[Mooncatt]

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here.
I think we're seeing the same video, appreciating the same aspects but are able to put a different spin on it.
I see it as wearing masks + socially distancing (as is prescribed here in UK) = reduced likelihood of inhalation of droplets from someone else in the vicinity. The video did show that without masks, droplets travel further (in the case of coughing as demonstrated).
It doesn't eradicate it, because that's not feasible for mass populous (cost and resource constraint).
The distance travelled is significantly greater without a mask. If you're not also social distancing in that regard then you're at even greater risk of inhalation of, potentially COV-containing, droplets.

What you said is true, but I'll connect the other dots.

Here in the U.S, social distancing is considered 6 feet or more spacing. If no one is moving, then coughing without a mask is potentially a greater issue (though a large number of people cough into their sleeves and such, mitigating the mask issue). In the video, they go to great lengths to show this and also make a point to show the droplets actually linger in the air for several minutes and travel much further than 6 feet. That calls into question the 6 ft recommendation.

When time to show the masked demonstration, they only show a single "cough," which lasts all of about two seconds. They refer to it as a properly worn and effective mask, glossing over the cloud of droplets that escape around it (as shown in the attached screen shot).

They don't remind you that those droplets will linger just as long as an unmasked cough. That's inconsistency 1. They dismiss it as being a less dense cloud that isn't as infective, but they caution that the less dense cloud of the unmasked cough (at the longer distances) are still dangerous. That's inconsistency 2. That means when you are following someone at 10, 15, even 20 feet back and they cough, you will still be walking through their infectious cloud regardless of if they had a mask or coughed unobstructed. That's inconsistency 3. (Side note, some stores here tried making their aisles one way to promote social distancing, but hopefully you see how that could be more risky, and the practice was largely ignored and ended.) The only way this news story can be taken at face value is if the demonstration assumes no one is moving about, and there is no air movement. Transfer these results into a real world setting, and the results change drastically.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by Mooncatt; 01-06-2021 at 07:02 AM.

[Benz3ne]

What you said is true, but I'll connect the other dots.

Here in the U.S, social distancing is considered 6 feet or more spacing. If no one is moving, then coughing without a mask is potentially a greater issue (though a large number of people cough into their sleeves and such, mitigating the mask issue). In the video, they go to great lengths to show this and also make a point to show the droplets actually linger in the air for several minutes and travel much further than 6 feet. That calls into question the 6 ft recommendation.

When time to show the masked demonstration, they only show a single "cough," which lasts all of about two seconds. They refer to it as a properly worn and effective mask, glossing over the cloud of droplets that escape around it (as shown in the attached screen shot).

They don't remind you that those droplets will linger just as long as an unmasked cough. That's inconsistency 1. They dismiss it as being a less dense cloud that isn't as infective, but they caution that the less dense cloud of the unmasked cough (at the longer distances) are still dangerous. That's inconsistency 2. That means when you are following someone at 10, 15, even 20 feet back and they cough, you will still be walking through their infectious cloud regardless of if they had a mask or coughed unobstructed. That's inconsistency 3. (Side note, some stores here tried making their aisles one way to promote social distancing, but hopefully you see how that could be more risky, and the practice was largely ignored and ended.) The only way this news story can be taken at face value is if the demonstration assumes no one is moving about, and there is no air movement. Transfer these results into a real world setting, and the results change drastically.

I think all of this is covered by my comment on 'reduction, not elimination'. They do caution that cough at 9ft, despite being less dense, is still a risk and I think that's a valid point. I would rather a less dense cough not being transmitted at velocity to the extremities of a room than a similarly dense cough being static in the room. Again, risk reduction, not removal. This is where I'd normally draw a diagram to highlight that movement + greater travel of cough = greater risk of contamination/greater coverage, but can't go about that right now.
Yes, there is still going to be some contamination. Yes, there is never going to be a perfect solution.
They did comment that a proportion of the 'cough' does escape around the edges of the mask, but it is still being reduced versus an unmasked cough. Bear in mind that not all of the cough will penetrate the mask, or even be diverted and that you will have some that will simply be stopped by, or condense on, the mask. You will have less incidence of contaminated droplets as a result.

The results change in real-world versus laboratory but you're omitting the fact that you are still reducing risk and that is better than not reducing risk.

Edit: Please don't think I can't see the point you're trying to make - they're passing it as a perfect solution when it's not, and I understand that is frustrating. However, people don't often listen to 'this is an imperfect solution'.
Further edit: Missed your comment about issues with the 6ft recommendation. Risk reduction. 6ft is viable in most places and, especially when coupled with masks, does offer some reduction in potential contamination. I think it'd be worthwhile posing questions such as 'do you think being 6ft away from someone is less risky than being 1ft away from them?'. Those sorts of questions have provided the answers and ultimately the recommendations. If 9ft isn't feasible, but 6ft is, and 6ft is significantly better than 4ft, then 6ft wins. If 9ft was feasible, then 9ft would win. 6ft is a tangible distance for most.

[Mooncatt]

Bear in mind that not all of the cough will penetrate the mask, or even be diverted and that you will have some that will simply be stopped by, or condense on, the mask. You will have less incidence of contaminated droplets as a result.

I can't speak to how other countries are presenting this, but here it has been presented as being highly contagious. To the point that my personal opinion is that, in keeping with the above example, the risk isn't really reduced because an infectious cloud is an infectious cloud regardless of how dense it is. After seeing how so many restrictions and lockdowns have had little effect on the spread, I've pretty much resigned myself to the belief that we are going to catch it no matter what. It's simply impossible to live in the necessary sterile environment needed to kill it off. Even giving the restrictions the benefit of the doubt and infection rates plummet, they will never be zero. So in the best scenario, the virus will still be hiding out there until things open back and it'll start to spread again.

I know that sounds pessimistic, but that is what seems the most realistic to me based on what I'm seeing in the numbers and from those in charge. Eventually we will reach herd immunity and it will pass.

[slartibartfast01]

After seeing how so many restrictions and lockdowns have had little effect on the spread, I've pretty much resigned myself to the belief that we are going to catch it no matter what.

One of the reasons restrictions and lockdowns may seem not to work is because many choose to ignore them.

[Rondec]

It is pretty clear that some restrictions do slow spread. They aren't perfect. It's a bit like a forest fire. The more are it covers, the harder it is to get under control. Currently the United States has had 21 million people test positive for COVID with 350,000 deaths. Even if we've missed another 50 million people who have had the virus, but didn't get tested, that's only about 20 percent of the population and you have to get to 65 or 70 percent immunity for her immunity.

Without a vaccine, the next couple of years will be awful. With the vaccine there is a solid hope that we can another forty or fifty percent of the population immunized by summer. That could be a real difference maker and cut down total deaths by a bunch.

[Mooncatt]

One of the reasons restrictions and lockdowns may seem not to work is because many choose to ignore them.

Which I addressed, in perhaps a roundabout way, in my comment giving what I saw as a best case scenario.

[slartibartfast01]

Which I addressed, in perhaps a roundabout way, in my comment giving what I saw as a best case scenario.

There are some virus free places at the moment. Admittedly fairly small places. The Isle of Man took it seriously and have been virus free with no restrictions for months.

[Benz3ne]

I can't speak to how other countries are presenting this, but here it has been presented as being highly contagious. To the point that my personal opinion is that, in keeping with the above example, the risk isn't really reduced because an infectious cloud is an infectious cloud regardless of how dense it is. After seeing how so many restrictions and lockdowns have had little effect on the spread, I've pretty much resigned myself to the belief that we are going to catch it no matter what. It's simply impossible to live in the necessary sterile environment needed to kill it off. Even giving the restrictions the benefit of the doubt and infection rates plummet, they will never be zero. So in the best scenario, the virus will still be hiding out there until things open back and it'll start to spread again.

I know that sounds pessimistic, but that is what seems the most realistic to me based on what I'm seeing in the numbers and from those in charge. Eventually we will reach herd immunity and it will pass.

Yes but highly infectious is not equal to “any contact whatsoever will cause infection”.
There are thresholds for infectious rates, ie. that a certain quantity of virus is required to infect the host, or that the host is able to negate it through immune response below that.
I still think a diagram would help explain. Imagine if you will a square room of 9x9ft with, let’s say, 7 people in it. Assuming no ventilation, so as per the video the cough/breath remains static when wearing mask or with velocity when not, place a dot where each person ‘coughs’ to denote them wearing a mask. There’s still plenty of areas where anyone else would not come into contact with it.
Do the same again but for each person pick a random direction and draw a ‘9ft’ line from them. The available pathways without potential contagion are significantly restricted.
In the above example, with 7 people in an 81sq ft room, it’d actually be reasonably difficult for each to remain 6ft apart as per guidance so this is a more condensed example than reality (granted we follow guidelines).
The rates haven’t slowed because people ignore restrictions. It’s that simple.

I aim to follow the restrictions and guidance to the best of my ability because if I can reduce the likelihood of someone more vulnerable than myself contracting it, I’ve done my job.

[aslyfox]

Well I got " official " notice yesterday from the Kansas Governor's press conference that due to a preexisting condition, I will be in Group 3

[ out of 5 " . . . beginning with those most at risk of contracting or becoming most ill from COVID- 9 and ending with all Kansans at large " ]

I miss Group 2 by a year, ( I turn 64 at the end of the month, I would need to be 65 to be in that group )

of course, there is no guarantee there will not be a change and no idea when they will get to group 3

they are still working on Group 1 here in Kansas

Kansas has been slow getting the vaccines into arms

we are suppose to have both available now in the state

____________________

my daughter in law got her second shot in Omaha last week and my wife is getting her 2nd shot today ( because they work in hospitals )

_____________________________________

. . . Eventually we will reach herd immunity and it will pass.

I hope you are correct but I am aware that viruses change and worse case scenario would be a changed virus that " herd immunity " to the old virus would be ineffective

[gaweidert]

In our state, one person insisted that they be in charge of everything including vaccine distribution and now that it is all screwed up all the blame is on everyone else but themself. Any more comments I make on how the rollout is going in this state would have to go deeper into the political realm. So lets just say that at the current rate of distribution my wife and I are probably a year from any sort of vaccination. Seniors do not rate very high on the list in this state.

[Mooncatt]

I hope you are correct but I am aware that viruses change and worse case scenario would be a changed virus that " herd immunity " to the old virus would be ineffective

I believe the same would hold true with vaccine effectiveness if such mutations happen. If I'm not mistaken the virus has already mutated at least to some extent. As evidence of that belief, I'd like to point out the abysmal record of the yearly flu vaccines.

I think the best we can do is to improve our general state of health. Cut out junk food like excessive carbs and processed foods, instead focusing on meats, veggies, and other whole food options. Vitamin D has been mentioned a lot when it comes to protecting against it, so getting extra sun or high dose supplements may be worth considering too.

[Wheatfield]

No, I'm basing my views on what I'm seeing from the medical community and media trying to advocate various lockdowns and restrictions in general, and finding holes in their arguments. Sometimes major holes. My original reply to you got too political for the forums, so I'll just present this video trying to show masks being effective as an example. The actual demonstration shows the opposite when you consider what they say and how they edited it.

https://youtu.be/9ZLl3t5kOJo

That isn't from some hoax propaganda site or conspiracy theorists.

Another question my wife brought up today was the issue of viral shedding from the vaccines. She was trying to look up info on how they work and if there's any risks associated with viral shedding as can happen with live virus vaccines. Her parents are being scheduled for it, so we are trying to find out if we need to be mindful of that with her parents or others that are being vaccinated. She hasn't been able to find anything on this, which in itself is somewhat concerning. If anyone here happens to have any articles or whatever on that topic, we would love to see it.

Anyone who tries to show masks as being ineffective at stopping the spread of germs, (or as I've heard some of these idjits spitting off, they spread germs) is telling the entire medical community for the past couple of hundred years that they have been derelict in their duty by wearing masks while treating patients, working in operating theaters, etc.
Sorry, but that is, to be polite, wrong.
So, do we trust someone who drives a truck for a living (or someone who works in the construction industry (me)), or do we trust people who go to school for a decade or more to become health care professionals.

For myself, a brain surgeon isn't my first choice to get my truck repaired, but at the same time, I'm not going to be looking to an engine mechanic for medical advice.

[aslyfox]

. . . I think the best we can do is to improve our general state of health. Cut out junk food like excessive carbs and processed foods, instead focusing on meats, veggies, and other whole food options. Vitamin D has been mentioned a lot when it comes to protecting against it, so getting extra sun or high dose supplements may be worth considering too.

Easier said than done for many people

Including me

Choice of diet can be caused by many things

Some beyond our control

[Mooncatt]

Anyone who tries to show masks as being ineffective at stopping the spread of germs, (or as I've heard some of these idjits spitting off, they spread germs) is telling the entire medical community for the past couple of hundred years that they have been derelict in their duty by wearing masks while treating patients, working in operating theaters, etc.

Doctors getting up close and personal with known sick and cut open patients is entirely different from passing random people several feet away and only with a few seconds of contact. Trying to equate medical personal trained and and practicing proper PPE care is in no way corollary to your average Joe wearing a random strip of fabric over his face and ignoring proper handling.

And to say one person's opinion is valid or not only because of their profession is nothing but deflection and character attacks, not actually debating the issue. I've known people that trust whatever their doctor tells them, even to their own detriment. When the problems are pointed out to them, it's always "doctor knows best," even in the face of worsening health as a result. Recent medical history in the U.S. is rampant with medical malpractice claims and class action lawsuits due to failed drugs. So to simply take them at their word and ignore any evidence or suggestion to the contrary is to exercise a severe lack of critical thinking.

I wouldn't expect a brain surgeon to know how to drive a truck, but if I happen to ask one for directions and he tells me about a truck restricted road to avoid, I'm going to confirm it and avoid the road if possible. I'm not going to ignore him simply because he isn't a trucker.

[Wheatfield]

Doctors getting up close and personal with known sick and cut open patients is entirely different from passing random people several feet away and only with a few seconds of contact. Trying to equate medical personal trained and and practicing proper PPE care is in no way corollary to your average Joe wearing a random strip of fabric over his face and ignoring proper handling.

And to say one person's opinion is valid or not only because of their profession is nothing but deflection and character attacks, not actually debating the issue. I've known people that trust whatever their doctor tells them, even to their own detriment. When the problems are pointed out to them, it's always "doctor knows best," even in the face of worsening health as a result. Recent medical history in the U.S. is rampant with medical malpractice claims and class action lawsuits due to failed drugs. So to simply take them at their word and ignore any evidence or suggestion to the contrary is to exercise a severe lack of critical thinking.

I wouldn't expect a brain surgeon to know how to drive a truck, but if I happen to ask one for directions and he tells me about a truck restricted road to avoid, I'm going to confirm it and avoid the road if possible. I'm not going to ignore him simply because he isn't a trucker.

I think we can agree to disagree. I'll listen to the (literally) millions of health care professionals including people like Dr. Fauci who has made a career out of saving peoples lives from pandemics, and you carry on listening to whoever agrees with how you want the world to be.