This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Chinese and the South Koreans swear by them
Hand washing - how does this respiratory virus get on to the surfaces?
1
In reply to mik82:
I good analogy is dust.
In reply to mik82:
It was a bit technical language for me. What I got from it sounds like the masks and air samples didn't have the coronavirus cells on them so the masks were not making any difference? Or were the samples from inside the mask so it shows it was making a difference in that none made it in?
In reply to girlymonkey:
I didn't get the cycle thing and how it could be ' point something ' of a cycle
anyway the bit I got was it appeared in the exhaust of the extractor fan, so airborne?
Chinese and South Koreans seem to be getting better results than Europe, three differences I think exist is the use of masks, maybe slightly different Asiatic genome? and maybe populations previous exposure to this or similar corona virus in recent past
1
In reply to John Kelly:
It is in respiratory droplets and aerosolised so will contaminate surfaces, masks, extractors etc.
The better results are nothing to do with masks but to do with aggressive testing and contact tracing.
3
1
In reply to mik82:
so even though it's traveling through the air 'it's nothing to do with masks' - I don't get that
Why do medical staff need them?
I'm sure testing and contact tracing helps
Post edited at 22:12
4
In reply to John Kelly:
I think one reason they are recommended more for medical staff than general population is due to patients in hospital shedding a higher viral load? Out and about the viral load will be reduced, I think! (I am not a scientist, I am reading a few articles to try and get my head around stuff and then coming to, possibly wrong, conclusions!
2
In reply to girlymonkey:
At the very least a mask will stop you touching your nose/mouth and get in the way of social interaction so you are less likely to chat.
2
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I had read the opposite, that you touch your face more with a mask?
6
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
> I had read the opposite, that you touch your face more with a mask?
I've not seen that. Maybe. But you'd be touching the mask, not your actual face?
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I guess the WHO are the people we should listen to on it
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-...
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And immediately cleaning your hands? You probably won't even notice you have done it!
In reply to John Kelly:
> so even though it's traveling through the air 'it's nothing to do with masks' - I don't get that
> Why do medical staff need them?
Because they are so close to patients, in the space of just a few days even a young healthy person could be exposed to so much of the virus no level of medical care will help them.
8
In reply to girlymonkey:
> I guess the WHO are the people we should listen to
I'd have more faith listening to the band.
The so called world leading medical authority is under played the sevetelity from the start, despite the virus being if the same family as sars and mers, making the leap from another species and proving it can kill and spread in China.
If they'd issued stronger warnings in Dec and Jan perhaps air travel and borders will have been shut faster.
1000s more in Europe will die, but we'll cope eventually. This going to be catastrophic for countries like India, or nations in Africa and south America. It's likely going to lead to massive changes, most pandemics have historically been turning points in history.
The WHO has failed, unlike the band.
3
8
In reply to summo:
> Because they are so close to patients, in the space of just a few days even a young healthy person could be exposed to so much of the virus no level of medical care will help them.
That's a cheery thought for those of us with loved ones on the "front line"
I wonder if anyone is collecting stats on the proportion of nurses and doctors getting it? Italy seems to have a high casualty rate in this regard.
2
In reply to Andy Gamisou:
It's a grim thought that I suspect passes many by. There is no cure, only our own immune system which can as proven be easily overwhelmed.
If it kills people who had passing exposure to it, imagine what the risks are for those living and working with infected people. Home quarantining etc. Medical staff globally appear to be paying a heavy price and yes, it's dreadful for friends and relatives. Something those stretching the boundaries of the lock down probably don't consider.
1
In reply to summo:
'viral load' makes a difference? - for instance when the young Chinese medic died? - I think there have been a few more deaths of youngish people since then where load was not considered to be the driving factor, not sure if it's a real thing, medics certainly need good PPE.
I don't think we should all wear face masks at this time because there are insufficient for the needs of health workers and carers
I think when sufficient masks of the right type and quality become available we should given training on social media in how to use them correctly and encouraged to use them
It's part of isolating one individual from another and the environment from the individual
I believe given the lack of available masks at the start of the pandemic the most effective way to slow the virus was to target the protection at health workers, a completely sensible response from WHO and UK gov. given the position they had reached, I agree making provision for a respiratory pandemic, always considered the most likely health emergency, seems to have been slack.
Post edited at 07:55
2
1
In reply to John Kelly:
Keep the public far away from masks!!! It'll just give them a false sense of security and likely spread more.
9
3
In reply to John Kelly:
> 'viral load' makes a difference?
Viral load makes a significant difference. (virology generally, not Corona specific)
Asian countries that have done much better are because of testing, tracing and isolation rather than masks per se.
Masks obviously help, but how much is overrated.
4
In reply to summo:
> Because they are so close to patients, in the space of just a few days even a young healthy person could be exposed to so much of the virus no level of medical care will help them.
This. Viral load. When the pandemic starts peaking we're going to be expecting clinicians to be spending 12 hour shift after 12 hour shift in close contact with and, in many instances in confined spaces like the backs of ambulances, with violently coughing Covid infected patients. Insisting clinicians are only provided with flimsy, loose fitting surgical masks in such circumstances seems tantamount to corporate manslaughter.
12
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> I've not seen that. Maybe. But you'd be touching the mask, not your actual face?
Fortunately the worlds foremost experts are working on this problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/30/astrophysicist-gets-...
12
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> I've not seen that. Maybe. But you'd be touching the mask, not your actual face?
The argument seems to be based around ill fitting masks with people constantly adjusting them and so touching their face as well.
1
In reply to mullermn:
Yes that made my isolated morning. Bless, he was trying to help.
I loved the bit where he mistakenly makes a necklace that beeps constantly unless you touch your face. Doctor's notes were magic aswell hahah
5
In reply to Stichtplate:
Masks, like all PPE fall down in this respect due to one simple fact. They only protect one person for a very limited amount of time. Even a properly fitted FFP3 mask will only be efficient for around an hour before sweat starts to break the seal between mask and face (any facial hair and its useless). Keeping our distance, keeping indoors keeps everyone safer.
We have given all our masks and PPE to the NHS who are at risk because they deal with contaminated patients at close quarters. Even then please remember this stuff is disposable, not designed to be worn all day in blissful ignorance thinking you are safe.
3
In reply to Stichtplate:
> This. Viral load. When the pandemic starts peaking we're going to be expecting clinicians to be spending 12 hour shift after 12 hour shift in close contact with and, in many instances in confined spaces like the backs of ambulances, with violently coughing Covid infected patients. Insisting clinicians are only provided with flimsy, loose fitting surgical masks in such circumstances seems tantamount to corporate manslaughter.
I'd totally agree, military style or police respirators with appropriate filtration canisters would provide better levels of protection. They might look more off putting to the public, but staff need protecting. Even systems used by spray painters all day long might be better, provided they can filter small enough particles.
1
1
In reply to the sheep:
> Masks, like all PPE fall down in this respect due to one simple fact. They only protect one person for a very limited amount of time. Even a properly fitted FFP3 mask will only be efficient for around an hour before sweat starts to break the seal between mask and face (any facial hair and its useless).
No, they protect that person and everyone that person subsequently comes into contact with. And clinicians should be provided them in adequate numbers.
>Keeping our distance, keeping indoors keeps everyone safer.
I don't have that option.
> We have given all our masks and PPE to the NHS who are at risk because they deal with contaminated patients at close quarters. Even then please remember this stuff is disposable, not designed to be worn all day in blissful ignorance thinking you are safe.
Cheers for that, can't write more as I'm off to start my shift. In an ambulance.
4
In reply to Stichtplate:
Sorry, I was talking about the general population wandering around in masks feeling safe, not the NHS staff on the front line,
In reply to summo:
> I'd have more faith listening to the band.
> The so called world leading medical authority is under played the sevetelity from the start, despite the virus being if the same family as sars and mers, making the leap from another species and proving it can kill and spread in China.
> If they'd issued stronger warnings in Dec and Jan perhaps air travel and borders will have been shut faster.
> 1000s more in Europe will die, but we'll cope eventually. This going to be catastrophic for countries like India, or nations in Africa and south America. It's likely going to lead to massive changes, most pandemics have historically been turning points in history.
> The WHO has failed, unlike the band.
Didn't one of them like looking at illegal websites.
Fail .
In reply to the sheep:
Are our medical staff being provided with FFP3 masks? I suspect that the masks Hancock is crowing about providing in vast numbers are FFP2 at best, which provide very inadequate protection against the virus. Does anyone know the answer to this?
Post edited at 09:59
1
1
In reply to John Kelly:
> Chinese and the South Koreans swear by them
I never thought them particularly ugly myself. There's some cracking South Korean babes.
In reply to girlymonkey:
The earlier messages in the media from health scientists were that masks (the simpler kind) were probably of no use for general protection of the wearer but might be of more use to help prevent the wearer passing on the virus, presumably by catching larger exhaled droplets containing many virions, especially if coughing. (Usual warning: there's always a possibility this is my own inaccurate extrapolation of the original messages).
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> Are our medical staff being provided with FFP3 masks? I suspect that the masks Hancock is crowing about providing in vast numbers are FFP2 at best, which provide very inadequate protection against the virus. Does anyone know the answer to this?
Not even FFP2. We’ve been instructed to attend suspected covid 19 cases wearing surgical masks. The HSE don’t even include these masks in their respiratory protection guidelines because the level of protection they provide is so low. The best study I can find indicates that an FFP3 provides 100 fold protection against airborne particulates. The figure for a surgical mask is 6 fold.
4
In reply to peppermill:
> Yes that made my isolated morning. Bless, he was trying to help.
> I loved the bit where he mistakenly makes a necklace that beeps constantly unless you touch your face. Doctor's notes were magic aswell hahah
It’s actually quite a good idea though. I wonder if things like that might actually be part of our future in the ‘a lesser degree of distancing will be necessary for an extended period’ scenario.
You could imagine that something like what he was trying to do could be made in a range of relatively unobtrusive and even fashionable wearable electronics.
In reply to mullermn:
Oh for sure. Poor bloke was just trying to apply the skill and knowledge he has to try and invent something to help.
It just went so hilariously wrong and probably gave A+E staff a much needed giggle.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
> wearing surgical masks
That's all my wife has been provided with too. (Not in the UK incidently).
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I wear a 3M FFP 2 mask out everywhere now and I never touch it when I'm out, why would you need to? Put it on correctly to start and it stays in place.
I gave my partner my ffp3 mask as he is an essential worker.
Post edited at 13:03
1
2
In reply to oldie:
The earlier messages in the media from health scientists were that masks (the simpler kind) were probably of no use for general protection of the wearer but might be of more use to help prevent the wearer passing on the virus, presumably by catching larger exhaled droplets containing many virions, especially if coughing.
> I was rather touched to discover, when in Japan (and presumably in S. Korea) in pre-Covid times, that this was why masks were worn in public, rather than rampant paranoia/hypochondria as I first assumed
1
In reply to nufkin:
Yeah, that's been part of the culture in parts of Asia for years.
In reply to Stichtplate:
> The best study I can find indicates that an FFP3 provides 100 fold protection against airborne particulates. The figure for a surgical mask is 6 fold.
That sounds about right. Theoretically it's higher than that, but you have to factor in quality of the face fit, mask moving due to talking, sweating etc.
Out of interest, what happened to the PPE issued for SARS a few years ago? Mrs Ridge had a full fit test and personal issue mask. The filters would obviously need replacing, but the masks would still be functional.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Not even FFP2. We’ve been instructed to attend suspected covid 19 cases wearing surgical masks. The HSE don’t even include these masks in their respiratory protection guidelines because the level of protection they provide is so low. The best study I can find indicates that an FFP3 provides 100 fold protection against airborne particulates. The figure for a surgical mask is 6 fold.
Thanks for confirming my worst fears.
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
> I guess the WHO are the people we should listen to on it
The evidence is suggesting commuting with one reduces the risk. A friend who is a Singaporean epidemiologist has been comparing spread in different areas and thinks masks are a significant factor. But they do not stop the risk just lower the spread of large droplets.
a lot of the “masks don’t work” argument was made just to stop the run on them, it’s obviously more important medics and high risk people get them first. Even in a high school anatomy lab mine were all stolen weeks ago.
Post edited at 15:02
4
In reply to Andy Gamisou:
> That's a cheery thought for those of us with loved ones on the "front line"
> I wonder if anyone is collecting stats on the proportion of nurses and doctors getting it? Italy seems to have a high casualty rate in this regard.
It’s grim but true. I’ll get it eventually. Most medics will get it, so families will get it.
1
In reply to Roadrunner6:
I'm not quite sure it was made up that masks don't work, but maybe their effectiveness was underplayed to preserve stocks. I think this is acceptable, but it's not acceptable that stocks are low! The government had warning about this pandemic!!
I can see the argument of them being better than nothing for commuting, but surely the better answer is to encourage bikes as much as possible for commuting? And obviously only absolutely essential travel. We are lucky that we have next to no public transport to worry about!
We have a couple of basic masks in our house left over from some decorating. We have said that if one of us gets the virus then that person would wear a mask of the other had to come close for some care needs or if the sick person needs to move around the house at all. We accept that it won't give great protection, but will limit the spread to some extent in a situation where we can't avoid each other.
Outside of the house, we need to avoid people then we don't need masks!!
In reply to girlymonkey:
Exactly. The whole argument of if I wear a mask I won't spread it. If folk think they have it, somebody else in their house has it etc. They shouldn't be going out.
In the shops this afternoon there was a bloke with a fashion item black face mask on and gloves.. but he made no effort to distance himself from anyone, his lassie helped load the basket he carried, both packed the bags, then once in his car he took it all off and they drove off together. Muppet.
Post edited at 18:30
3
1
In reply to summo:
FWIW, my mate was stopped today by the police cos he WASN'T WEARING A FOOKIN MASK when driving his car....ON HIS OWN!!! (Ref Veneto, Northern Italy)...they've all gone bonkers here...people are now leaving their food shopping outside for a couple of hours in the hopes it will kill the virus.
In reply to Roadrunner6:
Greetings from Northern Italy...my mate works in an ICU here...they tested all the staff...50% of them were positive.
2
In reply to Kean:
I've seen quite a few people driving around, windows shut, with just scarves around their faces!
In reply to girlymonkey:
My wife is at a big academic regional hospital just outside of Boston, and they are only just kicking off their surge plan as we are a bit behind New York.
They are already running out of masks, they had 13 surgical masks left when she went in then for a scan and they were then taken to the ICU to be used there. It's that desperate they are emptying any office in the hospital raiding for supplies.
They had since January to prepare for this and we've not even started and we're already requiring urgent airlifts to bring in supplies. Two weeks until the peak now.
1
In reply to Roadrunner6:
It's horrific. I can't believe so called developed countries can be quite so useless!! The trajectory of this virus has been clear for a long time. If the NHS had stockpilled masks and then for whatever reason the virus didn't turn out to be so bad or not reach us - great, we have spare masks which will still get used!! I guess they probably do have an expiry date, but still unlikely to be left long enough to go out of date given that they are used regularly in hospitals anyway!! The proper fitted ones presumably only need filters in date, the masks themselves presumably last as long as the doctor!!
3
A good load of FFP3 landed on station today, which is great. Apparently no sleeved disposable aprons left anywhere and very few Tyvek, which is not so great. I now strip off my uniform in the back garden and have a good wash from a bucket before entering the house... this will undoubtedly horrify the neighbours
Been told they’ll start testing us in the second week of April (but who knows).
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
The CDC have told medics that they can use bandana's here, out of date masks would be a big plus.
At the time of H1N1 the hospital here bought a huge stockpile of N95 masks (the more serious, firmer, shaped ones) so they do have lots of those there.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html
"HCP use of homemade masks:
In settings where facemasks are not available, HCP (Healthcare personell) might use homemade masks (e.g., bandana, scarf) for care of patients with COVID-19 as a last resort. "
In reply to Stichtplate:
Good to hear you've got some of what you need. An old UKC friend shared on FB today a post from a consultant in the hospital where she works - lots of photos and his name attached, so clearly not one of these bullshit whatsapp sort of messages from some unnamed source. He was saying thank you for the concern from friends, but that hospital in Scotland was well equipped with all the PPE they need. Dispatches on C4 tonight as well was from Bangor where the presenter is also a doctor (the better half of another longterm UKCer was visible in some of the shots, she's just started as a consultant there!). Anyway, they were showing their training and prep with full PPE kit so they didn't seem to have concerns about supply.
So it just seems really random as to who has it and where. I pray the govt. can get it sorted out so that everyone gets what they need! Glad to hear your lot have got at least some of the proper stuff now. The stories are heartwarming sort of, but ultimately when secondary school DT teachers are going back into schools to churn out what PPE kit they can on the school's 3D printer - you know the situation is pretty ridiculous.
4
In reply to Stichtplate:
Tyvek, that’ll be the stuff that they use as a building material.
It can’t be in short supply.
They’ll have you making your own suits out of it before you know it!
DIY PPE FTW
In reply to TobyA:
Focus on what the current UK ambulance service crews are posting. Grim.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/ukparamedichumour/posts/?ref=page_internal
The post from about 23:00 on the 30th: "Is this the same across the board, wearing inadequate PPE?"
Post edited at 04:27
In reply to Roadrunner6:
> They had since January to prepare for this and we've not even started and we're already requiring urgent airlifts to bring in supplies. Two weeks until the peak now.
It's amazing that the penny pinching incompetent governments that don't order cheap protective equipment in time or stockpile it never have any problem finding helicopters and military transports.
In reply to mik82:
> It is in respiratory droplets and aerosolised so will contaminate surfaces, masks, extractors etc.
> The better results are nothing to do with masks but to do with aggressive testing and contact tracing.
Actually my understanding is that the main mode of transmission is through large droplets emitted when you speak or cough which are transferred through close contact into your eyes, nose, or mouth (especially nose which has a lot of those ACE2 receptor the virus can grab onto) or surfaces.
These dropplets are easily stopped if the one emitting them is wearing a mask.
Aerosolisation can happen but is more common if you have a lot of people in a confined place, especially if they are speaking/shouting. This is supposedly what happened in South Korea with this sect. Also happens during certain medical procedure.
Post edited at 06:55
In reply to girlymonkey:
> I'm not quite sure it was made up that masks don't work, but maybe their effectiveness was underplayed to preserve stocks. I think this is acceptable, but it's not acceptable that stocks are low! The government had warning about this pandemic!! I can see the argument of them being better than nothing for commuting <
IF it was known that masks have some value for protection to the wearer (as well as protection for others) then I don't find it acceptable that the government advisors seemed to publicly discourage people from wearing them (especially for crowded commuters) .It is essential that people trust official pronouncements. If they needed to they should have asked all stores only to provide them solely to NHS etc for a time.
However an acceptable main reason might have been that masks have their own risks eg repeated use and handling while removing etc spreading the virus. Last night I noticed a TV reporter in Beijing said he put his mask in his pocket while he was talking into the mike. One often sees people handling the outside of their mask.
1
1
In reply to John Kelly:
According to the Independent the CDC is thinking of changing its advice on masks.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-c...
In reply to RomTheBear:
Yes, it can be by contact transmission or fine spray but large droplets is believed to be the most likely route of transmission. So hard to study. But even wearing a bandana would stop a lot of large droplet transmission. It all helps.
In reply to oldie:
Lost count of the number of times I've seen people wearing masks (of numerous types) yet they constantly adjust the straps and touch their face. Even with vinyl gloves transmission of pathogens looks highly likely.
2
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
I had to pick up a parcel for a local shop today. The guy serving was wearing gloves. He kept the same gloves on for the lady in front of me, me and the guy behind me. I presume he wore them for longer than that too, that was just all I saw. While he was serving me he scratched his face, still with the gloves on! It seems issuing PPE without proper training is at best useless. Could actually make things worse as he might have thought to use hand gel between customers if he didn't already feel protected.
2
Can a face mask be cleaned? I have just found a old one a few spots of mold, and paint on it, and obviously been used, expires date of 2018. But a quick wash in a week Bleach and it ''looks'' as new, and must be good enough to catch my sneezing and coughing a trip to the shops.
If it were dust I can see it will not wash out, but a Virus would? or how about baking it at 80C ?????????????
Edit and spray TCP [tri chloro phenylmethyliodosalicyl] or Dettol
Post edited at 13:08
1
In reply to Name Changed 34:
I’ve heard of people baking them, exposing them to UV or just dettol spraying them. Such treatment “might” work but unsurprisingly such treatment would definitely not be supported by manufacturers.
If your main concern is not infecting others then frequent hand washes, 2 metre distancing and a few thicknesses of a buff round your nose and gob are “probably” sufficient in most open space shopping environments.
If your main concern is not getting infected yourself and you’re going to be spending a lot of time in a confined space with people who’re violently coughing, you’ll want an FFP3 respirator, eye protection, gloves, overshoes and hooded overalls... though international guidance on this has been considerably watered down over the last few weeks. Not due to clinical studies but because the powers that be have had to as PPE stocks run out.
Current NHS guidelines for PPE suitable to treat confirmed Covid 19 patients are actually only suitable for working behind the counter at your local deli.
2
In reply to John Kelly:
I haven't read the whole thread...
Facemasks are in common usage in SE Asia and have been for a long time before this outbreak. The reasons for wearing them are misunderstood - generally people wear them when they have a cold and do not want to infect others, rather than to prevent themselves from getting an infection.
Transmission for covid-19 is not fully understood, however the assumption is that the route will be common with other respiratory viruses including other corona viruses. Virus is aerosolised when you cough or sneeze. Generally, this disperses to below an infectious dose in the air pretty quickly unless you are in very close proximity to someone. They are useful for medical staff who are more likely to be close proximxity to infected individuals and more likely to get a face full of body fluid (e.g., when intubating someone). For the general population, face masks will act to contain aersolised virus if you are infected, reducing the chances of passing it on. They also have the effect of preventing you from touching your face with infected hands (or at least make you more aware that you are doing it), which is one of probable routes of transmission - however given the shortage it is better to keep your hands clean and try to be mindful about touching your face rather than using a mask.
Regarding getting onto surfaces, the usual route is that you breathe/cough/sneeze out aersolised virus. This will contaminate the skin around your mouth and nose - and hence your hands if you touch your face. If you sneeze or cough into your hands, you will contaminate them directly, and of course it is also possible to sneeze or cough directly onto any surface. A common example might be someone who coughs into their hands, then immediately uses their hand to press the button to call a lift. Touching a contaminated surface (like that same lift button) is likely to transfer virus onto your hands, and touching your face with a contaminated hand has the potential to infect you. This is not an unusual route - it is the primary route of transmission for most cold viruses, and also for many diarrhoeal viruses (rotavirus, norovirus).
On a personal level, keeping your hands clean is the best possible thing you can do. This virus is just a bit of delicate RNA wrapped in a lipid shell - a good wash with any soap will destroy the shell and the RNA will then degrade quickly. In addition, eat with cutlery rather than your hands and try to be mindful about keeping your hands away from your face - and follow the advice on social distancing, which is aimed at keeping you out of aerosol range of others.
The main reason for China and S. Korea having "better" results than Europe is primarily because their societies are more authoritarian. This means that they are less afraid to lock down hard and fast, and that citizens are less likely to stretch or break the lock-down rules. Additionally, it is extremely likely that China in particular is under-reporting both incidence and mortality - this is partially because with such a large population it is extremely unlikely that they know the true numbers and partially because China have a long history of under-reporting problematic issues to the wider world anyway.
Post edited at 14:07
In reply to Name Changed 34:
>Can a face mask be cleaned?<
Googled and found a simple 90 min at 56°C, 60 min at 67°C, and 30 min at 75°C inactivation( from an older 2003 paper on SARS coronovirus quoted in Coronavirus disinfection in histopathology. Anthony F. Henwood. March 2020. J. Histotechnol). I suppose masks might be marked with felt tip with name and number of uses. I'm not in any way an expert and imagine this method would only be a last resort.
Incidentally if the mask has been untouched in the cupboard for ages it can't have the CV19 virus on it.....it seems to be accepted that the virion lasts a max. of 24 hrs on soft and 72 hrs on hard surfaces, but probably few will trust 'time' as a sterilizing agent
Stitch plate asked If your main concern is not infecting others. or not getting infected yourself
At the moment both are priority, i asked about cleaning a mask as any that get used again help the supply internationally. It is clear, to all . That a shortage and a distribution problem exists at this moment, anything to help has to be good?
The personal rise in the use of masks is going to be unstoppable, as was a -run- on loo paper. Moreover, the use of a mask can help to stop the spreading,, I do understand the stay in policy, but 'we' are going out, and will have to continue to do so. Collecting shopping the Click and collect, last night it was clear that the staff could not maintain 2m and hand washing after a touch is a unreal prospect as anyone who has worked manually will say.
My main concern, is that Sixty DR. have succumb in Italy, and to that add the other medics and non medics working at close quarters.
In reply to kathrync:
> Touching a contaminated surface (like that same lift button) is likely to transfer virus onto your hands, and touching your face with a contaminated hand has the potential to infect you. This is not an unusual route - it is the primary route of transmission for most cold viruses, and also for many diarrhoeal viruses (rotavirus, norovirus).
Just in case this wasn't clear, in the case of diarrhoeal viruses, contamination of your hands if you are infected doesn't happen from coughing/sneezing/breathing. However, once your hands are contaminated, you can transmit via the same routes. Surface contamination can occur from aersolised virus though - shut the toilet lid before you flush if you are ill, and consider keeping your toothbrush somewhere other than the bathroom!
1
In reply to kathrync:
> The main reason for China and S. Korea having "better" results than Europe is primarily because their societies are more authoritarian. This means that they are less afraid to lock down hard and fast, and that citizens are less likely to stretch or break the lock-down rules.
I think this is one reason why Germany is doing better than most other European countries. The concept of the good of the Vaterland, rather than the individual, still lurks in a residual form I believe.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> I think this is one reason why Germany is doing better than most other European countries. The concept of the good of the Vaterland, rather than the individual, still lurks in a residual form I believe.
Agreed, I suspect there is an element of this - they are also doing a lot better with testing. This has two effects. Firstly and critically it means that they are much more efficient at tracing and contacting those who may have been in contact with infected individuals. Secondly, it potentially means that they are capturing more of infections in patients who are not critically ill, meaning that their mortality looks lower relative to the incidence than many other European countries.
1
In reply to oldie:
from an older 2003 paper on SARS coronovirus quoted in Coronavirus disinfection in histopathology. Anthony F. Henwood. March 2020. J. Histotechnol).
Old but topical
and imagine this method would only be a last resort.
Think we are last resort
Good to know that reuse could be a option, albeit a poor one.
In reply to Name Changed 34:
> from an older 2003 paper on SARS coronovirus quoted in Coronavirus disinfection in histopathology. Anthony F. Henwood. March 2020. J. Histotechnol).
> Old but topical
> and imagine this method would only be a last resort.
> Think we are last resort
> Good to know that reuse could be a option, albeit a poor one.
The European centre for disease control and prevention are now advocating the reuse of disposable masks if necessary. But then, along with nearly every other national and supra national health care organisation, their current guidelines are unrecognisable from what they were even a month ago, the the bar having been gradually lowered on a weekly basis.
Give it another couple of weeks and I imagine that the official guidance will be that a cheery disposition provides an adequate level of protection.
In reply to Name Changed 34:
> The personal rise in the use of masks is going to be unstoppable
One could imagine shops, banks and the police might get a bit jumpy about everyone covering their faces, long-term
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...