ironically approx 60 - 70% of our tests are for Leicestershire.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
We genuinely thought we were doing the country a big favour and assumed there would be a big support network and lots of tests ready, or at least a long list of people wanting them. We didn't think for one second we'd have to do so much of the legwork and each test actually costs us money (time, fuel and resource) to perform.
Surely the government are going to have to have a serious conversation about the spread in poorer areas?
Edit: Not implying it's poor peoples' fault. More an obvious flaw in the system.
Consider me pleasantly surprised!
COVID Outbreaks Are Being Traced Back To Parties — Not Protests
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cov...kQ_hstAgMCuQencgdVMgfPUwoZJW8DeVBptGWrROqcVo9
The question with poorer people is how many can actually work from home and how many can afford to not work for a few weeks let alone months? The richest part of the population is sheltered by the nature of their jobs and then there are obvious things like more people per square meters in poorer households/neighborhood.
Surely the government are going to have to have a serious conversation about the spread in poorer areas?
Edit: Not implying it's poor peoples' fault. More an obvious flaw in the system.
Last edited:
For sure. I live in Leicester and have heard through strong sources that businesses in this area are prone to employing poor, and sometimes illegal, workers on less than minimum wage. With no worker rights, it's hard for them to afford to take time off.
Wish I knew more actually. Would make for a spicy conversation.
Yeah I think its been a massive oversight not to have comms targeted towards certain areas that were vulnerable hotspots - even when this whole thing started a basic knowledge of areas any medics that were familiar with the areas that we've seen outbreaks in could have told you those will be the problematic areas.
Issues continue to be rampant ignorance +/- disregard regarding social distancing related to the pandemic due to a mainly Gujrati, Punjabi speaking population.
Its not a race/xenophobic thing either, some of my colleagues I know are worried about the xenophobes co-opting this and turning this into a "Muslim" thing (actual fact similar number of Hindus there and Sikhs too) or bashing anybody who is brown and I get not wanting to empower/perpetuate that narrative.
But on the other hand, behind the scenes family members have been admonishing others regularly about social distancing. It has been enormously frustrating to see that the takeaway and other small business shops having had dozens of young men, around late teens to twenties, congregating and eating together, for weeks. These kids later spread it indoor in confined spaces to their parents and grandparents. And that continues.
And you're essentially saying that largely unaffected and non-problematic areas like Oadby, Wigston will be closed with well-meaning but largely inconsequential policing there of the main roads like the A6 when what you could really do is make available the areas and postcodes where this thing has and is spreading to public health Leicester officials. This in addition to working with GPs and primary care networks that serve that area to aggressively ramp up messaging and testing, tracing, isolating.
Honestly if this is what our whack-a-mole local lockdown will be like, it's doomed to fail.
Last edited:
i think its to do with indoors v outdoors. also possibly masks.
(nvm i read it, talks about masks a lot)
Last edited:
Yeah, I suspect there's some politicisation of the issue as people are trying to avoid that particular narrative. I honestly find it a bit mad that places like Oadby have been forced into lockdown. It's a quiet, not particularly dense area. Very different to some of the inner-city regions. Knighton even more so.
And yeah, there's definitely something to say about young men being more likely to ignore the rules, which has been mentioned for a while.
i bought masks at the start of march. spread from coughing, sneezing, breathing meant it was the obvious choice, even if it's not going to be 100%.
have the CDC, WHO, NHS, etc explained why they didn't advise masks for so long? and did the chinese say anything similar?
conspiracy brain tells me this was to protect the stock of masks when supply was short.
have the CDC, WHO, NHS, etc explained why they didn't advise masks for so long? and did the chinese say anything similar?
conspiracy brain tells me this was to protect the stock of masks when supply was short.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bit higher than yesterday which was 155
Absolutely - at the time, while outdoors was known to be less risky than indoors, I thought between the density of some of the protests, and the amount of shouting and singing, they were pushing their luck a bit, even with masks.
The article does confirm the other worry I have though - that getting drunk with your mates in a bar is pretty risky. Community transmission in the UK seems like it's coming down to managable numbers, but this weekend will be a big test.
I don’t think that’s a conspiracy so much as one of the main reasons given at the time for the initial reluctance to recommend masks.
apparently i havent been following this properly. but i clearly remember research supposedly indicating the poor efficacy of masks in controlling spread.
Make shit up. Works for Boris
FFP(1 to 3) masks are efficient against aerosols with an average size of 0.6 nanometers, cloths masks are rarely protective. The main problem for FFP masks, in particular the most common FFP1 is that you are supposed to change it when it's damp, after each usage and after at most 8 hours, many people don't even wear them properly so I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to follow those rules too.
wont the poorer masks with bigger pores also trap a lot of your own particles? not all, but a lot? thus reducing what's going out.
It depends, few are supposed to be good and most absolutely useless, we are talking about small particles expelled at high speed, it simply goes through. You also need to wash the cloths one everyday.
Absolutely. Masks (really just cloth coverings) as a Public Health measure are about protecting other people. So you don’t need an FFP mask. The concern about making this recommendation early on is that the general public wouldn’t get this (many still don’t!) so they would buy up the finite supply of genuinely protective masks that were in short supply and needed to protect HCWs.
Only when sneezing/coughing. In which case the person concerned shouldn’t leave their home. It’s the bigger, slower moving droplets expelled when breathing/speaking that cloth masks will do a good job at reducing.
Most of the droplet sizes mentioned are micrometer in size. Droplets colliding on surfaces with a large impact velocity component would likely "splash" on impact, leading to formation of secondary droplets. The surface conditions such as porosity, temperature, curvature, roughness and wetness will also contribute to the collision process. The size of the secondary droplets has been studied but I can't remember typical sizes at the top of my head.
The problem is however, that even slower moving collisions can lead to "splash" because the velocity alone does not determine whether the droplets splash, but also the other components as I mentioned.
It should be noted, that the droplet velocity and droplet size are related but not wholly dependant on each other. It would be dangerous to suggest that just because a droplet is small, it is faster moving and equally it would be dangerous to say a large droplet moves slowly. How quickly the droplet moves depends initially on the momentum imparted onto it during the sneeze. It also depends on how much the ambient surrounding air in the mouth is able to retard that motion, which in turn, depends on the distance between the entrance of the mouth (where the facial covering is) and wherever the droplets are initially produced in the body at the moment of the sneeze.
The problem is however, that even slower moving collisions can lead to "splash" because the velocity alone does not determine whether the droplets splash, but also the other components as I mentioned.
It should be noted, that the droplet velocity and droplet size are related but not wholly dependant on each other. It would be dangerous to suggest that just because a droplet is small, it is faster moving and equally it would be dangerous to say a large droplet moves slowly. How quickly the droplet moves depends initially on the momentum imparted onto it during the sneeze. It also depends on how much the ambient surrounding air in the mouth is able to retard that motion, which in turn, depends on the distance between the entrance of the mouth (where the facial covering is) and wherever the droplets are initially produced in the body at the moment of the sneeze.
Not exactly, it also applies to speaking out loud and it is affected by the volume. Masks effectiveness depends on the mask itself and there is a large difference between them, the worst FFP is at 91% effectiveness, for the rest it's a mix bag, the ones that are approved are on average efficient at 68% but many cloth masks aren't approved.
I would have thought most cloth masks aren’t approved. Mask effectiveness is determined on how well it protects the wearer though. Which isn’t the reason people are being asked to wear them. And even if they don’t block all droplets on the way out, they should block enough to make a difference as a public health measure.
Again it depends, if two people have those cloths mask that aren't particularly efficient and speak with each others at less than a meter from each others, they will most likely project particules on each other masks and faces, if on top of that they don't wash them as often as they should you can imagine what it means. It's also worth mentioning that eyes mucosa is a point of entry for viruses.
And I'm not suggesting to not wear masks, I'm simply saying that their effectiveness is limited for the ones that are approved(outside of FFP who are efficient) and some of the none approved are often not efficient at all, a bandana would have the same effect, so people should still be careful and respect all the basic rules, wash your hands, keep your distances, don't yell, don't sing, change your masks regularly, wash your cloth masks and make sure to purchase masks that are approved by health and safety authorities.
And make sure that your mask actually fits.
And my point is that a mask that isn’t approved is better than no mask. A bandana is better than no mask. Getting an approved mask makes sense but I wouldn’t want the cost/hassle of getting an approved mask stop someone wearing any kind of face covering at all.
Besides, the basis on which they are approved is how effective they are at protecting the wearer, which isn’t the reason that everyone is being asked to wear masks when social distancing isn’t possible (e.g. public transport)
I’m coming at this from the Irish perspective, where face coverings are mandated on public transport but only encouraged in other scenarios. There’s an infuriating amount of chatter on Twitter etc from people making similar points to you (cloths masks won’t protect me from aerosolised droplets and they’re useless unless I wash them every time I wear them etc etc) that completely miss the point of face coverings as a PH initiative. Which is an overall reduction in the amount of droplets of saliva landing on hard surfaces in enclosed spaces. Which would happen even if we all just wore a bandana over our faces. And the end result of these objections and confusion re the efficacy of masks has been very poor take up.
Last edited:
This study is by no means conclusive, but it helped visualize some of the things talked about above. They tested a bandana style folded handkerchief, a homemade cloth cloth mask consisting of an old shirt or whatever folded several times over, and the widely available cone-shape mask.
End result was surgical>cotton>>>>>handkerchief. Fit and number of layers seemed to be important, which makes sense. But my neck gaiter for fishing and outlaw-style bandana coverings may not be doing much good based on this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/health/masks-homemade-design-trnd-wellness-scn/index.html
End result was surgical>cotton>>>>>handkerchief. Fit and number of layers seemed to be important, which makes sense. But my neck gaiter for fishing and outlaw-style bandana coverings may not be doing much good based on this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/health/masks-homemade-design-trnd-wellness-scn/index.html
And I don't agree with that, it's best to tell people to wear masks and also realize that their efficiency vary and in certain case is extremely limited. It's best to hammer home the fact that spread control relies on a set of behaviour and not just a random mask. My point is pick the correct mask and have the appropriate behaviour, your point seem to just be upset about something that I didn't suggest which is to not wear masks.
Even the bandana reduced droplet distance from 12 feet to 3 feet. Which would stop them hitting another person who is appropriately socially distanced. And you wouldn’t get such a big drop off in distance without a decent proportion of the overall plume of droplets being caught in the mask.
And this is an experiment with a simulated, uncovered cough. I would argue that anyone with a cough should stay at home until they’re tested and if a random cough catches you by surprise then you should cough into your elbow, face covering or no face covering.
I think we’re all on the same page here anyway. If you want to protect yourself get a proper FFP mask. If you want to protect others (the main reason we should all be wearing masks) then any sort of reasonably sturdy, folded over/stitched cotton mask is fine. And a bandana is better than nothing.
Last edited:
You’ve obviously misunderstood my point then. I’ve explained it as well as I can, so I’ll have to leave it at that.
Fair enough, maybe I misunderstood your point.
Agreed, the chances are lower than people think in terms of transmission. Strong hand hygiene is still the most effective and best way of control.
The paper is here:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0016018
Physics of Fluids (PoF) is a top journal paper for fluid dynamics and related problems. The other top journal publication is JFM (Journal of Fluid Mechanics) and Experiments in Fluids. In my view, for PoF papers, it can take several months to get approved, even a year, so to see such a fast turn around in submission to publication shows the urgency of studying these issues.
This is the first paper anyone has posted that explains the evaporation effects:
It really beggars belief that they are called "droplet nuclei" when all the liquid content has evaporated. A really poor choice of terminology but it is what it is I guess. Where they say " sheet-like layers of respiratory fluids " you can just call these " liquid ligaments".
All in all I strongly encourage anyone interested to read that intro. They explain a lot of the concepts well and in my view an accessible manner.
They probably add glycerin to actually reduce the evaporation rate of the droplets, allowing the visualization technique to last for a slightly longer period of time. Fog machines/generators are also used in wind tunnels (with PIV) and other experimental set ups to measure gas velocities.
An educated guess, they've probably had to guess the diameters because the fog machine was probably bought from a company that usually sells them to theatres - so the droplet size would not have been reported by the manufacturer.
This explains why they were not able to get the velocities of the turbulent jet. With a more capable laser connected to the appropriate equipment, they can get this with little problem. Something for a future study.
This is also because the jet itself is turbulent and one instance of an experiment will never match another instance. The way engineers overcome this issue is to use averaging techniques. A common method may be ensemble averaging, but the problem with averaging is that the equations of motion of a gas, when averaged, aren't "closed", so you have to close them with "made up" models, and this is, in essence, what turbulence modelling is about.
The periphery of the jet (its funky shaped edges) shown in Fig. 2 are caused by ambient air being "drawn in" or "entrained" into the jet core by turbulent vorticies/eddies located inside the jet. A side note - they could have painted the body in matte black to reduce laser reflections and considerably improve the quality of the images. This is something they can improve in a future study. Its a very simple but effective trick.
All in all, a pretty neat study.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Encouraging results from Pfizer vaccine Phase I, published in a preprint today. Wouldn’t be too worried about fevers. Most vaccines can cause a fever. That’s what tends to happen when you fire up the immune system.
If it works I will take a bit of fever!
What's the general success rate for vaccines that make it to Phase 3 of trials? Also it must be hugely encouraging that so many of these potential vaccines are seemingly progressing well through the respective phases.
whilst I do not know the answer to this question, I do know that 22% of failed phase 3 trials are due to a lack of funding.
I imagine lack of funding will not be an issue for a Covid vaccine
Don’t worry guys, we’ve got this.
The Guvna just told South Carolina that if things continue as they are, he’s gonna have to cancel high school and college football in the fall.
The Guvna just told South Carolina that if things continue as they are, he’s gonna have to cancel high school and college football in the fall.
This is going to be an interesting experiment for my old Southern brethren. Do they follow dear leader and ignore masks and social distancing or do they risk losing college football?
Dear leader said he likes masks today. Makes him “look like the Lone Ranger”