Covid II: Medical Info and Implications

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's time for people to get over the changing of advice to wear a mask. 

May I ask why?

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

They changed this last April after only about 1.5 months of experience with covid being here in the US.  That was 5 months ago.  There are so many scientific and medical sources besides the CDC that say to wear a mask. Our prophet, who is a doctor, says wear a mask. Yet people get stuck on this old news.  

I wear a mask per recommendations, but I have no problem with people challenging mandates (again, civilly and legally), asking hard questions about the efficacy of wearing masks, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.help.senate.gov/

Senate hearing on Covid. Live

Thanks so much, listening now! It's amazing the division and perceptions are so large.

[Robert J Anderson]

I think masks may only slow down the spread and not by that much.  Virus particles are extremely small and masks people wear allow virus particles to freely enter and exit.  It seems to me the mask issue is in the realm of government officials wanting to do something in the face of not really being able to do much.  At the beginning, flattening the curve was the reason for the lock-downs and I think that assumes that we really cannot prevent the spread of the virus and that eventually all will be exposed.  Sweden didn't lock down and has had similar numbers as everyone else.

Another issue that concerns me is the lack of context the media gives to the various reports that come out regarding new infections.  But focusing on car wrecks or crime or the sensational is what the media does.  How many of these infections actually result in illness?  My understanding is that somewhere around 20% get symptoms and 5% get serious symptoms and less than 1% have fatal consequences.  If these numbers are correct, then was it wise to kill the economy to save the few?  Couldn't we have simply put the vulnerable in lock-down and let the rest go about their business?

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I think masks may only slow down the spread and not by that much.  Virus particles are extremely small and masks people wear allow virus particles to freely enter and exit.  It seems to me the mask issue is in the realm of government officials wanting to do something in the face of not really being able to do much. 

If this is the case, then the government fining and arresting people for not wearing a mask, when mask-wearing is merely an exercise of "government officials wanting to do something in the face of not really being able to do much," is deeply troubling.

Quote

Another issue that concerns me is the lack of context the media gives to the various reports that come out regarding new infections.  But focusing on car wrecks or crime or the sensational is what the media does.  How many of these infections actually result in illness?  My understanding is that somewhere around 20% get symptoms and 5% get serious symptoms and less than 1% have fatal consequences.  If these numbers are correct, then was it wise to kill the economy to save the few?  Couldn't we have simply put the vulnerable in lock-down and let the rest go about their business?

These are legitimate questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 23, 2020 by smac97

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

May I ask why?

I wear a mask per recommendations, but I have no problem with people challenging mandates (again, civilly and legally), asking hard questions about the efficacy of wearing masks, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Challenging the mask reccomendation with new medical and scientific info is fine.  Challenging with "they lied to us 5 months ago" and "they keep changing the reccomendation"  is just being stuck.

 

Edited for clarity

Edited September 23, 2020 by Rain

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Challenging the mask reccomendation with new medical and scientific info is fine.  Challenging with "they lied to us 5 months ago" and "they keep changing the reccomendation"  is just being stuck.

I am not sure about that.  "They lied to us 5 months ago" is part of a critique of governmental actions about an ongoing issue: the wearing of masks, and our overall response to COVID.  

Noting that "they lied to us" isn't holding a grudge.  It's a data point that deserves some real attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

Provo Utah is now under moderate risk classification - Orange.

 

In Utah, the Orange guidelines do not apply to religious services - no limit on number of people present so long as each household is 6ft apart.

 

[smac97]

Here's an interesting article about Sweden and whether it has reached "herd immunity."

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/covid-19-does-sweden-have-herd-immunity

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

Research cross immunity and t-cell studies and found this article. Very interesting and could explain why the young are protected and the elderly so vulnerable to Covid.

"As we age, our supply of "naive" T cells shrinks, he explained. Put another way, we have fewer "inexperienced" T cells available to be activated to respond to a new invader. "Ageing and scarcity of naive T cells may be linked risk factors for failure to generate a coordinated adaptive immune response, resulting in increased susceptibility to severe COVID-19," the researchers said. (https://bit.ly/3ks4FbG)"

"HIGHLIGHTS - Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity - Multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses - CXCL10 may be a biomarker of impaired T cell responses in acute COVID-19 - Aging and scarcity of naive T cells may be linked risk factors for severe COVID-19 IN BRIEF Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 specific adaptive immune responses during acute COVID-19 identifies coordination between SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cells and CD8 T cells to limit disease severity. Aged individuals often exhibit uncoordinated adaptive responses, potentially tied to scarcity of naive T cells, highlighting immunologic risk factors linked to disease severity."

[bsjkki]

Redfield  paraphrase

Over 30 percent of Americans feeling anxiety and depression as part of the Covid experience and an uptick in suicide. Public health interests of K  through 12 is to get kids back to face to face learning. Many children get their mental health help at schools.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Challenging the mask reccomendation with new medical and scientific info is fine.  Challenging with "they lied to us 5 months ago" and "they keep changing the reccomendation"  is just being stuck.

 

Edited for clarity

The scientists were very clear today that wearing a mask is the best science today and will help.

[Robert J Anderson]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting article about Sweden and whether it has reached "herd immunity."

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/covid-19-does-sweden-have-herd-immunity

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the link.  Hopefully we can learn from Sweden's approach to this.  I seem to remember when it was encouraged to have your children get the chicken pox to develop immunity.  With covid-19, I don't suggest we run toward the virus but realize that we probably cannot avoid it and destroying the economy probably wasn't wise as a reaction.

[Robert J Anderson]

Here are some alternative scientific views on the mask issue:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/23/is-evidence-masks-dont-work-being-purged-from-the-internet/ 

https://search.mercola.com/results.aspx?q=mask effectiveness#stq=mask effectiveness

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

May I ask why?

I wear a mask per recommendations, but I have no problem with people challenging mandates (again, civilly and legally), asking hard questions about the efficacy of wearing masks, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do thousands of lives even matter? Should we allow those that feel it their freedom, to run the red lights and drive drunk? Did you watch 

https://www.help.senate.gov/ ?

The CDC director held up the mask today and said they are our best defense against covid until a vaccine is available proven safe and affective. Which makes me question the recent change made, but Radfield mentioned that this is going to be updated again very soon. He is being controlled by someone unmentionable I believe, but was glad to see him hold that mask up and testify of it's ability to prevent getting the virus.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting article about Sweden and whether it has reached "herd immunity."

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/covid-19-does-sweden-have-herd-immunity

Thanks,

-Smac

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/which-sweden-do-you-want-believe

Take-home message:
- Even though Sweden could not legally enact a lockdown against the coronavirus, it asked its citizens to voluntarily adopt common guidelines in keeping with the World Health Organization’s general recommendations
- The goal of Sweden’s approach was never said to be to achieve herd immunity, and in fact the country is far from having reached this immunity through exposure to the virus according to blood surveys
- The country’s public health agency admitted a failure in adequately protecting care homes for the elderly and its stance on masks, contact tracing and asymptomatic transmission can be criticized

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

May I ask why?

I wear a mask per recommendations, but I have no problem with people challenging mandates (again, civilly and legally), asking hard questions about the efficacy of wearing masks, and so on.

Do thousands of lives even matter?

Are you trying to be offensive?  

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Should we allow those that feel it their freedom, to run the red lights and drive drunk? Did you watch 

https://www.help.senate.gov/ ?

No.

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The CDC director held up the mask today and said they are our best defense against covid until a vaccine is available proven safe and affective.

Yes.  And I am following the guidelines regarding masks.

So why did you just ask a highly offensive and insulting question, publicly insinuating that I don't think "thousands of lives ... matter"?

-Smac

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you trying to be offensive?  

No.

Yes.  And I am following the guidelines regarding masks.

So why did you just ask a highly offensive and insulting question, publicly insinuating that I don't think "thousands of lives ... matter"?

-Smac

Because lives will be saved by following the guidelines and you mentioned that it's okay to question these recommendations. Or maybe I read it wrong. Sorry if it was offensive, but this is a huge problem, and I think these things shouldn't be political like so many are making it out to be. Just do whatever is going to help slow the spread and save lives. If people that are trying to make like it's a big joke and they have not a single worry if they're wrong, then I think it spells selfishness to the nth degree. Just today I saw a video of Pres. Trump making fun of wearing them. I'm not shocked, but definitely dismayed.

But maybe if they believe in herd immunity, which sounds like you may believe in it, correct if wrong. Then maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because lives will be saved by following the guidelines and you mentioned that it's okay to question these recommendations.

Yes.  It is okay to question recommendations.  Medical specialists are not perfect, they are not omnisicent.  Nor are politicians.  And we've received lots of conflicting and contradictory claims from healthcare specialists and politicians.  Don't wear masks v. wear masks.  Don't congregate in churches, but going to Home Depot or the gym or to a protest is just dandy.  Masks are "symbolic" and "talismans" v. masks are vital and necessary.  And so on.

Questioning the efficacy of masks is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate exercise.

Quote

Or maybe I read it wrong. Sorry if it was offensive, but this is a huge problem, and I think these things shouldn't be political like so many are making it out to be.

Politicians issuing mandates about masks will necessarily have a political dimension.

Quote

Just do whatever is going to help slow the spread and save lives.

Unquestioning, unthinking, reflexive obedience to arbitrary and questionable mandates of the state.

I refuse to do that.  I am following the guidelines for wearing masks, but I make no apologies for challenging the actions of the state in this matter.  None.  The CDC, Dr. Fauci, the New England Journal of Medicine and many other individuals and groups have provided plenty of grounds to reasonably challenge the efficacy of masks.  

Quote

If people that are trying to make like it's a big joke and they have not a single worry if they're wrong, then I think it spells selfishness the nth degree. Just today I saw a video of Pres. Trump making fun of wearing them. I'm not shocked, but definitely dismayed.

"I think these things shouldn't be political..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Just saw this.  Yet another reason for me to feel justified in questioning and challenging governmental edicts about COVID:

Quote

When {someone} advocated reopening the economy, he warned that the lockdowns might have more of an adverse impact than COVID-19. Some assumed he was only talking about the economic implications but he also noted the risk of drug overdoses and suicides. We have seen increases in both of those types of deaths, along with significant mental health impacts.

However, the tragedy of extended lockdowns is compounded by people not seeking medical care.

The United Kingdom is noting this trend in raw numbers. From The Telegraph:

Quote

Unexplained deaths in private homes are nearly nine times higher than those from Covid-19 amid fears that many people are still not accessing life-saving medical treatment.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that there were 830 excess deaths at home in the week ending September 4 compared to the five-year average. In contrast, just 99 people died with coronavirus mentioned on the death certificate in the same period. Only seven of those died at home.

The figures also show that there were 371 fewer deaths in hospitals, suggesting hundreds of people who would normally have been taken in for treatment had died at home instead.

Even accounting for that number, it still means there are around 450 excess deaths a week at home, from unknown causes, of people who may not ordinarily have died.

Recent studies have shown that many people did not seek help for serious conditions, such as heart attacks, in recent months.

The article warns of the risks associated with the first lockdown, now that Europe may be experiencing a resurgence of cases. In the last eight weeks, 1,117 death registrations listed COVID-19 as a cause. Excess deaths at home were 5,556 leading some medical experts to warn the COVID-19 response is now more deadly than the virus.

As of April, 87% of cancer surgeons in the U.K. had stopped or reduced the number of procedures they were doing. Experts have estimated this could lead to an increase of 20% in cancer deaths. Because of the socialized system, the backlog is immense, and the results may get worse. The article notes surgeons would have to work at 160% of their capacity to clear the backlog.

While no one has compared excess deaths at home in the United States recently, we know that emergency room visits for acute issues such as strokes and heart attacks were down 42% from March 31, 2020, through April 27, 2020. In the full ten weeks following the declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency, visits were still down for life-threatening conditions:

Someone in the United States has a heart attack every 40 seconds, or nearly 790,000 per year. Likewise, strokes affect approximately 795,000, and there are 34 million Americans with diabetes. Yet as of September 11, 2020, we know four in ten adults, often those with preexisting conditions, avoided medical care:

Studies have also shown cancer screenings are down, which may lead to an increase in deaths where timely screening would have saved a life:

Quote

According to the Prevent Cancer Foundation, 35 percent of Americans had a cancer screening scheduled during the pandemic and missed it. Similarly, a survey this summer by the medical technology company Hologic found more than a quarter of women plan to either skip or delay their annual screenings this year. That includes mammograms, which can help catch breast cancer early when it’s easier to treat.

As a result, the National Cancer Institute estimates that there could be 10,000 additional breast and colorectal deaths over the next decade as a result of missed screenings and delayed diagnoses, and health experts are raising concerns.

Now we have some insight into the death rates by age throughout the pandemic from the CDC. Phil Kerpen from American Commitment was kind enough to calculate them by age. He also noted these calculations are based on early experience in Europe, and survival rates have been improving:

Quote

Phil Kerpen

 

@kerpen

CDC estimated survival rates by age:

0 to 19: 99.997%

20 to 49: 99.98%

50 to 69: 99.5%

70+: 94.6%

 

• "We have seen increases in both of those types of deaths {drug overdoses and suicides} {during the lockdown}."
• "Unexplained deaths in private homes are nearly nine times higher than those from Covid-19 amid fears that many people are still not accessing life-saving medical treatment."
• "Excess deaths at home were 5,556 leading some medical experts to warn the COVID-19 response is now more deadly than the virus."
• "{A}s of September 11, 2020, we know four in ten adults, often those with preexisting conditions, avoided medical care."
• "{T}he National Cancer Institute estimates that there could be 10,000 additional breast and colorectal deaths over the next decade as a result of missed screenings and delayed diagnoses."

And yet I am supposed to just shut up, sit down, and passively and unquestioningly accept whatever politicians summarily declare?

I don't think so.

Edited September 23, 2020 by smac97

[Ahab]

My take on masks is that masks help to prevent the person wearing a mask from infecting someone else, and they are not 100% effective, which means a person wearing a mask may still pass on a virus to someone else.

So when I see someone not wearing a mask I see that person as someone who could make me sick if they are sick with a virus.  And when I wear a mask I am wearing it to try to prevent someone else from getting sick if I have a virus.  If I don't have a virus, though, and I am certain that I don't, then it will not make any difference whether or not I wear a mask or I don't.  If I'm not sick then I won't make someone else sick.  But since I am not 100% certain whether or not I am sick I wear a mask just in case I am sick and I just do not know I am sick.

My wife and I went to a lumberyard the other day to order some Trex decking for a house we are selling soon and one of the salesman there was not wearing a mask, while my wife and I were.  He sometimes came closer than 6' from us too so I tugged on my wife a little to try to keep her 6' away from him.  It bugged me but he had not been wearing a mask before we came in when he was sitting behind the counter, while other employees around him were wearing a mask, so I figured that maybe he was super special and did not need to wear a mask, and that he maybe was an exception to Washington state law.  But still I wanted to keep myself and my wife at least 6' away from the guy.  Who knows, he could have just been an insensitive weirdo who just did not want to wear a mask.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure about that.  "They lied to us 5 months ago" is part of a critique of governmental actions about an ongoing issue: the wearing of masks, and our overall response to COVID.  

Noting that "they lied to us" isn't holding a grudge.  It's a data point that deserves some real attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you hold the same standard with those who told us it would “go away” or was “under control” then this is a healthy stance. If we use it to treat everything as an “open question” in perpetuity because people’s hypotheses were wrong when we had little information then we are ignoring the facts that the increase in data is leading to better conclusions now. It is like insisting the boy who cried wolf cannot be trusted because the boy could not see the wolf that well when it was first reported and we later discovered it is, in fact, a man-eating tiger.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I am not sure about that.  "They lied to us 5 months ago" is part of a critique of governmental actions about an ongoing issue: the wearing of masks, and our overall response to COVID.  

Noting that "they lied to us" isn't holding a grudge.  It's a data point that deserves some real attention.

If you hold the same standard with those who told us it would “go away” or was “under control” then this is a healthy stance. 

Who said these things?

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If we use it to treat everything as an “open question” in perpetuity because people’s hypotheses were wrong when we had little information then we are ignoring the facts that the increase in data is leading to better conclusions now.

That is certainly a fair point.  But I don't think I'm doing that.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is like insisting the boy who cried wolf cannot be trusted because the boy could not see the wolf that well when it was first reported and we later discovered it is, in fact, a man-eating tiger.

It is also like insisting that the boy who cried wolf should nevertheless be believed this time.  And so we go along with it, only to realize that the flock was imperiled by the "unintended consequences" of taking precautions against the wolf.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Virus particles are extremely small and masks people wear allow virus particles to freely enter and exit. 

Viruses hitch rides on droplets and aerosols. Droplets are large enough to be stopped a good deal by masks, aerosols not as much.  Droplets might contain more virus, but aerosols are believed to be able to travel deeper into the lungs into more susceptible areas. 
 

Given infection is dependent on how much virus one is exposed to (the more viral load, the higher the likelihood of infection), anything that significantly lowers the amount of exposure is likely useful. 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422?fbclid=IwAR2MgVVR9Ml6V0i9WJFz2UNXI6gR-6el0xp6ctwQOpxP2R8LDPwLPI-5A7w
 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

But still I wanted to keep myself and my wife at least 6' away from the guy. 

8-10 feet is probably better if possible. 

[bsjkki]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

8-10 feet is probably better if possible. 

In a well ventilated area. Indoor transmission by aerosols moves quickly and far. One reason I am glad we are not singing in Sacrament meeting. The outbreak studies showed people eating inside in a restaurant getting infected but all of the staff who were wearing masks were protected. So, the 'masks only protect others from you' is also beginning to morph. But, this is happening because the studies and science are changing our understanding. The mask may help diminish the viral load your exposed to.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by bsjkki

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In a well ventilated area. Indoor transmission by aerosols moves quickly and far. One reason I am glad we are not singing in Sacrament meeting. The outbreak studies showed people eating inside in a restaurant getting infected but all of the staff who were wearing masks were protected. So, the 'masks only protect others from you' is also beginning to morph. But, this is happening because the studies and science is changing.

Yep, the 8-10 advice is for the droplets.  I am guessing viral load goes up faster with droplets than it does with aerosols generally speaking.  I have to look at the link I posted again to see if they talked about that.  But if so, it makes sense to put first priority on avoiding droplets by mask mandates or at least strong encouragement and distancing up to ten feet where possible and then address aerosol issues, which would be no singing and limit time spent in area to limit exposure to larger numbers of aerosols. Iirc, Pogi posted awhile back it was 50 minutes to spread through a room, but a ten to 15 minute conversation at 6/10 ft was relatively safe in limiting aerosol exposure. 
 

There was something posted a bit ago that immunity may go up overtime if exposed to multiple small amounts (meaning aerosols iirc) overtime.  I need to check that out to be sure I am remembering correctly.  But if so, then using masks and social distancing, including short conversations rather than long seems a prudent and acceptable guideline for low risk rather than complete avoidance of interaction. 
 

 Thanks for mentioning the staff being protected. It will be interesting to see where the science goes with this. I would not be surprised to see quite a bit of money invested in making better masks in terms of protection and comfort. Saw a video on some useful looking ones that looked targeted for pollution, so wasn’t sure filtering worked both ways. Also included the equivalent of a fishbowl diving helmet which seems not particularly useful unless one is so susceptible that such measures are worth it. Would be strange seeing a crowd of people walking outside businesses and such. 
 

Fish bowl mask is first on this video (again this sounds like targeting pollution issues, not preventing epidemics; though they may protect the person, many do not appear to filter exhalations) https://youtu.be/t30KnSzDQWA

I like this type of mask where filtration works both ways, you can see expression and it has a tight fit. But comfort is increased greatly as it used a fan to boost ventilation, creating a cooler environment as well as making it easier to breathe. Since it is reusable, as long as it is effective in filtration, I can see it becoming popular. 
https://weetbe.com/en/weetbe-mask-osaka-preorder-now-at-indiegogo/

Maybe once mask option become more stylish and getting the latest update a status symbol, there will be less difficultly. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In a well ventilated area. Indoor transmission by aerosols moves quickly and far. One reason I am glad we are not singing in Sacrament meeting. The outbreak studies showed people eating inside in a restaurant getting infected but all of the staff who were wearing masks were protected. So, the 'masks only protect others from you' is also beginning to morph. But, this is happening because the studies and science are changing our understanding. The mask may help diminish the viral load your exposed to.

 

Good to hear.  I had not heard that before.