Jump to content
IGNORED

General COVID-19 Topic


Recommended Posts

More good vaccine news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/health/moderna-vaccine-results-coronavirus/index.html

This one does not require -80C storage or whatever the Pfizer vaccine was. It's also more effective than that one by this preliminary data. Next summer is looking more and more promising, albeit with 3-4 really bad month probably starting now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Administrator
2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Face shields add a layer of protection against larger droplets like from sneezes. We wore them over the N95 or similar masks when dealing with hazardous chemicals that could splash us. They shouldn’t be used alone. They don’t protect against inhalation of particles. They are like safety goggles but protect more than just the eyes. I haven’t read whether the eyes are a route for entry.

Cloth and paper masks are good if worn correctly and are correctly designed. 

Right, so face shields alone are almost pointless.

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

More good vaccine news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/health/moderna-vaccine-results-coronavirus/index.html

This one does not require -80C storage or whatever the Pfizer vaccine was. It's also more effective than that one by this preliminary data. Next summer is looking more and more promising, albeit with 3-4 really bad month probably starting now.

Yes.

Quote

 

The vaccines deliver messenger RNA, or mRNA, which is a genetic recipe for making the spikes that sit atop the coronavirus. Once injected, the body's immune system makes antibodies to the spikes. If a vaccinated person is later exposed to the coronavirus, those antibodies should stand at the ready to attack the virus.

No vaccine currently on the market uses mRNA.

 

Also, how is 14,995/15,000 only 94.5%? I get 99.97%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Also, how is 14,995/15,000 only 94.5%? I get 99.97%.

I am not  a medical researcher but I believe it has to do with how many in the Placebo group became ill vs in the Vaccine Group.  In the Placebo group 90 participants became ill.  In the Vaccine group only 5 became ill.  If you assume that 90 in the Vaccine group would have become ill without the vaccine and only 5 actually got ill then the vaccine prevented illness in 85 people out of 90 that could have become ill.  85/90 = 94.44%.

I am open to be corrected.

Edited by StuM
corrected math
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Just now, StuM said:

I am not  a medical researcher but I believe it has to do with how many in the Placebo group became ill vs in the Vaccine Group.  In the Placebo group 90 participants became ill.  In the Vaccine group only 5 became ill.  If you assume that 90 in the Vaccine group would have become ill without the vaccine and only 5 actually got ill then the vaccine prevented illness in 90 people out of 95 that could have become ill.  90 / 95 = 94.74%.  They may have then rounded down to 94.5%.

I am open to be corrected.

This is my understanding as well.  The test subjects weren't specifically exposed to Covid (probably because of the pretty significant risks involved), they just went on with their normal lives.  Only a small percentage would normally get infected without any vaccine at all. So the "control" group had 90 (or so) cases, while the vaccinated group had only 5.  So the vaccine reduced the incidence of infection by 94% or so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 

  • If it's now an aerosol like we think, how much does masking up actually help? Is the virus caught up in the fibers of the mask because it's larger than air? What's the virus density - or does it glom on to water vapor and float round like that? How much water vapor and viruses escape the sides, bottom, or top of a mask? I'm not saying that even if it's 60% reduction, that's not worth it, but particularly over the long term, how effective are masks? Do have an actual real number on this?

Did a quick search through my recent medical update emails and found these references:

masks-explainer-static-promo-videoSixtee

A visual journey through the microscopic world of the coronavirus shows how masks provide an important defense against transmission.

 

COVID-19-SM-1200px.jpg

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

From the CDC link:

Quote
  • In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.33
  • A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.34
  • A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.35

I tried to search for something about the face shields alone (without concomitant mask underneath).  Only found one hit on that topic, but it didn't seem well documented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is my understanding as well.  The test subjects weren't specifically exposed to Covid (probably because of the pretty significant risks involved), they just went on with their normal lives.  Only a small percentage would normally get infected without any vaccine at all. So the "control" group had 90 (or so) cases, while the vaccinated group had only 5.  So the vaccine reduced the incidence of infection by 94% or so.

 

FYI, I had a math error in the initial post.  Math s/b 90 could become ill while onlyl 5 did thus effective in 85.  85/90 = 94.44%

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I have read that, indeed, the eyes are a route for entry.

I have read that the primary mode of entry for viruses through the eyes is from people rubbing them, which a face shield does nothing to prevent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Now that we know (I think) that it's aerosolized, do the clear masks, the "face shields," really do much at all? Should everyone be using cloth masks? Are face shields barely any better than not having a mask on at all?

This is not my understanding. I have never read anything, of a scientific nature at least, that claims that COVID-19 is aerosolized.

Quote

The epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 indicates that most infections are spread through close contact, not airborne transmission

COVID-19-SM-1200px.jpg

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
14 minutes ago, StuM said:

I am not  a medical researcher but I believe it has to do with how many in the Placebo group became ill vs in the Vaccine Group.  In the Placebo group 90 participants became ill.  In the Vaccine group only 5 became ill.  If you assume that 90 in the Vaccine group would have become ill without the vaccine and only 5 actually got ill then the vaccine prevented illness in 85 people out of 90 that could have become ill.  85/90 = 94.44%.

I am open to be corrected.

 

DUH on me.

WTF?

Massive brain fart. So dumb.

Sorry.

3 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

This is not my understanding. I have never read anything, of a scientific nature at least, that claims that COVID-19 is aerosolized.

Then I think you have some Googling in your future?

E532C6B5-DC08-4809-A1FF14FF23BF777C.jpg

How can we make our schools, office buildings and homes safer?
Quote

This reluctance has prompted an epic response. In a nearly unprecedented move, 239 scientists from 32 countries wrote an open letter to the WHO in July, urging the agency to recognize that airborne transmission of coronavirus by smaller aerosol particles is possible. … The CDC, meanwhile, posted on its Web site over the weekend that aerosolization may be “the main way the virus spreads,” then backtracked and removed the content from its site, claiming the language had been a draft of some proposed changes which were “posted in error.”

If it's not aerosol-transmittable, that's better news for everyone, but more and more are saying it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I have never read anything, of a scientific nature at least, that claims that COVID-19 is aerosolized.

I don't have any references, but I believe the current scientific consensus is that transmission being driven by aerosols. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
4 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

I don't have any references, but I believe the current scientific consensus is that transmission being driven by aerosols. 

That's been my understanding for awhile, though I've admittedly suffered several more bouts of "COVID Fatigue" as this goes on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is my understanding as well.  The test subjects weren't specifically exposed to Covid (probably because of the pretty significant risks involved), they just went on with their normal lives.  Only a small percentage would normally get infected without any vaccine at all. So the "control" group had 90 (or so) cases, while the vaccinated group had only 5.  So the vaccine reduced the incidence of infection by 94% or so.

 

Bummer to be in the placebo group.  Next time I volunteer for a vaccine study I'm asking to be put in the vaccinated group. 😄

26 minutes ago, billchao said:

I have read that the primary mode of entry for viruses through the eyes is from people rubbing them, which a face shield does nothing to prevent.

Bryson DeChambeau, in a Saturday TV interview, was rubbing his eyes like crazy.  Don't know if anybody else picked up on that.  Doubt he washed his hands before the interview...

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Bryson DeChambeau, in a Saturday TV interview, was rubbing his eyes like crazy.  Don't know if anybody else picked up on that.  Doubt he washed his hands before the interview...

I certainly hope he did.  I use hand sanitizer before I remove my mask because I do not want to risk putting any potential virus near my eyes/nose/mouth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 minutes ago, StuM said:

I certainly hope he did.  I use hand sanitizer before I remove my mask because I do not want to risk putting any potential virus near my eyes/nose/mouth

A year ago if I had seen one person wearing a mask or using hand sanitizer I would have thought she/he was a bit weird.  Now it is so commonplace.  Can't wait until it is weird again...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
8 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I try to stick to the CDC as a primary and WHO as a backup for my information.

The WHO and CDC are ridiculously slow to react to things, and politically motivated. The WHO in particular has been quite poor at handling or informing.

You said "scientists" or "science" - and we gave you scientists and science, which you can get for yourself as well. It's not just spreading on droplets that travel six feet or so.

That's what the "science" is telling us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, iacas said:

The WHO and CDC are ridiculously slow to react to things, and politically motivated. The WHO in particular has been quite poor at handling or informing.

It seems like everything is politicized these days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

@CarlSpackler, from the WHO:


The English version was updated on 20 October 2020

"The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe heavily. These liquid particles are different sizes, ranging from larger ‘respiratory droplets’ to smaller ‘aerosols’."

Here's another page that I had opened up earlier today:

89055.jpg

Aerosol experts say evidence doesn't add up for droplets being primary driver
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...