Yes, covid IS extremely contagious BUT:
Eliminated no. Reduced yes. The face coverings we use are not 100 percent effective. Other behaviors such as avoiding crowds and staying at least six feet away from those who are not household members would be needed in conjunction with universal mask wearing to bring new cases down to minimal levels. Even then, there are persons who cannot wear a mask for medical reasons (COPD, asthma, under 2 years of age, etc.). This would make it impossible to require EVERYONE to wear a mask at all times.
Zero? No. Because the virus is also transmitted on surfaces.
Reduction of transmission depends on the extent of quarantine and willingness of peeps to be inconvenienced.
U.S. 100,000+ deaths.
New Zealand 15 deaths.
But nuts to that. We need haircuts and the beach is opened. God, who gave us the virus in the first place, needs collection money and tithing.... and when are the casinos gonna open? Our freedom is being taken away by gub'mints in libril states.
As I understand it, if universal mask usage reduced the R0 to less than 1, the disease would slow and die out.
Pursuant to this, apparently the 6 feet standard is wrong and it should be closer to 8 feet. Also, it's been found that the viral aerosol hangs out in the air a lot longer than previously thought.
Transmission doesn't have to go down to zero for the virus to be contained - just like vaccination rates don't need to be 100% to achieve herd immunity. What's important is that the number of people infected by an individual is low enough so that if an outbreak occurs, it can be easily contained, rather than have it reach an exponential growth rate. That's what the masks are for.
hmmm. I just went to google to find a link for the 6ft vs 8ft thing, and the links I have date back to early/mid April, so they knew this a while ago. Not sure why all of a sudden it's become the "official" story. I just heard it reported on CNN this morning, and I saw a tweet to this effect last night.
One thing that puzzles me is why we have not seen spikes in various areas that received so much news coverage for violating medical advice--e.g., Jacksonville, FL, where beaches were packed three or four weeks ago.
unicorn33 said:
One thing that puzzles me is why we have not seen spikes in various areas that received so much news coverage for violating medical advice--e.g., Jacksonville, FL, where beaches were packed three or four weeks ago.
plus I think there's like a two week delay before new infections show up in the stats.
This is the best article I've seen on this.
For example, in Hong Kong, only four confirmed deaths due to COVID-19 have been recorded since the beginning of the pandemic, despite high density, mass transportation, and proximity to Wuhan. Hong Kong’s health authorities credit their citizens’ near-universal mask-wearing as a key factor (surveys show almost 100 percent voluntary compliance). Similarly, Taiwan ramped up mask production early on and distributed masks to the population, mandating their use in public transit and recommending their use in other public places—a recommendation that has been widely complied with. The country continues to function fully, and their schools have been open since the end of February, while their death total remains very low, at only six. In the Czech Republic, masks were not used during the initial outbreak, but after a grassroots campaign led to a government mandate on March 18, masks in public became ubiquitous. The results took a while to be reflected in the official statistics: The first five days of April still saw an average of 257 new cases and nine deaths per day, but the most recent five days of data show an average of 120 new cases and five deaths per day. Of course, we can’t know for sure to what degree these success stories are because of masks, but we do know that in every region that has adopted widespread mask-wearing, case and death rates have been reduced within a few weeks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/dont-wear-mask-yourself/610336/
Addiemoose beat me to it.
Look at Hong Kong and their success at controlling this. Everyone wears a mask all the time. They put other measures in place as well but masks are almost universal and socially accepted.
https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen&mid=%2Fm%2F03h64
germs linger for a while...i don't remember the exact time... but i think somewhere between 15 minuted and a few hours before they drop to surfaces....so unless you avoid every area someone else has been for an extended time, you will walk through a germy area....sure 6 feet helps avoid the most concentrated group of germs, but you can't stay permanently 6 feet from everyone and where they have been....
it seems every time I am in a store, there is at least 1, usually more, people with their mask around their chin, instead of over their nose and mouth. They put them on to get through the door, then take them off.
drummerboy said:
Pursuant to this, apparently the 6 feet standard is wrong and it should be closer to 8 feet. Also, it's been found that the viral aerosol hangs out in the air a lot longer than previously thought.
Transmission doesn't have to go down to zero for the virus to be contained - just like vaccination rates don't need to be 100% to achieve herd immunity. What's important is that the number of people infected by an individual is low enough so that if an outbreak occurs, it can be easily contained, rather than have it reach an exponential growth rate. That's what the masks are for.
hmmm. I just went to google to find a link for the 6ft vs 8ft thing, and the links I have date back to early/mid April, so they knew this a while ago. Not sure why all of a sudden it's become the "official" story. I just heard it reported on CNN this morning, and I saw a tweet to this effect last night.
6’ isn’t magic. It’s just far enough that your risk is reduced. Same as masks. Cut risk by xy%. Outdoors I think 6’ for a short time is fine. Indoors for extended periods (like weaving up and down grocery store aisles), I’m not so sure.
unicorn33 said:
One thing that puzzles me is why we have not seen spikes in various areas that received so much news coverage for violating medical advice--e.g., Jacksonville, FL, where beaches were packed three or four weeks ago.
I think it could partly be that people are getting infected but remaining asymptomatic. Or they're getting sick, but not sick enough to go to the hospital. If people remain home with a mild fever and mild symptoms, you wouldn't necessarily know about it.
RobB said:
drummerboy said:
Pursuant to this, apparently the 6 feet standard is wrong and it should be closer to 8 feet. Also, it's been found that the viral aerosol hangs out in the air a lot longer than previously thought.
Transmission doesn't have to go down to zero for the virus to be contained - just like vaccination rates don't need to be 100% to achieve herd immunity. What's important is that the number of people infected by an individual is low enough so that if an outbreak occurs, it can be easily contained, rather than have it reach an exponential growth rate. That's what the masks are for.
hmmm. I just went to google to find a link for the 6ft vs 8ft thing, and the links I have date back to early/mid April, so they knew this a while ago. Not sure why all of a sudden it's become the "official" story. I just heard it reported on CNN this morning, and I saw a tweet to this effect last night.
6’ isn’t magic. It’s just far enough that your risk is reduced. Same as masks. Cut risk by xy%. Outdoors I think 6’ for a short time is fine. Indoors for extended periods (like weaving up and down grocery store aisles), I’m not so sure.
no, it's not magic, but the 6 ft figure was based on research of how viral particles spread. It wasn't picked out of a hat. But apparently newer research shows that 6 ft is not as safe as once thought.
studies on asymptomatic people range from 35-80% of those infected not showing symptoms. I know 1 person who was asymptomatic...his wife and 8 month old were sick about Feb 1. I may have been exposed (no physical contact, just spoke to him outside around that time), but am waiting until there is a free at home anti body test as the likelihood I had it is very low.
jmitw said:
studies on asymptomatic people range from 35-80% of those infected not showing symptoms. I know 1 person who was asymptomatic...his wife and 8 month old were sick about Feb 1. I may have been exposed (no physical contact, just spoke to him outside around that time), but am waiting until there is a free at home anti body test as the likelihood I had it are very low.
I know of two, one in a nursing home. Another is the wife of a someone who had a rough case but her antibody count is low. It may suggest that if you have an asymptomatic case, it reduces your protection going forward. I don't know.
We had thought my husband might have been infected back in March, but his recent negative antibody test seems to indicate otherwise. He is using a mask that gives extreme protection. I guess his precautions paid off. On the other hand, you do not want to have to wear one of these. It does hamper breathing, and while carrying equipment or climbing stairs he said getting a little light headed is the norm.
His employer is going to be testing all employees for antibodies in the coming weeks, so we’ll either have confirmation of the negative result, or not. Any employee who tests negative for antibodies will then be required to have a Covid 19 nasal swab on “a regular basis.” No idea of what that means, one of the nurses guessed once a week.
drummerboy said:
no, it's not magic, but the 6 ft figure was based on research of how viral particles spread. It wasn't picked out of a hat. But apparently newer research shows that 6 ft is not as safe as once thought.
Honestly? It’s not based on much. A couple of studies from nearly 100 years ago. Large droplets make it about 3’. Small droplets about 6 (“about” meaning plenty make it further, sometimes much further).
Personally? I treat 6’ as the absolute minimum when passing an unmasked person on the sidewalk. I don’t want to be indoors with anyone not wearing a mask, 6’ or otherwise.
mmh said:
I think it could partly be that people are getting infected but remaining asymptomatic. Or they're getting sick, but not sick enough to go to the hospital. If people remain home with a mild fever and mild symptoms, you wouldn't necessarily know about it.
Part of that is some people traveled to Jacksonville, went home and infected people at home. (This was shown before the lockdown on Spring break.) And after seeing the Georgia Board of Health statistics, I am not sure if we know what is going on in Georgia, Florida, etc.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
Advertisement
We all hear just how dangerous Covid19 is.
We see mobs of people defying social distancing in swimming pools, on beaches, outside bars, congregating in huge groups. We hear our states that are re-opening now showing spikes in numbers of sick people. We marvel at the stupid actions of community members. We hear daily from Governor Cuomo and Governor Murphy about the importance of wearing a mask
My question is - if everyone DID wear a mask, as advocated, would those numbers of afflicted individuals drop to zero - - or perhaps be extremely significantly lower?
Gov Cuomo indicated that front line workers have a LOWER incidence of Covid19 and he speculated that the reason for that is that front line workers (nurses, doctors, EMT, police, firemen) do wear a mask - and obviously they cannot "social distance" while they are front line workers
So as dangerously contagious as this virus is, one must wonder if the spread of this virus can practically be eliminated completely - simply by wearing a mask!