Covid-19 - How does it affect your kite-life?

[revhed]

WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-2020.2-eng.pdf

(702.78 KiB) Downloaded 17 times

No comment concerning above, but please read carefully, and maybe between the lines.
IMHO, no proof, sheer speculation, if EVERYONE was to, were to wear properly fitted NEW n95 masks, single use, put on and taken off carefully, we would have Fewer cases and deaths.
R H

[Havre]

Assuming wearing masks wouldn't alter behaviour - which I personally think is a very questionable assumption. Stopping Corona isn't difficult in theory. Everyone just stay at home for 14 days. Might as well made it mandatory to stock 14 days of water and food. 14 days gone and all is back to normal.

Still it would be interesting to know. What would the cost of having 1 month of supply for every single human being be? I honestly have no idea, but that is not insignificant.

Corona is one thing, but the next one might be a lot worse. Obviously the next one might also not be hindered by masks (I don't know).

[Matteo V]

Masks are also a place where airborne virus will sit increasing the wearer's exposure.

So in situation A, there's a mask which catches the virus and that's where it sits.

In situation B, there's no mask and that's the virus goes.... Where exactly? Possibly into the lungs instead of on the mask? Is that what you would call "decreasing the person's exposure"?


The entire reason that masks were downplayed ineffectiveness by CDC and the WHO, was to decrease the hoarding of those masks by ordinary people in free markets. Some valid points were brought up about them not being 100% effective. But there was still evidence that there was a benefit to ordinary People using those masks. The smear campaign against those masks focused on an unconfirm risk due to supposed false sense of security. Please feel free to show the study on that one if you can find it. Hint oh, there is none and it is pure conjecture put out by a medical organization. Note the word "could" create false sense of security. Another early criticism of Civilian usage of masks, was that the wearer would touch their face more to adjust the mask. Again no studies were cited with the scare tactic.

The reason for this propaganda and misdirection was to steer the public away from purchasing medical supplies desperately needed for medical workers.

What I find interesting is that some of this propaganda is actually being regurgitated by many of those I would have thought smarter, and very capable of detecting and sifting through the BS narrative. Though I must admit, that propaganda is an excellent example of truly good intentions, as opposed to the regular "profit and power" motivations behind almost all other propaganda.

[Flyingseb]

Masks are also a place where airborne virus will sit increasing the wearer's exposure.

So in situation A, there's a mask which catches the virus and that's where it sits.

In situation B, there's no mask and that's the virus goes.... Where exactly? Possibly into the lungs instead of on the mask? Is that what you would call "decreasing the person's exposure"?


The entire reason that masks were downplayed ineffectiveness by CDC and the WHO, was to decrease the hoarding of those masks by ordinary people in free markets. Some valid points were brought up about them not being 100% effective. But there was still evidence that there was a benefit to ordinary People using those masks. The smear campaign against those masks focused on an unconfirm risk due to supposed false sense of security. Please feel free to show the study on that one if you can find it. Hint oh, there is none and it is pure conjecture put out by a medical organization. Note the word "could" create false sense of security. Another early criticism of Civilian usage of masks, was that the wearer would touch their face more to adjust the mask. Again no studies were cited with the scare tactic.

The reason for this propaganda and misdirection was to steer the public away from purchasing medical supplies desperately needed for medical workers.

I stand exactly the same opinion

[Matteo V]

Assuming wearing masks wouldn't alter behaviour - which I personally think is a very questionable assumption. Stopping Corona isn't difficult in theory. Everyone just stay at home for 14 days. Might as well made it mandatory to stock 14 days of water and food. 14 days gone and all is back to normal.

14 days is not enough. There are some examples cited where an infected person is still shedding the virus up to a month after initial infection. So that would mean a one-month quarantine. On top of that, it appears that the virus can, in some cases live up to nine days on most surfaces, and possibly longer on ideal surfaces.

Thus, the actual minimum quarantine time for a high degree of certainty, would be 40 days.

The problem with less than 40 days, is that a single person who becomes re-infected, has the potential to infect many more due to the extreme contagious nature of the virus. So making sure that 99% of the population is virus free, would still yield a high infection rate should that 1% of the population pass it on to 2% of the rest of the population. From there a quickly becomes 4 percent, then 8%, then 16%. However, it appears that we never made it to that high percentage rate of infection, since measures were taken relatively quickly when it was realized the virus was already outside of China.

[Havre]

That 9 days thing is very questionable. Anyway - the point wasn't that it would take 14 days specifically - the point was that if you are going down the road of saying "if only everybody wore masks" then you can make a lot of this "if only everybody did something".

[Matteo V]

Stopping Corona isn't difficult in theory. Everyone just stay at home for 14 days. Might as well made it mandatory to stock 14 days of water and food. 14 days gone and all is back to normal.

Yes it absolutely is difficult in theory and even more so in practice. And that is specifically why there are some alternative approaches which favor letting it run its course, due to the time frame and how contagious this virus is.

....but the next one might be a lot worse. Obviously the next one might also not be hindered by masks (I don't know).

Coronavirus is absolutely, without any doubt, hindered to some degree by mask usage. Health workers in the United States have even been issued directives that should they run out of hospital grade masks, non hospital-grade masks will work to. In the event of a non hospital-grade masks are unavailable, the directed to use handkerchiefs has also been given.

[Pemba]

Stopping Corona isn't difficult in theory. Everyone just stay at home for 14 days. Might as well made it mandatory to stock 14 days of water and food. 14 days gone and all is back to normal.

Yes it absolutely is difficult in theory and even more so in practice. And that is specifically why there are some alternative approaches which favor letting it run its course, due to the time frame and how contagious this virus is.

....but the next one might be a lot worse. Obviously the next one might also not be hindered by masks (I don't know).

Coronavirus is absolutely, without any doubt, hindered to some degree by mask usage. Health workers in the United States have even been issued directives that should they run out of hospital grade masks, non hospital-grade masks will work to. In the event of a non hospital-grade masks are unavailable, the directed to use handkerchiefs has also been given.

I think what he means to say is that even though it might seem easy to stop (by everybody staying home for 14 or 40 days), in practice it is not. It is practically impossible for everybody to stay at home, even for 14 days. You can argue that a theory that can't be put into practice isn't actually a theory, that's just word games. Masks appear relatively straightforward, they can hinder the virus, they can also help it along as previous posters have indicated. In some situations it will make a big positive difference, for instance being worn by a patient, in others not, for instance by somebody that's tested negative but ends up contaminating his mask with his hands. What I find interesting is what kitekitey already mentioned, that they all seem to wear them in Asia, but not in the west. They wouldn't have missed the straightforwardness that I just assumed in the east. They are also doing pretty well in fighting the virus. So why are they all wearing them ? I agree that we seem to be a bit quick basically considering them largely useless unless used by health workers in hospitals. I'm not yet convinced of that either.

[Havre]

How is the theory difficult? Stay indoors for 100 days then. How is that in theory difficult?

"Also" as in a lot worse. Not in "also" as in Corona is not hindered by masks.

[Havre]

In Asia they wear masks Corona or not. So I would be careful reading too much into causation masks -> less spread. Especially since these are rarely one time use N95 masks.

By the way I am not against masks - if that is the way it seems. Or not on principle - might be in reality due to the cost (I don't know - I have never seen that analysis).