To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Graham

Seanergy wrote: »

Little confused from your reply, who is flipping what? Why are you now colouring Ireland red from your NY chart? BTW It is not an accurate chart.

I was just commenting on you saying Obviously masks are a small but significant part of the overall effort..

That's the red section from the chart you posted (deaths). It's not the chart I posted from the NYT.

Both are linear charts showing deaths.

Both show the same data which is why they are the same when presented the same way up on the same scale.

Seanergy wrote: »

I don't find masks to be playing a small part.

There is no doubt we've suffered a lot less than most of our EU neighbours in the seconds wave.

Would you ascribe that to the luck of the Irish or something else?

Seanergy

Sorry, still confused about the NYT graph, it's too pointed and bulges way too high, looks like the graphic designer had to squeeze and pinch data, just looks not as accurate as the data it is meant to represent.

Wave 2 EU death rate was 3% higher than wave 1 peak while in Ireland we are 85% lower than Wave 1 peak. South Eastern counties like Greece that did spectacularly well in Wave 1 just collapsed in Wave 2.

Luck of the Irish is something Americans conjured up when we baffeled them with our personalities after escaping our homeland, so something else, certainly not our hand hygiene.

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

That's the red section from the chart you posted (deaths). It's not the chart I posted from the NYT.

Both are linear charts showing deaths.

Both show the same data which is why they are the same when presented the same way up on the same scale.



There is no doubt we've suffered a lot less than most of our EU neighbours in the seconds wave.

Would you ascribe that to the luck of the Irish or something else?

Low population density and youngest population in Europe helped.

Graham

Seanergy wrote: »

Sorry, still confused about the NYT graph, it's too pointed and bulges way too high, looks like the graphic designer had to squeeze and pinch data, just looks not as accurate as the data it is meant to represent.

The blue section in your chart is cases. The red section is deaths.

The NYT charts are showing deaths.

They both appear to be showing the same numbers for deaths...

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

Low population density and youngest population in Europe helped.

Our population density and age didn't reduce by 90% between wave 1 and wave 2.

Must have been something else.

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

Our population density and age didn't reduce by 90% between wave 1 and wave 2.

Must have been something else.

The fact we didn't transport covid positive sick people from hospitals into nursing homes in wave 2.

robinph

Graham wrote: »

Must have been something else.

But not clear what exactly is the difference between those countries at the red end of the NYT graphic and those in the orange and green (some of the ones in the red are probably being treated a bit harshly by the chart like Cyprus etc which makes it seem like Europe has done far worse. So the graphic is partly designed to make the US audience feel a bit better about themselves as "look how many different countries in Europe are doing worse this time round, when actually a few should be discounted as they had minimal deaths followed by minimal more).

It not all just down to wearing masks, as most of Europe is doing that to varying degrees, it's not just down to climate, its not just down to the existing health system in that country, its not just down to the populations compliance. Bunch of different factors come together in some random way, but think we are decades of research being done after this has all passed before anyone comes up with the how and why of different countries being affected so vastly differently.

robinph

In the meantime, wearing a mask costs practically nothing, keeps most economic activity open to certain extent, and has some benefits in reducing the spread. So of all the things a population can do, unless we all train up to develop vaccines, its the most useful part any of us can play in trying to bring this to an end.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

The fact we didn't transport covid positive sick people from hospitals into nursing homes in wave 2.

So you're now agreeing it's nothing to do with our average population age and population density and we're now onto throwing ideas at the wall to see if any of them stick.

How about the more obvious; we took basic precautions and implemented some restrictions.

Either way, it's hard not to conclude our current MO is working reasonably well. Any changes at the moment should be small and worthwhile. Given the tiny inconvenience of wearing a mask and the potential benefits they give us, it would be dumb to change that right not.

Graham

robinph wrote: »

But not clear what exactly is the difference between those countries at the red end of the NYT graphic and those in the orange and green

Red = wave 2 deaths exceeded wave 1
Yellow = wave 2 deaths below wave 1
Green = wave 2 deaths significantly below wave 1

robinph wrote: »

It not all just down to wearing masks, as most of Europe is doing that to varying degrees, it's not just down to climate, its not just down to the existing health system in that country, its not just down to the populations compliance. Bunch of different factors come together...

Absolutely, masks are only one part of a very large jigsaw.

robinph

Graham wrote: »

Red = wave 2 deaths exceeded wave 1
Yellow = wave 2 deaths below wave 1
Green = wave 2 deaths significantly below wave 1

I meant what those countries did differently or any other aspect of the setup of the country that may have made a difference. There is no obvious pattern.

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

So you're now agreeing it's nothing to do with our average population age and population density and we're now onto throwing ideas at the wall to see if any of them stick.

How about the more obvious; we took basic precautions and implemented some restrictions.

Either way, it's hard not to conclude our current MO is working reasonably well. Any changes at the moment should be small and worthwhile. Given the tiny inconvenience of wearing a mask and the potential benefits they give us, it would be dumb to change that right not.

Outside of nursing homes, deaths have been minimal.

This is based on our low population density and young demographic.

You then asked why there were more deaths in wave 1, i answered it was because we imported sick people into the nursing homes, where the majority of people died in wave 1, which have an elderly demographic.

No throwing ideas, just trying to dumb things down enough so that those unable to look rationally at where our deaths came from, can understand. I seem to have failed :rolleyes:.

Graham

robinph wrote: »

I meant what those countries did differently or any other aspect of the setup of the country that may have made a difference. There is no obvious pattern.

Let's look at the first country listed. The Initial Czech reaction/measures very strong which resulted in a very low wave 1. 1st of July - farewell to the pandemic party in Prague to celebrate the almost complete removal of restrictions.

The BBC reported at the time

Certainly however there is a sense here that through swift and decisive action Czechs have dodged a bullet.

Relaxing the lockdown has not sent the numbers soaring; there are several local outbreaks far from Prague, which is only recording around 15 infections a day. There was a palpable sense of optimism on the bridge this evening as people remembered what it was like… to live again.

In October the Czech government agreed a plan to bring a team of 28 US National Guard medical staff to help in Czech hospitals and while also being in talks with Germany to possibly provide 100 medical staff.

Again, not at all entirely mask related but certainly doesn't bode well for any country that relaxes too soon and that would include any mask mandate.

CalamariFritti

Graham wrote: »

Tosh

Try spitting through a cloth mask. Come back when you manage it.

That statement is based on the assumption that we transfer covid via large sized droplets or that people routinely spit each other into their faces. One is nonsense of course and the other one is a very weak assumption.

Try another one to humour me.
Take an e-cigarette and take good pull. Then blow it out through your 'mask'. See how much reduction you get there.

Seanergy

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely, masks are only one part of a very large jigsaw.

I can't see it that way. Take masks away and your jigsaw falls apart.

Look at wave 1 as an example.

Look at majority of our HCW's doing it maskless, they represented 1/3 of cases, they were a major driver of the virus. If we had not had a change in mask policy for all HCW's during the 1st wave it would not have ended so sharply and more deaths would have occured.

As the study below points out there was a significant correlation between the proportion of staff with symptomatic COVID-19 and resident numbers with confirmed/suspected COVID-19.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.20128199v1

BTW and I cannot stress this enough, I do not blame HCW's, but let's not cover over it, all data must be transparent so that we have at least an opportunity to know the links in pandemic armour to be better prepared for when a more serious virus calls.

The steepest decline in community transmission is the lockdown working in wave1. The steepest decline in HCW's and LTR's was when masks were donned by all HCW's.

robinph

Graham wrote: »

Let's look at the first country listed. The Initial Czech reaction/measures very strong which resulted in a very low wave 1. 1st of July - farewell to the pandemic party in Prague to celebrate the almost complete removal of restrictions.

The BBC reported at the time



In October the Czech government agreed a plan to bring a team of 28 US National Guard medical staff to help in Czech hospitals and while also being in talks with Germany to possibly provide 100 medical staff.

Again, not at all entirely mask related but certainly doesn't bode well for any country that relaxes too soon and that would include any mask mandate.

Quick reading of this timeline suggests that they lifted mask restrictions around June, but then brought them back in at the beginning of October.

https://www.vlada.cz/en/media-centrum/aktualne/measures-adopted-by-the-czech-government-against-coronavirus-180545/

Cases were already ramping up by that point, but despite the laws around masks and distancing being relaxed, what actually was happening amongst the public? Were they back to behaving like they were in January, or was it somewhere inbetween with people still actually wearing masks in certain situations? Were the public oblivious to what was going on and nobody resumed wearing masks or distancing from each other until the government told them to?

saneman

CalamariFritti wrote: »

That statement is based on the assumption that we transfer covid via large sized droplets or that people routinely spit each other into their faces. One is nonsense of course and the other one is a very weak assumption.

Try another one to humour me.
Take an e-cigarette and take good pull. Then blow it out through your 'mask'. See how much reduction you get there.

The particle size of e-cigarette vapor ranged from 120–165 nm. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_electronic_cigarette_aerosol#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20particle%20size%20of,particles%20compared%20to%20cigarette%20smoke.)
In PPE terms an FFP2/FFP3 respirator is not used to protect from gases/vapours - a half mask and specific type of cartridge is instead used. E.g.:

So what's the point you're trying to make with your little experiment?

Thats me

saneman wrote: »

The particle size of e-cigarette vapor ranged from 120–165 nm.
...
So what's the point you're trying to make with your little experiment?

Size of coronavirus is about 100 nm. If you feel smell of cigarette (or e-cigarette) smoke inside mask (or opposite, pulling it out from inside mask), you can be sure covid virion will also go though it. At least this is my understanding of what poster meant :rolleyes:

saneman

Thats me wrote: »

Size of coronavirus is about 100 nm. If you feel smell of cigarette (or e-cigarette) smoke inside mask (or opposite, pulling it out from inside mask), you can be sure covid virion will also go though it. At least this is my understanding of what poster meant :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I'm sure they're at least aware it doesn't have wings. For transmission it requires aerosols/droplet nuclei (~500nm+) & droplets (>5000nm).

Thats me

saneman wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm sure they're at least it doesn't have wings. For transmission it requires aerosols/droplet nuclei (~500nm+) & droplets (>5000nm).

Aerosol consisting of separate virions mixed with air, so it should penetrate usual dust masks. This was confirmed by computer simulation. In same series of investigations they also established face shields are not working at all (and NPHET seem stopped to recommend using shields now). But in practice it turns out poor protection is better than no protection at all.

Graham

???

The gist of the article is

Disposable medical face masks beat those made of cotton or polyester in simulation

Medical masks are better, how is that a surprise to anyone?

Article continues....

What is most dangerous is not wearing a mask

odyssey06

Big news on the vaccine front today but in case people wondering how it relates to masks...

Sir Patrick Vallance issued a warning. The UK's chief scientific adviser suggested that masks could still be needed for another year - until next winter - despite the arrival of the Pfizer jab. "We don't know yet how good all the vaccines are going to be at preventing the transmission of the virus," he said.

Seanergy

https://twitter.com/NGIreland/status/1336362614625021954

robinph

Nope, that is definitely not normal artistic talent for anyone, let alone a 14 year old.

Seanergy

it's really lovely pencil work.

https://twitter.com/sfsteph/status/1336408792687243265

astrofool

Thats me wrote: »

Size of coronavirus is about 100 nm. If you feel smell of cigarette (or e-cigarette) smoke inside mask (or opposite, pulling it out from inside mask), you can be sure covid virion will also go though it. At least this is my understanding of what poster meant :rolleyes:

You clearly don't have half a clue about how and why masks work and are spreading dangerous misinformation.

I mean, yes, to a lay person, vaping through a mask might seem like it's proving some sort of point, but the reality is that it's a pretty dumb way of implying that masks don't work.

Thats me

astrofool wrote: »

You clearly don't have half a clue about how and why masks work and are spreading dangerous misinformation.

I mean, yes, to a lay person, vaping through a mask might seem like it's proving some sort of point, but the reality is that it's a pretty dumb way of implying that masks don't work.

You'd like to discuss myself or have better knowledge of how mask works?

weldoninhio

astrofool wrote: »

You clearly don't have half a clue about how and why masks work and are spreading dangerous misinformation.

I mean, yes, to a lay person, vaping through a mask might seem like it's proving some sort of point, but the reality is that it's a pretty dumb way of implying that masks don't work.

The floor is yours, oh wise one.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

The floor is yours, oh wise one.

read back through the thread. It's been explained at least half a dozen times with video.

You already know that though :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

read back through the thread. It's been explained at least half a dozen times with video.

You already know that though :rolleyes:

Voluntary coughs generated droplets ranging from 0.1 - 900 microns in size. Droplets of less than one-micron size represent 97% of the total number of measured droplets contained in the cough aerosol. Small size droplets (< 1 μm) predominated the total number of droplets expelled when coughing. The cough aerosol is the single source of direct, indirect and/or airborne transmission of respiratory infections.

Source: BioMedCentral Medical Journal