your mental health and preventing undue harm to the economy is really hard.

If you haven't risked exposure and the people you meet haven't and all of you are healthy and avoid piling on each other in a tiny couch, you are minimizing risk (preferably you meet at whoever has the biggest home). Of course, if your country is on lockdown just stay at home and follow government mandate.

Lil devils x:
Although we have some governments and agencies suggesting people use Banana's

Yeah Banannas aren't the best fruit to protect your face with. I suggest oranges.

Oh a serious note heres a tip too for everyone I think is good. Even when you get a mask you feel confident works, for safety wear the mask but act as if you have no mask at all don't trust it to save you or prevent your coughs/sneezes from hitting other people.

Would anyone disagree with that sentiment or is that good to point out?

Oh and if you eat or have a smoke don't trust a mask you just took off or rolled up your head and then allowed the inside to touch potentially contaminated surfaces like your hair or the table.

Fieldy409:

Oh a serious note heres a tip too for everyone I think is good. Even when you get a mask you feel confident works, for safety wear the mask but act as if you have no mask at all don't trust it to save you or prevent your coughs/sneezes from hitting other people.

Would anyone disagree with that sentiment or is that good to point out?

Oh and if you eat or have a smoke don't trust a mask you just took off or rolled up your head and then allowed the inside to touch potentially contaminated surfaces like your hair or the table.

You're on the money. The most basic assumption in hospital quarantine procedures is that one or more of the efforts to contain a disease can fail, so there are several efforts in place to ensure that spread doesn't occur. Stuff like wear gloves but clean and disinfect your hands after using them. Wear a face mask and a visor to ensure no pathogen reaches your respiratory organs. These are good to live by as a civilian in these times. Wear a mask, but keep social distance. Don't touch people unless absolutely needed, but wash your hands regularly.

Also, any form of protection that you have removed should always be treated as contaminated or damaged and should be replaced. Doesn't matter if it is masks, gloves or otherwise. Once you remove it, never use it again no matter if you used it for a minute or an hour.

stroopwafel:

Phoenixmgs:
You can feel fine seeing a few friends in very small gatherings, don't let the stay-at-home freaks guilt you into literally not leaving the house.

Here I would disagree. Leaving the house for a walk in the neighbourhood or groceries when you can keep 2 meters distance ok. I would go insane if I couldn't go for a walk. But actually meeting people is a real risk of catching the virus even if the risk for yourself is low you have to think about parents or sick people for which this could be deadly. That's why I also think with masks people think I can do this and I can do that when..no. In China recently thousands of people again in a park. But they wore a mask. It's fucking stupid.

Unfortunately the most responsible thing to do is put your social life on indefinite hold. It fucking sucks but what can you do.

I would agree and totally not see anyone if the objective was to completely stop the virus, but that's not what the US is doing. If literally everyone stayed home for a couple weeks to a month (everyone stocked up in preparation), then we could stop the virus. But we'd then have to zero essential workforce and literally martyr the people that do need medical attention (as hospitals would be closed too) to save more lives in total, which is definitely inhumane and not something Americans would probably ever do nor is this virus that bad to even put that on the table.

It's going to take months for the virus to work it's way through the essential workforce, I very much doubt Americans will be staying at home for that long. So when everyone does get back to work, the virus is still going to be out there, and you most likely will catch it at some point. What does it really matter if you get it now due to seeing some friends once or twice a week with maybe like a 10% chance of getting it vs having a high % chance when the country opens back up? You're just changing WHEN you get it, not if you get it. I said in my 1st post that you definitely have to be more careful if you or someone you're with has pre-existing conditions. When everyone does go back to work, you're still going to be in the same boat as most people can't not go back to work (for 4+ months) and survive so you will have to have the same set of precautions with a parent/grandparent (or anyone else at higher risk). This isn't going to be over and done in a month or 2 even if everyone followed the stay-at-home orders to a T.

And the main reason the stay-at-home orders have been enacted (not counting 0 preparation from the government) is because what do you think would happen if they weren't? What non-essential business would voluntarily close? How many people do you think would actually change their daily routines? You don't need 0 human interactions to flatten the curve, you need to very greatly reduce them and if everyone just interacted with a handful of people once or twice a week, the curve will be very flat (until people go back to work and then it's going back up). And the thing is that this flattening wouldn't happen if people were just "recommended" to stay-at-home as you see what most people in the South are doing.

Squilookle:
I thought masks were to prevent the giving of the virus. They do next to diddly squat in protecting the uninfected from the virus.

This isn't true, actually. They're certainly not a foolproof method, because they're not airtight, don't cover the eyes, etc etc. But they are quite effective at capturing airborne droplets (from breath, for instance) which can carry the virus, and studies suggest they provide some measure of protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/can-a-face-mask-protect-me-from-coronavirus-covid-19-myths-busted#maincontent

Silvanus:

Squilookle:
I thought masks were to prevent the giving of the virus. They do next to diddly squat in protecting the uninfected from the virus.

This isn't true, actually. They're certainly not a foolproof method, because they're not airtight, don't cover the eyes, etc etc. But they are quite effective at capturing airborne droplets (from breath, for instance) which can carry the virus, and studies suggest they provide some measure of protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/can-a-face-mask-protect-me-from-coronavirus-covid-19-myths-busted#maincontent

Apparently this advise differs quite a bit from nation to nation. I've heard experts state that a face mask does nothing. Apparently air droplets from your breath will bleed through a face mask in no time, so even in wearing one when you've got the virus won't work in stemming the spread. Also, you'll end up touching your face when wearing one either to readjust or itch, increasing the risk of catching the virus via your eyes.

Latest study also shows efficacy of face masks to prevent viral infection is pretty much 0%

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

stroopwafel:
Latest study also shows efficacy of face masks to prevent viral infection is pretty much 0%

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

The biggest problem I'm seeing is that apparently, for masks to be remotely effective, you need to:

1. Avoid touching/messing with it while wearing it. This includes not pulling it down to eat/drink/talk.

2. Toss a disposable mask/Wash a reusable one as soon as you have touched it.

3. Get a clean mask to replace the old one.

A lot of people I work with are wearing masks(it's recommended but not required), and I see them pretty much reusing the same mask constantly, touching/readjusting them constantly, etc. So it feels like they might as well not bother. I wore one for about a day before realizing with a single cloth mask there's no point unless I'm going to use it for a single, uninterrupted stretch(and of course, once I eat lunch or drink coffee/water the mask is done).

Dalisclock:

stroopwafel:
Latest study also shows efficacy of face masks to prevent viral infection is pretty much 0%

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

The biggest problem I'm seeing is that apparently, for masks to be remotely effective, you need to:

1. Avoid touching/messing with it while wearing it. This includes not pulling it down to eat/drink/talk.

2. Toss a disposable mask/Wash a reusable one as soon as you have touched it.

3. Get a clean mask to replace the old one.

A lot of people I work with are wearing masks(it's recommended but not required), and I see them pretty much reusing the same mask constantly, touching/readjusting them constantly, etc. So it feels like they might as well not bother. I wore one for about a day before realizing with a single cloth mask there's no point unless I'm going to use it for a single, uninterrupted stretch(and of course, once I eat lunch or drink coffee/water the mask is done).

In addition, they are only effective in combination with social distancing, if you are in a confined space where social distancing isn't possible, more PPE is required in order to provide adequate protection. Covering just your mouth and nose help when not in constant close contact, but when you are in close contact, you really need to be wearing this in order to have adequate protection:
image

If you thoroughly wash your hands prior to adjusting your mask, you can safely do so. You should also wash your hands after adjusting your mask as well though to ensure you are not spreading anything around that was on your mask in the first place.

Phoenixmgs:

I do not think this is good advice. Instead, EVERYONE should behave as though they have the virus and can spread it to others and actively take measures to avoid spreading it to others. This means getting together with a few friends without adequate PPE is not something that should be done right now until we have the means to actually treat patients because any one of those friends could be a carrier, or could have an unknown underlying condition that could result in severe illness. Intentionally contracting it is honestly a pretty stupid thing to do. The difference between catching it now and catching it later can be the difference between whether or not you live or die. Until we have treatment options readily available, you will have a higher risk of severe illness or death. Waiting for the medical community to have more time to gain more data and prepare means we will have more of the knowledge and resources we need to improve patient outcomes.

The medical community all over the world right now is diligently working on and testing treatments so that we will be able to save more lives. The goal here is to buy time for us to have what we need to combat the virus, not to just " let people get sick in waves". That isn't our goal at all here, as far too many people will die unnecessarily if we allow that to happen. The goal here is to keep as many people as we possibly can from contracting the virus so that we can better take care of those that do and buy time to be able to better treat the people who do become ill.

If everyone actively behaves like they have the virus and takes measures to not spread it to others, we will have the time we need to be better prepared to handle new outbreaks when they happen in the future. In addition, when they reopen businesses, this will be slow and in stages, and not just " everyone go back to the way it was". They really should make sure they have enough adequate PPE on hand supplied to those working in public at every stage of the process and not move on to the next stage until they do and this be the " way of life" until we have adequate means to treat and combat the virus, whether that it be an effective treatment or a vaccine. Intentionally infecting people in waves is ignorant and unethical so I can't imagine any government in their right mind would actually choose to do that in the first place.

Gethsemani:

Fieldy409:

Oh a serious note heres a tip too for everyone I think is good. Even when you get a mask you feel confident works, for safety wear the mask but act as if you have no mask at all don't trust it to save you or prevent your coughs/sneezes from hitting other people.

Would anyone disagree with that sentiment or is that good to point out?

Oh and if you eat or have a smoke don't trust a mask you just took off or rolled up your head and then allowed the inside to touch potentially contaminated surfaces like your hair or the table.

You're on the money. The most basic assumption in hospital quarantine procedures is that one or more of the efforts to contain a disease can fail, so there are several efforts in place to ensure that spread doesn't occur. Stuff like wear gloves but clean and disinfect your hands after using them. Wear a face mask and a visor to ensure no pathogen reaches your respiratory organs. These are good to live by as a civilian in these times. Wear a mask, but keep social distance. Don't touch people unless absolutely needed, but wash your hands regularly.

Also, any form of protection that you have removed should always be treated as contaminated or damaged and should be replaced. Doesn't matter if it is masks, gloves or otherwise. Once you remove it, never use it again no matter if you used it for a minute or an hour.

Yea it has honestly been quite horrifying seeing the conditions that many of the healthcare workers have been forced to endure during this, especially in NY and other places where they have been sending healthcare providers in without adequate single use PPE, forcing them to reuse N95 masks or telling physicians when they come in they do not even have enough supplies to even supply them with a mask to use for the entire day. Oh and the sterilization methods that have been recommended for reusing N95 masks degrade the effectiveness of the mask in the first place by damaging the fibers that are supposed to trap contaminants rendering them ineffective so what exactly is that accomplishing besides sending people in with inadequate PPE but giving them a false sense of security and endangering them? Instead of distributing enough resources to maintain safety standards, they have been lowering safety standards to be ineffective here because they refuse to allocate adequate PPE to keep first responders safe.

When we already have a global shortage of healthcare providers, needlessly losing so many due to incompetent leaders and policymakers is not something the world can really afford to do.

Fieldy409:

Lil devils x:
Although we have some governments and agencies suggesting people use Banana's

Yeah Banannas aren't the best fruit to protect your face with. I suggest oranges.

Oh a serious note heres a tip too for everyone I think is good. Even when you get a mask you feel confident works, for safety wear the mask but act as if you have no mask at all don't trust it to save you or prevent your coughs/sneezes from hitting other people.

Would anyone disagree with that sentiment or is that good to point out?

Oh and if you eat or have a smoke don't trust a mask you just took off or rolled up your head and then allowed the inside to touch potentially contaminated surfaces like your hair or the table.

LMAO! I seriously did not see that until you pointed it out. The government might as well have recommended people use bananas at this point, they would be about as effective as bandannas at preventing the spread of COVID-19, so I think I will leave it that way! XD

Yes, you are 100% correct, the mask is only an additional tool, but not very effective unless it is used alongside everything else we should already be doing. We should all still be social distancing, hand washing, coughing and sneezing into your sleeves and not all over the place and do not cough or sneeze into your hands that you then touch everything with. If everyone behaves like they have the virus themselves and take measures to not spread it to others, we can keep more people safe.

The study suggests that people may acquire the coronavirus through the air and after touching contaminated objects. Scientists discovered the virus is detectable for up to three hours in aerosols, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200320192755.htm

ALSO: Disinfecting anything you bring into the home, whether it is groceries or the mail is important as well as it does no good to wash your hands then go open a box that could be contaminated, as COVID-19 is known to survive on surfaces for days, so it is a good idea to set mail or packages aside for a few days before opening them if you do not have disinfectant handy. I have been covering just about EVERYTHING (non produce of course) that enters my house either in industrial grade Lysol or bleach and always wash fresh produce well (don't put chemicals on your food though, just washing it well with water with soaking and scrubbing). Wiping down plastic shampoo containers and spraying cardboard/paper with disinfectant before handling it can help too.

If the person who put the shampoo or water bottle you just purchased on the shelf an hour ago is a carrier and you touch it, you can still spread it to yourself and others through contact due to how easily this is spread.

Lil devils x:
I do not think this is good advice. Instead, EVERYONE should behave as though they have the virus and can spread it to others and actively take measures to avoid spreading it to others. This means getting together with a few friends without adequate PPE is not something that should be done right now until we have the means to actually treat patients because any one of those friends could be a carrier, or could have an unknown underlying condition that could result in severe illness. Intentionally contracting it is honestly a pretty stupid thing to do. The difference between catching it now and catching it later can be the difference between whether or not you live or die. Until we have treatment options readily available, you will have a higher risk of severe illness or death. Waiting for the medical community to have more time to gain more data and prepare means we will have more of the knowledge and resources we need to improve patient outcomes.

The medical community all over the world right now is diligently working on and testing treatments so that we will be able to save more lives. The goal here is to buy time for us to have what we need to combat the virus, not to just " let people get sick in waves". That isn't our goal at all here, as far too many people will die unnecessarily if we allow that to happen. The goal here is to keep as many people as we possibly can from contracting the virus so that we can better take care of those that do and buy time to be able to better treat the people who do become ill.

If everyone actively behaves like they have the virus and takes measures to not spread it to others, we will have the time we need to be better prepared to handle new outbreaks when they happen in the future. In addition, when they reopen businesses, this will be slow and in stages, and not just " everyone go back to the way it was". They really should make sure they have enough adequate PPE on hand supplied to those working in public at every stage of the process and not move on to the next stage until they do and this be the " way of life" until we have adequate means to treat and combat the virus, whether that it be an effective treatment or a vaccine. Intentionally infecting people in waves is ignorant and unethical so I can't imagine any government in their right mind would actually choose to do that in the first place.

This virus could likely end up with a fatality rate under 1%, this isn't ebola. Currently, the virus only really becomes deadly (to like 5% at worst) when health care is overwhelmed. The goal is just to not have that happen. And, that will more than happen if people reduce their human interactions by 90+%. The people with conditions that put them at higher risk definitely should be as isolated as possible and far more cautious. I definitely didn't say to intentionally get the virus by any means, I don't know where you got that from. When the US and other countries reopen the economy, there isn't going to be a treatment or a vaccine unless you actually think everyone is going to stay home for 3+ months, that's just not going to happen. A vaccine won't even be ready this year, it's possible that a current drug will be good at treating the virus but that will be months as well. Unless you're in a country like Taiwan that's been able to put the virus on lockdown basically, you are going to most likely get the virus before there is a treatment or vaccine. In countries like the US where locking down the virus isn't possible anymore, having a nice slow rate of infections is the best way to handle it building up herd immunity. The best current "treatment" is good testing and tracing, which the US is sorely behind on.

Phoenixmgs:

Lil devils x:
I do not think this is good advice. Instead, EVERYONE should behave as though they have the virus and can spread it to others and actively take measures to avoid spreading it to others. This means getting together with a few friends without adequate PPE is not something that should be done right now until we have the means to actually treat patients because any one of those friends could be a carrier, or could have an unknown underlying condition that could result in severe illness. Intentionally contracting it is honestly a pretty stupid thing to do. The difference between catching it now and catching it later can be the difference between whether or not you live or die. Until we have treatment options readily available, you will have a higher risk of severe illness or death. Waiting for the medical community to have more time to gain more data and prepare means we will have more of the knowledge and resources we need to improve patient outcomes.

The medical community all over the world right now is diligently working on and testing treatments so that we will be able to save more lives. The goal here is to buy time for us to have what we need to combat the virus, not to just " let people get sick in waves". That isn't our goal at all here, as far too many people will die unnecessarily if we allow that to happen. The goal here is to keep as many people as we possibly can from contracting the virus so that we can better take care of those that do and buy time to be able to better treat the people who do become ill.

If everyone actively behaves like they have the virus and takes measures to not spread it to others, we will have the time we need to be better prepared to handle new outbreaks when they happen in the future. In addition, when they reopen businesses, this will be slow and in stages, and not just " everyone go back to the way it was". They really should make sure they have enough adequate PPE on hand supplied to those working in public at every stage of the process and not move on to the next stage until they do and this be the " way of life" until we have adequate means to treat and combat the virus, whether that it be an effective treatment or a vaccine. Intentionally infecting people in waves is ignorant and unethical so I can't imagine any government in their right mind would actually choose to do that in the first place.

This virus could likely end up with a fatality rate under 1%, this isn't ebola. Currently, the virus only really becomes deadly (to like 5% at worst) when health care is overwhelmed. The goal is just to not have that happen. And, that will more than happen if people reduce their human interactions by 90+%. The people with conditions that put them at higher risk definitely should be as isolated as possible and far more cautious. I definitely didn't say to intentionally get the virus by any means, I don't know where you got that from. When the US and other countries reopen the economy, there isn't going to be a treatment or a vaccine unless you actually think everyone is going to stay home for 3+ months, that's just not going to happen. A vaccine won't even be ready this year, it's possible that a current drug will be good at treating the virus but that will be months as well. Unless you're in a country like Taiwan that's been able to put the virus on lockdown basically, you are going to most likely get the virus before there is a treatment or vaccine. In countries like the US where locking down the virus isn't possible anymore, having a nice slow rate of infections is the best way to handle it building up herd immunity. The best current "treatment" is good testing and tracing, which the US is sorely behind on.

Stating:

What does it really matter if you get it now due to seeing some friends once or twice a week with maybe like a 10% chance of getting it vs having a high % chance when the country opens back up? You're just changing WHEN you get it, not if you get it.

Getting it now vs getting it later means getting it when we do not have treatment options available to increase favorable patient outcomes to waiting until we do have treatment options available to increase favorable patient outcomes. We are not just trying to keep our healthcare systems from being overcapacity, we are trying to buy time to find better ways to treat it so we can increase the survival rate. Intentionally ignoring the warning and doing things that have been determined to increase the spread, like getting together with friends, is intentionally exposing oneself and others and taking unnecessary risks. The idea here is not just to "control the flow", we currently do not have adequate treatments available even when you do come into the hospital. It isn't just about being overcrowded here, even if you were the ONLY patient in the entire hospital right now, if you become severe, we do not have " tried and true" methods to increase your survivability yet. Currently we are "just trying things and seeing if they work" and that is not a good place to be if you become severe right now. The longer we can postpone people contracting it, the more time we have to come up with better treatments. The current survival rate of COVID-19 patients on ventilators is not good.

Most of the people who come down with severe illness from COVID-19 did not think it would happen to them either. Many people do not even know if they have underlying conditions. We have had people of all ages, genders, ethnicities come down with severe illness and even die from COVID-19, some who were considered healthy without any known preexisting conditions even with ample medical care. We still do not even know if there is any long term protective immunity from contracting it, so that certainly is not something that should be used to determine policy.

No, trying to build up " herd immunity" when we do not even know if that is possible, nor how long any protective immunity lasts from contracting the virus is not in any way the "best solution". That is a myth that has been long busted here:

https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/busting-myths-about-covid-19-herd-immunity-children-and-lives-vs-jobs

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

What we ARE trying to do here is reduce the number of people contracting COVID-19 until we can find a way to increase favorable patient outcomes. We need time here more than anything else. Instead of people accepting that they are going to get it at some point and letting their guard down, they need to be doing everything in their power to prevent it's spread. We have healthy first responders on the front lines here that we believe are coming down with severe illness due to the size of the viral load they are being exposed to.

The initial dose of virus and the amount of virus an individual has at any one time might worsen the severity of COVID 19 disease. Viral load is a measure of the number of viral particles present in an individual. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. might worsen outcomes, and data from China suggests the viral load is higher in patients with more severe disease. The amount of virus exposure at the start of infection ? the infectious dose ? may increase the severity of the illness and is also. linked to a higher viral load

Healthcare workers can be exposed more often due to numerous infected individuals exposures. In the early stages of an outbreak, initial contacts might not be recognized, particularly contacts with those with mild symptoms, or when the use of protective measures is suboptimal. Reducing the frequency and intensity of exposure to SARs-CoV-2 might reduce the infectious dose and result in less severe cases.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-severity-of-covid-19/

This idea that people should just expect to get it is a terrible one. If I get it, for example, I have a low probability of survival. I have already survived another severe respiratory illness that I contracted while working with MSF that damaged my lungs in the same way that COVID-19 does and likely could not withstand more damage to my lungs. Whether or not you contract it can affect me, and everyone else who has/ can/ will die from this, as every single person who contracts it effects the probability of someone who will become severe contracting it. I still have to leave my home to go to the doctor myself as well. It isn't like we can all stay in our homes forever and that isn't what is being expected of us here. We just have to take the proper precautions when we do, and for the time being ,until we can actually do more than "just try what we can to save you to see what works" and obtain more reliable treatments, people should only go out when necessary.

Where I am at in Texas is under lockdown. I do not expect us to be under lockdown forever. I do expect everyone in public to have PPE right now, practice social distancing and utilize mitigating practices to help reduce the spread until we can obtain better treatments. If people continue to practice these mitigating efforts we will be able to open up more options slowly WHILE still utilizing proper PPE, social distancing and hygiene practices to keep people safe. As long as people actually comply with the efforts, we will be able to do more. If they fail to comply or it starts to surge again once we start opening up, we will have to shut if back down again. I know that is not what some want to hear, but it is what it will take to prevent this from becoming catastrophic. It is also a myth that the US cannot "lockdown". IF a nation with over 1.3 billion people can lock it down and reduce their numbers, A nation with over 300 million can do so as well, it is all a matter of leadership, enforcement, resource distribution and compliance, and no, we do not need to close our hospitals to accomplish this. The less PPE provided, the less compliance and enforcement, the longer this will take and the worse it will be.

With every passing week they accumulate more data on the virus. So far it seems to be, with exceptions, almost exclusively deadly for old age with cardiovascular issues, people with severe lung diseases and fatties. For many, espescially those of old age, invasive procedures like intubation and ventilation might add a few more months to the lifespan under the most miserable conditions.

Without comorbidity the virus kills almost no one. To try and protect everyone is a noble pursuit(though many governments are a little too eager to revoke privacy rights and roll out the police state in my opinion) it stands to argue how much the forces of nature can really be controlled or contained.

The fittest survive and reproduce. That is how evolution works. Unfortunately we are not above nature as is shown time and again. If anything it's also a lesson in humility.

stroopwafel:
With every passing week they accumulate more data on the virus. So far it seems to be, with exceptions, almost exclusively deadly for old age with cardiovascular issues, people with severe lung diseases and fatties. For many, espescially those of old age, invasive procedures like intubation and ventilation might add a few more months on the lifespan under the most miserable conditions.

Without comorbidity the virus kills almost no one. To try and protect everyone is a noble pursuit(though many governments are a little too eager to revoke privacy rights and roll out the police state in my opinion) it stands to argue how much the forces of nature can really be controlled or contained.

The fittest survive and reproduce. That is how evolution works. Unfortunately we are not above nature as is shown time and again. If anything it's also a lesson in humility.

MYTH 3: COVID-19 Is a Danger Only to People Who Are 60+ and/or Already Sick

The reality? COVID-19 can be dangerous to anyone, even if younger people who are otherwise healthy face much lower odds of serious illness or death if infected. Data from the initial outbreak in China reported mortality risk for people under age 60 was low-1.3%. That rate rose with each decade of life, peaking at 14.8% for people over 80.

However, while mortality rates predict the risk of death, they don't necessarily reflect the number of people who require hospitalization-or a ventilator-in order to recover. On March 14, 2020, French health ministry official Jerome Salomon reported the surprising news that of the 300 to 400 COVID-19 patients being treated in intensive care units in Parisian hospitals, around half were under the age of 65.

Findings from a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine that tracked 1,099 COVID-19 patients in China also challenge the notion that people under 60 will only have mild symptoms from a COVID-19 infection, reporting 47 as the median age of hospitalized patients. This suggests that even younger patients can develop the most serious complications of COVID-19, which include pneumonia, sepsis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

According to Dr. Winslow, "The risk goes up with age and comorbidities, but that does not mean that younger people are spared. We've had patients here at Stanford who are significantly younger than 60 who have become extremely ill with COVID-19."

MYTH 4: Infants and Children Can't Get COVID-19
"Children are not immune-they can become infected with COVID-19," says Caesar Djavaherian, M.D., an emergency medicine and urgent care physician, and cofounder and medical director of urgent care network CarbonHealth. "What we are seeing, however, is that the disease burden is much less in kids, because they have a different immunological response. That puts them at a much lower risk of complications and mortality when compared to adults."

However, a new Chinese study suggests babies and preschoolers my be at risk for experiencing serious complications from the virus, although research is limited on this. All children should be instructed to practice good hand hygiene and participate in social distancing to prevent transmission of COVID-19, says Dr. Djavaherian. "Remember, children can be carriers and infect other people, including those who are at a high risk of complications."

https://www.healthcentral.com/article/covid-19-myths-and-facts

Yes, we do have more information and sadly more myths. Of course with every illness those with higher risks will have less favorable outcomes, however, this does not somehow mean that others are not at risk. As I linked above, we have also found now that the amount of viral load that an individual is exposed to, healthy or otherwise, can also effect the severity of illness. We are currently researching numerous factors that can impact the severity of illness, this is not limited only to those with comorbidities.

Lil devils x:
Stating:

What does it really matter if you get it now due to seeing some friends once or twice a week with maybe like a 10% chance of getting it vs having a high % chance when the country opens back up? You're just changing WHEN you get it, not if you get it.

Getting it now vs getting it later means getting it when we do not have treatment options available to increase favorable patient outcomes to waiting until we do have treatment options available to increase favorable patient outcomes. We are not just trying to keep our healthcare systems from being overcapacity, we are trying to buy time to find better ways to treat it so we can increase the survival rate. Intentionally ignoring the warning and doing things that have been determined to increase the spread, like getting together with friends, is intentionally exposing oneself and others and taking unnecessary risks. The idea here is not just to "control the flow", we currently do not have adequate treatments available even when you do come into the hospital. It isn't just about being overcrowded here, even if you were the ONLY patient in the entire hospital right now, if you become severe, we do not have " tried and true" methods to increase your survivability yet. Currently we are "just trying things and seeing if they work" and that is not a good place to be if you become severe right now. The longer we can postpone people contracting it, the more time we have to come up with better treatments. The current survival rate of COVID-19 patients on ventilators is not good.

Most of the people who come down with severe illness from COVID-19 did not think it would happen to them either. Many people do not even know if they have underlying conditions. We have had people of all ages, genders, ethnicities come down with severe illness and even die from COVID-19, some who were considered healthy without any known preexisting conditions even with ample medical care. We still do not even know if there is any long term protective immunity from contracting it, so that certainly is not something that should be used to determine policy.

No, trying to build up " herd immunity" when we do not even know if that is possible, nor how long any protective immunity lasts from contracting the virus is not in any way the "best solution". That is a myth that has been long busted here:

https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/busting-myths-about-covid-19-herd-immunity-children-and-lives-vs-jobs

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

What we ARE trying to do here is reduce the number of people contracting COVID-19 until we can find a way to increase favorable patient outcomes. We need time here more than anything else. Instead of people accepting that they are going to get it at some point and letting their guard down, they need to be doing everything in their power to prevent it's spread. We have healthy first responders on the front lines here that we believe are coming down with severe illness due to the size of the viral load they are being exposed to.

I never implied to ever INTENTIONALLY get the virus. I said reducing you're chances from probably well over 80% (if everything was open and people are just going on like normal) to a theoretical say 10% or less from just essential shopping and seeing like a small handful of friends/family will greatly flatten the curve. You don't have to go from full-scale human interactions (work, bars/clubs/church, mass gatherings - concerts/cons/sports, friends/family) to basically 0. There's a "happy" medium that will work just fine (which is also different depending on population density of your area), which is greatly toward that 0 end of the spectrum. What most countries are trying to do isn't buy time for a treatment, it's just to not overwhelm health care.

The 1st article is using data from China and the WHO, which is just plain bad data. The measures China went through is not what the US is doing (hint: the US isn't really leading the world in deaths). The reason Taiwan is doing so good is because they didn't trust China or the WHO, sent their own doctors, the doctors saw what was really happening, and they put together a plan to stop the virus from barely even spreading; the US is well past being able to do that. Treatment options aren't just going to come around in a month or 2, it seems like remdesivir is the best hope but there's only enough of it for 140,000 people. We may not need to lockdown for 6-12 months but it's going to have to be at least 3+ months and that's not going to happen. Look how long it took NYC's hospitalization rate to go down (that was 2-3 weeks after the lockdown), a month isn't enough. With the current situation the US is in, the only somewhat decent option we have (unless we get testing up to par) is build up herb immunity slow and steady to at least a decent degree until a vaccine is available, which doesn't bank on long-term immunity (a year immunity isn't long-term). As your article says testing is basically the best "treatment" we have and from what I've seen, the US testing is still woefully short of what is needed. So when the US does open back up again, most likely without adequate testing, the only real option is herd immunity (because neither a treatment or vaccine will be available). Applying social distancing and just decent testing in most areas will probably work out decent enough. However, in metropolitan areas where people are body-to-body on a train twice/day, the infection numbers are going to soar again in those areas. Getting testing and tracing up to snuff is the best option for the US with herb immunity being 2nd; just knowing who already had the virus with anti-body tests will be extremely useful to be able to slow the virus. That would allow family members who had it to do the shopping or workers that had it to interact with the public while keeping others from as many human interactions as possible lowering their % chance of getting it as much as possible.

Phoenixmgs:
With the current situation the US is in, the only somewhat decent option we have (unless we get testing up to par) is build up herb immunity slow and steady to at least a decent degree until a vaccine is available, which doesn't bank on long-term immunity (a year immunity isn't long-term).

Herd immunity works with some viruses but not every. There are some indications that a mild coronavirus infection doesn't spare someone from a more severe infection later on(ie coronavirus related pneumonia).

If the objective is to prevent the spread of the virus as much as possible than the only option is to maintain the status quo until a vaccine is developed and distributed. Including the testing phase this will take atleast 2 years. Obviously this will come at tremendous costs both economically and psychologically for many people. Countries like Italy and Spain will never recover and become impoverished with their democracy in tatters and buried in debt. You also have to consider the implications of giving the government so much control over our lives. History learns that surrendering freedom for a little safety isn't easily reversed(ie people will have neither).

There is a point where the question if the cure isn't worse than the disease becomes legitimate. People at high risk(old age, obese, immunocompromised, lung disease etc.) should obviously continue to be isolated and so should large gatherings continue to not take place but I don't see how the current draconic measures in any way weigh up to people at very low risk for complications or death.

Ofourse there is always some risk. Just as there is some risk of walking under the bus, developing cancerous cell mutations, getting depressed and ending your own life, ending up in a lethal car accident or any of the other million ways in which one can die. I don't think there would be such an overraction to covid-19 if the mere thought of death wasn't so abolished in modern culture and if it wasn't treated like a medical problem. Death is part of life and we are going to die anyway. If anything it should be a reminder that life is short and we shouldn't waste it arguing over trivial shit that was so rampant in the last decade or so.

You know what I'm curious about? Why does nobody talk about shoe hygiene? I know from farms you need to be very careful not to walk diseases in on your shoes. People sneeze and cough that saliva will usually end up on the ground right? You walk home after stepping on it do you then bring the virus into your home on the soles of your feet? Possibly the same floor your baby might crawl across?

In a farm they either make you change your shoes at the entrance or give you a washing station which is basically a tray full of detergant and water for you to step in.

Oh and what I said here about wearing a mask but still behaving as if you assume it doesn't work? Super reasonable but It got me downvoted majorly on reddit....

stroopwafel:

Phoenixmgs:
With the current situation the US is in, the only somewhat decent option we have (unless we get testing up to par) is build up herb immunity slow and steady to at least a decent degree until a vaccine is available, which doesn't bank on long-term immunity (a year immunity isn't long-term).

Herd immunity works with some viruses but not every. There are some indications that a mild coronavirus infection doesn't spare someone from a more severe infection later on(ie coronavirus related pneumonia).

If the objective is to prevent the spread of the virus as much as possible than the only option is to maintain the status quo until a vaccine is developed and distributed. Including the testing phase this will take atleast 2 years. Obviously this will come at tremendous costs both economically and psychologically for many people. Countries like Italy and Spain will never recover and become impoverished with their democracy in tatters and buried in debt. You also have to consider the implications of giving the government so much control over our lives. History learns that surrendering freedom for a little safety isn't easily reversed(ie people will have neither).

There is a point where the question if the cure isn't worse than the disease becomes legitimate. People at high risk(old age, obese, immunocompromised, lung disease etc.) should obviously continue to be isolated and so should large gatherings continue to not take place but I don't see how the current draconic measures in any way weigh up to people at very low risk for complications or death.

Ofourse there is always some risk. Just as there is some risk of walking under the bus, developing cancerous cell mutations, getting depressed and ending your own life, ending up in a lethal car accident or any of the other million ways in which one can die. I don't think there would be such an overraction to covid-19 if the mere thought of death wasn't so abolished in modern culture and if it wasn't treated like a medical problem. Death is part of life and we are going to die anyway. If anything it should be a reminder that life is short and we shouldn't waste it arguing over trivial shit that was so rampant in the last decade or so.

I'm not saying "natural" herd immunity is the end-game, only a stop-gap until there is an end-game (vaccine or at least a treatment). The more people that have had it, the less it will spread. Even having a say third of the population already being infected will slow the spread even though it's not enough to actually to achieve herd immunity. Anything slowing the spread will help whether it's people being previously infected, social distancing, testing, masks, etc. I don't think there's anything solid saying immunity is actually in question. Most of the immunity may not work articles mainly sight that people test positive weeks after recovery and that really doesn't mean anything and that's been known for over a month now. From what I've seen, anyone getting reinfected seems to be an anomaly more than anything (plus people with immune system issues getting it again isn't surprising) and I think if it was happening on even a scale of like 10% or higher, I feel like it would be known by now.

I haven't seen that the vaccine will take 2+ years, I've seen that it will take about a year. I guess that's assuming the current vaccine that's being tested will go smooth without any hiccups. Also, the virus can burn itself out if it doesn't mutate enough to be able to reinfect along with the fact that it seems like heat won't have much of an affect on the virus meaning it won't go away in the northern hemisphere during summer while sticking around in the southern hemisphere and then making its way back north as the seasons change again. That also gives it less time to mutate as well. So by the time a vaccine is ready, we may not even need it and possibly only give it to at-risk people at that point. People are saying it could be like the flu, but the flu is like the flu because it's unique in how it can't not mutate basically. There's a reason why most viruses don't end up being like the flu.

Asking if the cure is worse than the disease is very valid because it's actually not about money vs lives, it is a question of lives vs lives. There is a lives cost due to a bad economy. The fact that in the US health insurance is tied to employment and the fact that millions got laid off/furloughed during a PANDEMIC losing health insurance. There's a bunch of medical services that are down now like preventative screenings where catching things too late can be the difference between life and death. I'm sure there's a whole rabbit hole to go down where you'll find 1,000s of deaths that will be caused by Covid that didn't involve contracting it at all.

I do definitely feel we had to shutdown at least metropolitan areas to stop health care from getting completely overloaded because there was almost no preventative measures being taken. In February, we could've stopped mass gatherings even closing bars/clubs, enacted social distancing measures, and of course, initiated TESTING. However, I think closing entire states was going too far as communities outside of metropolitan areas have much small population densities and the spread will be much slower there with just doing basic social distancing and using common sense.

Fieldy409:
You know what I'm curious about? Why does nobody talk about shoe hygiene? I know from farms you need to be very careful not to walk diseases in on your shoes. People sneeze and cough that saliva will usually end up on the ground right? You walk home after stepping on it do you then bring the virus into your home on the soles of your feet? Possibly the same floor your baby might crawl across?

In a farm they either make you change your shoes at the entrance or give you a washing station which is basically a tray full of detergant and water for you to step in.

Oh and what I said here about wearing a mask but still behaving as if you assume it doesn't work? Super reasonable but It got me downvoted majorly on reddit....

I guess because most people take off their shoes at the door and don't walk around the house in them. Plus, I'd assume the virus would wash off the bottom of the shoes via rain water and whatnot and people rarely actually touch the bottom of their shoes I would think (I know I hardly ever do).

A lot of the mask studies are flawed in the fact that the studies test masks under different conditions than what wearing them in public is attempting to accomplish. Most, if not all, mask studies were done in households. If you live with someone that's sick, a mask ain't going to help much, if at all. However, if you wear it in public to stop getting infected by walking past a random person, talking to someone for a minute or two, or you went to get a case of Pepsi right after someone put some droplets into the air, it could work much better in that environment. There was a graph I saw of South Korea's infected rate prior to and after everyone started wearing masks and there was quite a difference. Also, the fact that this virus is probably most contagious when you're not sick yet should make wearing masks more effective than with other viruses as well.

Whether or not most people take their shoes off indoors is very much a cultural thing. Most people I know don't do that.

Just released SciShow episode on masks and Covid-19

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.