Jump to content

@~thehung

Superherø
  • Content Count

    6,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    99

@~thehung last won the day on March 27

@~thehung had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

839 Overlord

1 Follower

About @~thehung

Recent Profile Visitors

13,933 profile views
  1. @~thehung

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    i was across the basics of copyright, but ive always wondered how YT can even function, and the future outlook for independent content creation. that was excellent. concise and comprehensive. no fat on the bone!
  2. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    thats BCF'n fucked!
  3. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    in the YT comments someone said something like "David Letterman has gotten really good at sign language" lol
  4. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    introducing the indomitable Governor of Georgia Brian Kemp: Georgia, population — 10.52 million covid cases — 4967 (3rd April) so...he just got around to implementing 'stay at home' orders for the state, effective 4th April. heres him explaining why — just listen to the first 30 seconds. i dont even... edit: VIDEO LINK FIXED
  5. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    some of their boycotts are misguided. as long as people are raising cows to slaughter them for meat, the most ethical thing to do would be to use the whole carcass for leather, gelatin et cetera. not that all byproducts necessarily come from animals that were "going to die anyway", but its hard to imagine these other markets driving demand anything close to that for tasty burgers. check out this feedlot, in Texas i imagine
  6. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    er...it seems to me that there is a lot of miscommunication here. you havent acknowledged certain distinctions that are key to everything i've been trying to say, so i guess we've been talking at crossed purposes. doesnt matter whose fault that is, so i wont take it personally i do have some interesting tidbits to add though, which may be of interest to one and all. interesting developments are afoot. March 20, 2020, The Lancet — Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic ...the US Surgeon General advised against buying masks for use by healthy people. One important reason to discourage widespread use of face masks is to preserve limited supplies for professional use in health-care settings. Universal face mask use in the community has also been discouraged with the argument that face masks provide no effective protection against coronavirus infection. However, there is an essential distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Evidence that face masks can provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce, as acknowledged in recommendations from the UK and Germany. However, face masks are widely used by medical workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high- risk areas. As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks. March 27 — Science Mag — Not wearing masks to protect against coronavirus is a ‘big mistake,’ [interview with George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention] Q: What mistakes are other countries making? A: The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others. March 30 — Reuters — Austria to make basic face masks compulsory in supermarkets March 30 — The Guardian — Czechs get to work making masks after government decree March 31 — Washington Examiner: Fauci: Guidance for everyone to wear masks under 'very serious consideration' April 2 — BBC — Coronavirus: Expert panel to assess face mask use by public Should more of us wear face masks to help slow the spread of coronavirus? This question is to be assessed by a panel of advisers to the World Health Organization (WHO). The group will weigh up research on whether the virus can be projected further than previously thought; a study in the US suggests coughs can reach 6m and sneezes up to 8m. The panel's chair, Prof David Heymann, told BBC News that the new research may lead to a shift in advice about masks.The former director at the WHO explained: "The WHO is opening up its discussion again looking at the new evidence to see whether or not there should be a change in the way it's recommending masks should be used." NYC govt health department — (very recently?) — New Guidance on Face Coverings People who do not show symptoms may still be able to spread COVID-19. A face covering can help prevent you from spreading COVID-19 to other people, so you should wear one whenever you leave the home. A face covering can include anything that covers your nose and mouth, including dust masks, scarves and bandanas. Do not use health care worker masks, as those must be preserved for people in the health care system.
  7. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    yeah, the problem is that even people who arent sick (or don't know they are sick) tend to cough and sneeze in ordinary day to day life, perhaps due to unrelated health issues, or just because. ive sheepishly coughed a bunch of times since this began, and i am fine (i think). in the last 12 days or so i could have unwittingly infected many people, most likely through short-range large droplet transmission from coughs/sneezes that were either inhaled or they had contact with once they settled on surfaces. the possibility of non-negligible asymptomatic and presymptomatic transfer is something we should be mindful of. March 16 — Cell & Bioscience: SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: The most important research questions ... The third question relates to the importance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic virus shedding in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic virus shedding posts a big challenge to infection control [1, 2]. In addition, patients with mild and unspecific symptoms are also difficult to identify and quarantine. Notably, the absence of fever in SARS-CoV-2 infection (12.1%) is more frequent than in SARS-CoV (1%) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV; 2%) infection [6]. In light of this, the effectiveness of using fever detection as the surveillance method should be reviewed. However, based on previous studies of influenza viruses and community-acquired human coronaviruses, the viral loads in asymptomatic carriers are relatively low [9]. If this is also the case for SARS-CoV-2, the risk should remain low. Studies on the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans are urgently needed. Identifying a cohort of asymptomatic carriers in Wuhan and following their viral loads, clinical presentations and antibody titers over a time course will provide clues as to how many of the subjects have symptoms in a later phase, whether virus shedding from the subjects is indeed less robust, and how often they might transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. ... April 1 — CDC Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020 Summary What is already known about this topic? Preliminary evidence indicates the occurrence of presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, based on reports of individual cases in China. What is added by this report? Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases. What are the implications for public health practice? The possibility of presymptomatic transmission increases the challenges of containment measures. Public health officials conducting contact tracing should strongly consider including a period before symptom onset to account for the possibility of presymptomatic transmission. The potential for presymptomatic transmission underscores the importance of social distancing, including the avoidance of congregate settings, to reduce COVID-19 spread.
  8. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    are you baiting me, or mental? me — "but if the best you can come up with is something that merely conflates source control (containment) with personal protection, dont bother, because i can do without the insult." so thanks for the insult. how else can i read your repeated references to personal protection? whats your motivation for this? its 100% clear to me now, that if youre not being intentionally obnoxious or half-arsed, then you must have misunderstood the smh article you posted, and the focus of my comments hence. thats bound to happen when the whole world is conflating these things. there's two completely different use cases here. 1) masks worn by individuals for personal protection, among which respirators are vastly superior to surgical masks, which in most cases are superior to DIY masks. all of which are incomplete PPE on their own, and vastly inferior to isolation/distancing and sanitising. 2) masks worn by the general public in sufficient numbers, that even when offering negligible personal protection for individuals who are not yet sick, can plausibly slow the rate of spread VERY significantly by the individuals who are already sick. i am talking about 2. thats number two. n.u.m.b.e.r t.w.o. and on that point (number two), ive provided reasoned argument and informed opinion backed up by peer reviewed journals from specialists in the field. youve provided non-sequiturs — gumbified PSA's and magazine articles that arent even focused on point 2 (number two) in the first place, and secondly, are driven by the current panic over worldwide mask shortages, non-compliance with social distancing measures, and a desire to nanny the general public away from dumb behaviours like hoarding masks and thinking if they wear one they can go outside as normal.
  9. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    well, whatever advice you were relying on when you mischaracterised aerosols as presenting an equivalent danger to fomites was missing some essential context. so show me. show me where the WHO have addressed the specific scenario of widespread surgical mask use by members of the public as having a "small effect" on rates of transmission, and that DIY masks are "next to useless" for that exact purpose. as much as the WHO are not infallible, i am happy to defer to them if their official position countermands the findings of various studies and basic common sense. show me. but if the best you can come up with is something that merely conflates source control (containment) with personal protection, dont bother, because i can do without the insult. from the 2010 study i quoted from earlier: 3.3. Effect of Mask Use at Population Level Assuming an R0 of 2.0 during an influenza pan-demic, we show in Fig. 1 the effect of mask coverage Mcov and mask efficiency Meff on the value of the re-production number Rint (Fig. 1A) and the infection attack rate (Fig. 1B). A recent study shows that uncertified masks such as surgical masks and home-made masks used by untrained subjects may have a median protection factor of 2.4 to 6.5,(36) or a mask efficiency Meff of 58–85%. In Fig. 1 we can see these masks can still give a considerable reduction of the reproduction number Rint and the infection attack rate. Fig. 1A shows that, depending on mask efficiency and mask coverage, Rint might decrease below the threshold level of 1.0, effectively containing the pandemic. These results are based on the reduction of aerosol exposure: the effect of mask use with droplet transmission is expected to be stronger. a 2008 paper: Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population Background Governments are preparing for a potential influenza pandemic. Therefore they need data to assess the possible impact of interventions. Face-masks worn by the general population could be an accessible and affordable intervention, if effective when worn under routine circumstances. Methodology We assessed transmission reduction potential provided by personal respirators, surgical masks and home-made masks when worn during a variety of activities by healthy volunteers and a simulated patient. Principal Findings All types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity, but with a high degree of individual variation. Personal respirators were more efficient than surgical masks, which were more efficient than home-made masks. Regardless of mask type, children were less well protected. Outward protection (mask wearing by a mechanical head) was less effective than inward protection (mask wearing by healthy volunteers). Conclusions/Significance Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission. ... It is also clear that home-made masks such as teacloths may still confer a significant degree of protection, albeit less strong than surgical masks or FFP2 masks. Home made masks however would not suffer from limited supplies, and would not need additional resources to provide at large scale. Home made masks, and to a lesser degree surgical masks, are unlikely to confer much protection against transmission of small particles like droplet nuclei, but as the reproduction number of influenza may not be very high [14] a small reduction in transmissibility of the virus may be sufficient for reducing the reproduction number to a value smaller than 1 and thus extinguishing the epidemic [15]. Greater reduction in transmissibility may be achieved if transmission is predominantly carried by larger droplets. In a typical human cough half of the droplets may be small (<10 µm), but these comprise only a small fraction (2.5*10−6) of the expelled volume [12].
  10. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    yes, i linked directly to the recent NEJM study and embedded a table of the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 on various surfaces a few days ago. the jury is still out about the significance of airborne transmission re CoVid-19. that may be the case for some time, because if you can believe it, there is still considerable disagreement over the extent to which influenza is airborne. aerosol transmission of Covid-19 is currently deemed 'plausible', but its worth pointing out that although a pathogen can be airborne that doesnt necessarily mean it can transmit infection easily or at all via that route. theres historically a fair amount of confusion in the literature over classifications based on droplet size. one convention is that "airborne transmission" means transmission by aerosol-size particles of < 10 μm. this also includes 'droplet nuclei' that can result when the larger droplets that someone expels dry out rapidly in the air. lower respiratory infection interpretable as evidence of "aerosol transmission" can also occur between people at close range (i.e. within 1 m). the main reason N95 masks are used by healthcare workers are "aerosolizing procedures" like intubation. i dont know for sure, but i would think the aerosols produced in this case would pale in comparison to a handful of people who happen to be infected coughing as demurely as possible in a public space. even knocked up DIY surgical masks made from t-shirts will block a huge proportion of shedding by nose and mouth, and yes, even aerosols — to the degree they even matter. because i won't be surprised at all, if in the fullness of time the airborne transmission route is shown to be relatively insignificant factor in transmission compared to short-range large-droplet transmission and surface contact. and unless you know otherwise, it would be unwise to decry the widespread use of masks — or even just makeshift ones — as probably next to pointless, based on hunches. again, let me stress i am talking specifically about the potential to slow the spread by near universal use of masks — whatever the right name for that strategy is. i dont see it happening here, and i am not even advocating for it! i am just trying to be factual. and i acknowledge the potential down side of some mask wearers feeling encouraged to behave recklessly. it appears the Czechs have done well though... as for your claim that 'the aerosols will still get through', heres an experiment: If you have a Ventolin inhaler on hand, try spraying it on a mirror. the mean droplet size is well below 5μm, by the way. it should leave a visible stain. now spray it again but through a t-shirt. try different distances between puffer/fabric/mirror, go nuts! and then see how much of a stain is visible on the mirror. sure, this is below Myth-Buster-level science, but it might help if youre having trouble visualising the fabric trapping the lion's share of the aerosol. much like the aerosols in coughs/sneezes which probably arent a big factor in rates of transmission. i will be happy to back up my argument with more information as time goes on. for now, let this suffice, from WHO March 26: SUBJECT IN FOCUS: COVID-19 virus persistence: Implications for transmission and precaution recommendations An experimental study, which evaluated virus persistence of the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2), has recently been published in the NEJM1. In this experimental study, aerosols were generated using a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum under controlled laboratory conditions. This is a high-powered machine that does not reflect normal human coughing or sneezing nor does it reflect aerosol generating procedures in clinical settings. Furthermore, the findings do not bring new evidence on airborne transmission as aerosolization with particles potentially containing the virus was already known as a possibility during procedures generating aerosols. In all other contexts, available evidence indicates that COVID-19 virus is transmitted during close contact through respiratory droplets (such as coughing) and by fomites. The virus can spread directly from person to person when a COVID-19 case coughs or exhales producing droplets that reach the nose, mouth or eyes of another person. Alternatively, as the droplets are too heavy to be airborne, they land on objects and surfaces surrounding the person. Other people become infected with COVID-19 by touching these contaminated objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. According to the currently available evidence, transmission through smaller droplet nuclei (airborne transmission) that propagate through air at distances longer than 1 meter is limited to aerosol generating procedures during clinical care of COVID-19 patients. and this, from WHO March 29 Respiratory infections can be transmitted through droplets of different sizes: when the droplet particles are >5-10 μm in diameter they are referred to as respiratory droplets, and when then are <5μm in diameter, they are referred to as droplet nuclei. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes. In an analysis of 75,465 COVID-19 cases in China, airborne transmission was not reported. Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in in close contact (within 1 m) with someone who has respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing or sneezing) and is therefore at risk of having his/her mucosae (mouth and nose) or conjunctiva (eyes) exposed to potentially infective respiratory droplets. Transmission may also occur through fomites in the immediate environment around the infected person.8 Therefore, transmission of the COVID-19 virus can occur by direct contact with infected people and indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment or with objects used on the infected person (e.g., stethoscope or thermometer). Airborne transmission is different from droplet transmission as it refers to the presence of microbes within droplet nuclei, which are generally considered to be particles <5μm in diameter, can remain in the air for long periods of time and be transmitted to others over distances greater than 1 m. In the context of COVID-19, airborne transmission may be possible in specific circumstances and settings in which procedures or support treatments that generate aerosols are performed; i.e., endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. [edit: broken link]
  11. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    Jerusalems link is focused on personal protection, and whether or not knocked up jobbies are any good in a medical setting. so...irrelevant. the article that i original responded to, from you, was about universal use of surgical masks or other masks used principally for containment — protecting others from you. distinctions are important, and part of the reason i was motivated to comment was your indiscriminate use of the word 'mask' when there is widespread confusion about the differences and purposes of different masks. "I have lived/worked with a scarf around my face for long periods and it's a PITA" yep. scarves suck. i would personally prefer a t-shirt mask. btw, youre massively overstating the danger of aerosols and the role they play in rates of infection.
  12. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    "But in a medical setting, handmade masks aren't scientifically proven to be as effective at protecting you from the novel coronavirus." um yeah...duh... they are not good for personal protection, period. they are worse than surgical masks — which are fairly shit!
  13. @~thehung

    The coronavirus conspiracy

    still *appearing to* conflate surgical masks with respirators. you dont need a "filter material" for an effective faux surgical mask. theres some degree of filtration in a basic surgical mask, but we are talking microns not fractions of microns (partly due to the many unclosed gaps around the edges of even a well-fitted one) — because its mostly about stopping much larger heavier moist particles getting out. the t-shirt method is obviously one of the cheapest and nastiest. will it stop a decent amount of airborne guff blowing all around the room when someone coughs/sneezes? yes. is it far better than nothing for any person who cant properly cough/sneeze into their elbow (most), or even worse, are prone to doing that fist-in-front-of-mouth maximum dispersion™ move? yes. would it be more effective than a typical scarf? quite possibly. more comfortable to wear for long periods? probably.
×