I’d say that I am looking at the other things when it comes to masks, that maybe we an attribute the movement in case numbers to other causes. (I’ll get back to the other suppression measures in a minute.) In the cases of Carolina and Kansas, I don’t think the right conclusion to draw is that they, unwittingly or not, enacted some sort of experiment. (Or if they did, we’d have to say that it had a terrible design.) Rather, what they are doing is making some sort of observational study and finding a correlation, when there could be all kinds of other reasons for the connection they are seeing. Maybe those places didn’t think it was right to mandate mask wearing unless they saw lots of evidence of spread (see New Zealand), by which time the epidemic had already run part of its course. Maybe that’s not necessarily the right explanation, but the point is that it’s just as good a one, as far as you can tell from the variables involved, which makes both those stories very disconcerting. Not just that the media would run with it, with all that that entails, but that the scientists quoted would be prey to such rudimentary pitfalls in thinking.
Now, on the distancing measures, I’m not necessarily drawing the conclusion that they didn’t have any effect in the Northeast. But I don’t know of any evidence at all we can look to that would prove to us, or even strongly suggest, that the carnage would have been significantly worse if they hadn’t been undertaken. And unless we believe that it took a month for isolation measures to have an effect, then we’d have to wonder why the case numbers precipitously declined, in the wake of their lengthy geometric rise, long after they were enacted.
The carnage (in terms of number of cases) has been significantly worse in places (such as the US) that didn’t lock down and put in distancing measures early.
I think I’ve said all I need to here. You and I will go back and forth with anecdotes and hand-picked data, and there’s no way I’ll convince you and there’s no way you’ll stop me from following the advice of the experts in the field, so I think we’re basically done.
A month might be about right. Today’s new case numbers will be based on the measures in effect when the virus was transmitted not detected. So, the time between the contact and when the new case not only got tested, but received the positive test result. So incubation period plus time for symptoms to develop into something concerning, plus time to get a test, plus time to get the result. To compare measures to their effect on curves, you have to shift the timeline of one of them to get them to match up. And then, of course, deaths happen a while after that, even, so death numbers correlate to measures in place even further in the past. There have been a few articles about this that I’ve seen.
The disease - This disease has a long incubation period and may take a long time before hospitalization. Average is 5-7 days but may take two weeks before symptoms begin. It usually takes even longer for someone to get sick enough to go to the hospital.
Testing - We weren’t testing our populace. Because it takes weeks for people to need hospitalization and we weren’t testing people, there was probably already significant community spread in NYC in Feb. They didn’t shut down until they were at the exponential phase of growth. That takes a while to turn around even with a strict lockdown.
Because of long incubation periods and lack of testing the virus will circulate unknowingly throughout the community and, especially among family members, with a weak shelter-in-place (relative to Wuhan and a few other places). Only severe lockdown like in Wuhan would have turned it around quickly. Wuhan quarantined anyone who had contact with a positive case in special centers. People were NOT to leave their homes. All travel into and out of Wuhan was prohibited. That’s how you turn around an outbreak quickly. NYC had a more strict shelter-in-place than other states but it was nothing like Wuhan or Northern Italy for that matter.
Obviously not everyone can do it, but seeing so many good articles coming from the Washington Post a few years back, and only being able to read a few of them per month, I finally went ahead and subscribed. I got a nifty water bottle with the inscription, “Democracy dies in darkness” as well. A sentiment with which I strongly agree.
Since I subscribe, too, I’ll just add these excerpts:
Cheap and easy to make, masks are an unusually simple protective tool in a pernicious pandemic. This spring, a scientific consensus emerged that masks provide real protection, replacing earlier doubts expressed by the World Health Organization, Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams and other U.S. officials.
And sounds good to me:
Earlier this month, San Mateo’s board voted unanimously to fine anyone found in public places without a mask. Police, park rangers, building inspectors and other county workers will hand out both masks and summonses. Fines are $100 for a first offense and up to $500 for further transgressions.
“Small business owners don’t want to confront customers. I understand: We’ve all seen those ugly confrontations on YouTube,” Canepa said. “Now we’re giving them a way to say, ‘Hey, it’s the county making me do this. If I don’t enforce it, they’ll fine me.’”
I subscribe, too. IMHO, the Washington Post (along with the New York Times), is one of the best sources of national news out there. They have great political columnists, too.
FWIW, I just discovered that members of the military and government, with a valid .mil or .gov email address, are eligible for free online access to the Washington Post.
For everyone else, you can get discounted rates for the first year. You can try 4 weeks for $1, or a year for $29. Well worth it, IMHO.
That’s the tack taken here. Went to two businesses yesterday to get ice and fans – our A/C is out until at least Wednesday – and both of them had signs at the door, Local regulations require and so on.
Fine with me - point fingers all you like if it gets your patrons to mask up.
Here in Denmark masks became obligatory in all public transport from this morning and lack of masks is punishable with a $400 (2500 DKK) fine.
Let’s see in 14 days, either the Covid statistics show a significant fall or they don’t. Should the number of daily new infected fall, I think it’s clear that masks work. No other significant measures have been taken, though the advice to disinfect hands and keeping distance is repeated. The number of new infected has been steady at 120-130 daily the last week.
The second and third confused me a little. The second found that flushing a urinal releases a cloud of aerosols that travel quickly. But… is there a lot of virus in URINE? What is being carried by that cloud of aerosols?
The third found that infectious flu particles could be carried by dust, which seems reasonable. But it then went on to say that dry tissues that had been sneezed into released a lot of infectious fibers when crumpled, which led me to wonder whether that’s a reason to worry that masks might facilitate spread. I guess it’s a strong argument to not mess with your mask in public.
I’m not sure about the urinal question. I know the virus is shed in feces, so the toilet flushing can presumably spread it into the air. The urinal part confused me, too. It mentions droplets or aerosols hitting the thighs. But you can’t catch covid-19 through your thighs. And would these germs be ones from the same person who is doing the flushing? Or is it that if the guy before you sneezed toward the urinal, when you flushing that will become airborne?
For the tissue one, from my own experience and a small amount of knowledge, I think tissues break down pretty wquickly into cellulose fiber dust. Masks made of nonwoven meltblown material don’t do that, and fabric masks might at least
Yeah, but lots of stuff is shed in feces that I wouldn’t expect to be contaminating a urinal. And I had the same thought as you about "how bad is it really, to get some stray virus on your thighs?
I would also expect cloth masks to be somewhere between paper tissue and blown plastic medical mask material. But even if that’s not an issue, I don’t really see how that story is an argument for wearing masks. To keep the cellulose dust out, maybe? I suppose most masks would help with that.
Sidenote: I didn’t think that post went through. My phone seemed to have frozen, I couldn’t see the last few sentences I had typed, I couldn’t copy what was there, so I hit reply to try to save what I’d typed. I planned to go back and edit it to finish my thought, but it took me a bit to get connected to the internet again, and I forgot. Luckily what got through was minimally coherent.
Now that most of us are realizing that we’ll be masking for a while, and now that some people are going out more than they did a few months ago, some of us are becoming more fashion conscious.
I’ve been to a few socially distanced events, like my mom’s memorial service. I ordered a couple of masks that matched my dress and when I pulled it together the day before like I do - selecting the shoes, jewelry and hair accessories, I tried on the masks I bought, selected one and put on the hanger.
So, as I get out more, “fashion” masks will probably become part of my wardrobe.