Variant of concern in South Africa

magic said:
Wow?? So no evidence then?
Click to expand...

news.sky.com

COVID-19: Do face masks work? Here is what scientific studies say

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that wearing a mask reduced transmissions of COVID-19. Here are the studies that prove it.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

Of course there a more examples, but I'm sure you know how Google works right? Though I'm also pretty certain you would also google that masks don't work and follow that rabbit hole to appease your own prejudice.

At the end of the day, it's a simple bit of fabric that you put on for a very short part of your day that might just prevent you unknowingly infecting the people you do care about.
 
magic said:
Wow?? So no evidence then?
Click to expand...
Oddly enough one of the people testing positive for Omicron in Hong Kong is supposed to have caught the virus because he was wearing the wrong type of mask!

Cloth masks are pretty well useless. They stop only 2% of droplets because the pore size in a cloth mask is so large at around 120 microns. From memory surgical masks can stop up to 45% of droplets - typical pore size 80 microns. However, since Covid-19 is passed via aerosols no surgical mask guarantees safety because the droplet size of an aerosol (60 microns or less) is smaller than the pores in the mask. Aerosols are not necessarily generated during normal breathing. In my local hospital surgical masks were mandatory even in non-Covid wards, but if a patient was likely to generate aerosols (e.g. had a CPAP machine or were intubated) or was coughing and sneezing the nursing staff had to don full PPE with N95 respirators (pore size 3 microns).

Surgical masks are of some value, especially if everyone is wearing masks, but they don't guarantee you won't become infected. Dr Byram Bridle does a demonstration where he shows aerosolised particles passing through 5 layers of surgical masks and fogging up his glasses. Make of that what you will.

I can't find the original study I read with the mask benefits, but the following study done BC (Before Covid) shows there's some benefit.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks - PubMed

The CDC recommends that healthcare settings provide influenza patients with facemasks as a means of reducing transmission to staff and other patients, and a recent report suggested that surgical masks can capture influenza virus in large droplet spray. However, there is minimal data on influenza...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's fairly obvious given the statistics that even in places with "mask mandates" the rate of infection is still high. Perhaps because people believe masks will protect them and so get a little closer than is wise. If you know someone has Covid you need to be a hell of a lot further than 6 feet to avoid infection. So in some ways masks are counter productive. I have to continuously remind my 89 year old dad that the mask is not guaranteed to prevent infection.
 
br14 said:
Oddly enough one of the people testing positive for Omicron in Hong Kong is supposed to have caught the virus because he was wearing the wrong type of mask!

Cloth masks are pretty well useless. They stop only 2% of droplets because the pore size in a cloth mask is so large at around 120 microns. From memory surgical masks can stop up to 45% of droplets - typical pore size 80 microns. However, since Covid-19 is passed via aerosols no surgical mask guarantees safety because the droplet size of an aerosol (60 microns or less) is smaller than the pores in the mask. Aerosols are not necessarily generated during normal breathing. In my local hospital surgical masks were mandatory even in non-Covid wards, but if a patient was likely to generate aerosols (e.g. had a CPAP machine or were intubated) or was coughing and sneezing the nursing staff had to don full PPE with N95 respirators (pore size 3 microns).

Surgical masks are of some value, especially if everyone is wearing masks, but they don't guarantee you won't become infected. Dr Byram Bridle does a demonstration where he shows aerosolised particles passing through 5 layers of surgical masks and fogging up his glasses. Make of that what you will.

I can't find the original study I read with the mask benefits, but the following study done BC (Before Covid) shows there's some benefit.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks - PubMed

The CDC recommends that healthcare settings provide influenza patients with facemasks as a means of reducing transmission to staff and other patients, and a recent report suggested that surgical masks can capture influenza virus in large droplet spray. However, there is minimal data on influenza...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's fairly obvious given the statistics that even in places with "mask mandates" the rate of infection is still high. Perhaps because people believe masks will protect them and so get a little closer than is wise. If you know someone has Covid you need to be a hell of a lot further than 6 feet to avoid infection. So in some ways masks are counter productive. I have to continuously remind my 89 year old dad that the mask is not guaranteed to prevent infection.
Click to expand...
No one has ever claimed masks are guaranteed to stop the spread but the more people wear them the more the risk is reduced, it is as simple as that. They're not counter productive, they're a risk reducer.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
No one has ever claimed masks are guaranteed to stop the spread but the more people wear them the more the risk is reduced, it is as simple as that. They're not counter productive, they're a risk reducer.
Click to expand...
This is the thing that confuses me with the anti maskers. Not one of them seems to understand degrees of risk. Most anti mask arguments are based on the premise the expect masks to 100% stop the disease. Which has never been argued for.

Why is it that people like this can't grasp the need to slow down transmissions. Why do they think transmission must stop completely? Is it an education thing? Or is it merely they know they can't argue against mask use so go to absolutes to pretend they aren't working?
 
Masks are not very effective, almost to the point of zero in an unventelated room you are sitting in for a few hours, for example a pub. If you go into a shop for 20 minutes they reduce the risk of you spreading infected droplets a bit. I suspect the protection in the London underground is miniscule too given the millions of people passing through every day.

They are non invasive and have the benefit of keeping your face warm in winter. I don't see why people wouldn't wear them. Even if the benefit is very small.

I particularly don't see why the government removed the mandate for masks, it has to be ideological rather than scientific.
 
SmallTown said:
This is the thing that confuses me with the anti maskers. Not one of them seems to understand degrees of risk. Most anti mask arguments are based on the premise the expect masks to 100% stop the disease. Which has never been argued for.

Why is it that people like this can't grasp the need to slow down transmissions. Why do they think transmission must stop completely? Is it an education thing? Or is it merely they know they can't argue against mask use so go to absolutes to pretend they aren't working?
Click to expand...
I've said all along it's such a bizarre hill to die on. I fully understand that in some cases (some rape victims being one) there are fundamental reasons for not wanting to wear a mask but "it's an inconvenience" or "I can't be bothered" seem pretty weak to be fair.

In the first few weeks of the pandemic masks seemed the logical direction for me, based on seasonal use in Eastern countries (many of which have suffered more frequently from this kind of event in the past). I might have got it completely wrong but as a result it wasn't a) surprising or b) a hardship when the use of masks was announced.
 
This
changingman said:
I've said all along it's such a bizarre hill to die on. I fully understand that in some cases (some rape victims being one) there are fundamental reasons for not wanting to wear a mask but "it's an inconvenience" or "I can't be bothered" seem pretty weak to be fair.

In the first few weeks of the pandemic masks seemed the logical direction for me, based on seasonal use in Eastern countries (many of which have suffered more frequently from this kind of event in the past). I might have got it completely wrong but as a result it wasn't a) surprising or b) a hardship when the use of masks was announced.
Click to expand...
This
 
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
The SA woman aslso stated on Marr its been found mainly in you g fit people and they have no idea how it will respond in older and vulnerable people.

JHB needs here show shutting down.
Click to expand...
That 'south African woman' is a doctor working in hospitals in South Africa where the variant was detected. Ignore the fact she was on that show.
 
Randy said:
That 'south African woman' is a doctor working in hospitals in South Africa where the variant was detected. Ignore the fact she was on that show.
Click to expand...
She does raise some valid points, particularly on the back of some sensationalist journalism. I believe the scientific community are waiting for more data to declare it a milder form of the virus, is all. It may turn out to be a great variant in terms of replacing delta.

One thing I would say, and this is speculative. It could be much milder, but if it is much more transmissible, it could, overall, be worse. Less danger of dying, but more chance of catching it, has to be balanced.

With luck it will be non-lethal.
 
Laughing said:
She does raise some valid points, particularly on the back of some sensationalist journalism. I believe the scientific community are waiting for more data to declare it a milder form of the virus, is all. It may turn out to be a great variant in terms of replacing delta.

One thing I would say, and this is speculative. It could be much milder, but if it is much more transmissible, it could, overall, be worse. Less danger of dying, but more chance of catching it, has to be balanced.

With luck it will be non-lethal.
Click to expand...
Are you just missing the point about it currently being found in younger fitter people rather than older folk which could completely swing the situation she has currently seen?

im well aware of who she is by the way. I just dont have time to look her name up
 
Randy said:
That 'south African woman' is a doctor working in hospitals in South Africa where the variant was detected. Ignore the fact she was on that show.
Click to expand...

Just be careful with this line of thinking, she works in a private practice (although does chair some SA board), they've still not had enough of it, for long enough, to have any idea how lethal it is, especially compared to Delta.

I'm not for one second saying she's wrong, but everywhere is analysing this and they're saying we need more time, more data etc, simple answer is we don't know, nobody does, yet.

She could also be being told to be careful what she says too, as their government don't want everyone shutting them off.

India played down Delta at the start, then look what happened.
 
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
Are you just missing the point about it currently being found in younger fitter people rather than older folk which could completely swing the situation she has currently seen?

im well aware of who she is by the way. I just dont have time to look her name up
Click to expand...
Nope I didn't miss that Jonny, it doesn't mean that the strain isn't milder and I am assuming she is comparing like with like. I.E. the effect the virus has on younger fitter people versus delta with younger fitter people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top