Generic Virus Thread

[chrisp65]

I’m now using odds n sods of masks, as and when I can find some.

But the result, is these masks don’t have the metal pinch strip so when I breath out, it steams up my glasses.

Funny in Sainsbury’s, less funny on scaffolding.

[Awol]

On masks, wifey has knocked up a couple of good ones with a sowing machine and we’re using large paper coffee filters as the, er, filters. 

If anyone wants the instructions PM me an email address and I’ll send them over tonight. 

[Genie]

I’m gonna have to bite the bullet and buy some overpriced ones from eBay. Just want something when I pop to the local shop for milk and bread. I appreciate they are not invisibility cloaks to the virus but should reduce chance of inhaling the germs slightly.

[blandy]

12 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The problem with basic explanations is that they can sometimes be more misleading than they are illuminating though. His claim was that there would be 'significant overlap' between coronavirus victims and 'those at risk of dying anyway during the course of the year':

There's two layers of non-specific words here, in 'significant overlap' and 'at risk of dying', but the overall impression to the general public is likely to be that we are talking about a much larger proportion than the reality seems to be.

It seems to me that statistically he’s right. I don’t accept the interpretation that the general public is misled by him to believe the proportion is much larger. The general public is pretty aware of the situation in Northern Italy, and in care homes in the UK, and also the reporting of the death rate amongst different demographics, ages, etc.  There absolutely is very reasonable ground from the stats and from medicine to say there is significant overlap between those at risk of dying during the year anyway, and those who are dying from COVID. It’s basically fact. Any statistical argument is only about the term “significant” and the level of risk assumed by “at risk”.

The tone is off, the premise is supported by data.

[Stevo985]

I went to the supermarket for the first time on Wednesday and took a mask with me, but was surprised that literally nobody in the entire shop was wearing one. Customers or staff.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, wedge said:

Monday May 11. He was fairly vague about the letters but it just made me wonder where has this come from?

The govt website. I posted the other day that someone I was talking to (hairdresser) had been advised 11 May planned date to reopen by the gov. website. They’re clearly going for a staged easing of lockdown, and targeting certain sectors for relaxation.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

It seems to me that statistically he’s right. I don’t accept the interpretation that the general public is misled by him to believe the proportion is much larger. The general public is pretty aware of the situation in Northern Italy, and in care homes in the UK, and also the reporting of the death rate amongst different demographics, ages, etc.  There absolutely is very reasonable ground from the stats and from medicine to say there is significant overlap between those at risk of dying during the year anyway, and those who are dying from COVID. It’s basically fact. Any statistical argument is only about the term “significant” and the level of risk assumed by “at risk”.

The tone is off, the premise is supported by data.

Actuaries disagree with you:

 

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, Awol said:

wifey has knocked up a couple of good ones with a sowing machin...

There’s a “hoe” joke in there somewhere, but out of politeness I won’t make it.

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Actuaries disagree with you:

 

No They don’t. Would “most” have died? No, they wouldn’t. As I said Any statistical argument is only about the term “significant” and the level of risk assumed by “at risk”. The people dying from/with it in Italy and in care homes, statistically are at greater risk of dying than the general population. That’s not saying they definitely were going to die anyway, but a percentage of them were high risk, some medium and some low etc. Following his tweet thread you can even see examples of data which back up the bbc article. Again, for emphasis, “significant” and “at risk” isn’t the same as “most” and “would have”

[wazzap24]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

On masks, wifey has knocked up a couple of good ones with a sowing machine and we’re using large paper coffee filters as the, er, filters. 

If anyone wants the instructions PM me an email address and I’ll send them over tonight. 

Not yet peer reviewed, but might be worth chucking one of the wife’s stockings over the top...

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/22/840146830/adding-a-nylon-stocking-layer-could-boost-protection-from-cloth-masks-study-find

Quote

It really improved the performance of all of the masks, and it brought several of them up and over the baseline mask we were using, which was a 3M surgical-type mask," says Loretta Fernandez, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northeastern University and one of the scientists who conducted the research.

Even the 3M surgical mask performed better with stockings in their study: Testing showed that it went from blocking out 75% of small particles to 90% with the addition of a pantyhose overlayer. By comparison, an N95 respirator, which is designed to create a tight seal around the face, blocks out at least 95% of small particles when worn properly.

 

The study: 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20069567v2.full.pdf+html

Quote

Assessment of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks in Terms of Particle Filtration Efficiency

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by wazzap24

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

No They don’t. Would “most” have died? No, they wouldn’t. As I said Any statistical argument is only about the term “significant” and the level of risk assumed by “at risk”. The people dying from/with it in Italy and in care homes, statistically are at greater risk of dying than the general population. That’s not saying they definitely were going to die anyway, but a percentage of them were high risk, some medium and some low etc. Following his tweet thread you can even see examples of data which back up the bbc article. Again, for emphasis, “significant” and “at risk” isn’t the same as “most” and “would have”

I think you're debating something that nobody else is debating. Everybody agrees that a non-zero number of people who have died would have had a life expectancy of less than a year. However, what is being debated is whether, per Triggle's article, 'the numbers dying could drop below average levels later in the year, thus reducing the level of excess deaths over time . . . because there will be significant overlap between those at risk of dying with coronavirus and those at risk of dying anyway during the year'. That is the claim that is not supported by the data here. If you follow back through the tweet thread, as you suggest, you will see that the evidence of 'harvesting' (which is what this is called, when some shock such as a virus brings forward mortality and then reduces it later in the year) is weak when it comes to flu mortality. Not non-existent - again, everybody understands that a non-zero number of coronavirus victims would have died within twelve months - but weak.

I don't understand how you can speak on behalf of the general public ('I don’t accept the interpretation that the general public is misled by him to believe the proportion is much larger') with such confidence.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think you're debating something that nobody else is debating. Everybody agrees that a non-zero number of people who have died would have had a life expectancy of less than a year. However, what is being debated is whether, per Triggle's article, 'the numbers dying could drop below average levels later in the year, thus reducing the level of excess deaths over time . . . because there will be significant overlap between those at risk of dying with coronavirus and those at risk of dying anyway during the year'. That is the claim that is not supported by the data here. If you follow back through the tweet thread, as you suggest, you will see that the evidence of 'harvesting' (which is what this is called, when some shock such as a virus brings forward mortality and then reduces it later in the year) is weak when it comes to flu mortality. Not non-existent - again, everybody understands that a non-zero number of coronavirus victims would have died within twelve months - but weak.

I don't understand how you can speak on behalf of the general public ('I don’t accept the interpretation that the general public is misled by him to believe the proportion is much larger') with such confidence.

Well, just to expand on my earlier reply, and "significant" v most and "at risk" v "would have (died anyway)". My perception is that people generally use and understand "significant" to mean, kind of "it matters" - for example 10% of medics lacking PPE would be a "significant" problem, and I suspect most would agree with that. That's far from most medics lack PPE, which would be (e.g.) a catastrophic problem. Same with a pay cut - a 20% pay cut would be significant in it's impact, for most people. or a 15% points deduction for Villa would be "significant".

And "at risk" - Villa are "at risk" of relegation, as are about 5 other clubs in the Premier. That's not saying over 25% of the clubs "would have" got relegated anyway. They wouldn't. But when we look back, we'll find that 3 did get relegated.

So as I said, the discussion (IMO) oughtn't to be about the data as it exists in this case. It is what it is. It should be about the interpretation of the two terms used, and then people sort of jumping on exaggerations of, or different interpretations of those terms. Or as I said the tone of the article is off, because it allows people to morally address a perceived underlying bias and argue against the perceived bias, rather than what is actually being stated.

On the data about harvesting - there's an example from 2015 and 2018 for Flu, where one year, exactly what he proposes might happen did happen. For the other year it didn't. Now we're looking there at flu, not the more lethal Covi, but it clearly does happen some years with flu that there is a compensatory later dip in deaths in the year, because (yuk) the weak have been "harvested" early on by Flu. No one can know this will happen this year, or that it definitely won't happen. Looking at the deaths and so on this time round it seems entirely credible that it could happen. And then we're back to whether that will be to a "significant" extent. Snowy yesterday said he thought the number of people flouting/ignoring Lockdown rules was "significant" and he's probably right (though people argued against that, on here). It's far from most people, but it's enough to have a knock on effect which could cause a change to the overall data on infections and deaths. It should be OK to raise these points and write about them without having biases assigned, or motives made up or questioned. Or even stuff like accusations of claiming to speak for the general public, when that hasn't happened. Saying I don't think the general public has been misled, which I did, is not different to, ahem, others saying they think the general public will get the impression that... - I mean, that's y'know... 

[sne]

Doesn't go into much detail but sounds about right.

Quote

Coronavirus Pandemic Likely to Last Two Years, Report Says

The coronavirus pandemic is likely to last as long as two years and won’t be controlled until about two-thirds of the world’s population is immune, a group of experts said in a report.

Because of its ability to spread from people who don’t appear to be ill, the virus may be harder to control than influenza, the cause of most pandemics in recent history, according to the report from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. People may actually be at their most infectious before symptoms appear, according to the report.

After locking down billions of people around the world to minimize its spread through countries, governments are now cautiously allowing businesses and public places to reopen. Yet the coronavirus pandemic is likely to continue in waves that could last beyond 2022, the authors said.

“Risk communication messaging from government officials should incorporate the concept that this pandemic will not be over soon,” they said, “and that people need to be prepared for possible periodic resurgences of disease over the next two years.”

Developers are rushing to make vaccines that may be available in small quantities as early as this year. While large amounts of vaccine against the 2009-2010 flu pandemic didn’t become available until after the outbreak peaked in the U.S., one study has estimated that the shots prevented as many as 1.5 million cases and 500 deaths in that country alone, the report said.

The report was written by CIDRAP director Michael Osterholm and medical director Kristen Moore, Tulane University public health historian John Barry, and Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/covid-19-pandemic-likely-to-last-two-years-report-says?srnd=premium-europe

[Awol]

52 minutes ago, wazzap24 said:

Not yet peer reviewed, but might be worth chucking one of the wife’s stockings over the top...

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/22/840146830/adding-a-nylon-stocking-layer-could-boost-protection-from-cloth-masks-study-find

The study: 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20069567v2.full.pdf+html

 

Stockings? Spot the unmarried man... 

Top tip though, cheers. 

[Chindie]

12 minutes ago, sne said:

Doesn't go into much detail but sounds about right.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/covid-19-pandemic-likely-to-last-two-years-report-says?srnd=premium-europe

About that immunity thing...

[snowychap]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

Snowy yesterday said he thought the number of people flouting/ignoring Lockdown rules was "significant"

Words mean different things in different contexts, as you know.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by snowychap
Edited back in as original fully quoted below.

[sne]

Danger Will Robinson!!

Nice to see the robot from Lost in Space has found a new use, hope it works.

Quote

A Texas company claims it has a solution for COVID-19 ... a robot that can kill the virus ... feds, hospitals and universities are already buying in, and pro sports could be next.

San Antonio-based Xenex Disinfection Services claims they have perfected a $100,000 robot that can zap the deadly virus to death, and it's already being used by the Department of Defense, Mayo Clinic and prestigious universities, with more deep-pocketed clients waiting in the wings.

Here's how it works ... the robot uses a xenon lamp to generate bursts of high intensity, full germicidal spectrum UVC light -- more intense than sunlight -- to deactivate viruses, bacteria and spores. Different pathogens are susceptible to UVC light at different wavelengths.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/01/covid-19-zapping-killing-robot-department-defense-hospital-unversity-mlb-nba-coronavirus/

[wazzap24]

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

Stockings? Spot the unmarried man... 

Top tip though, cheers. 

I am married, and although she owns a pair, I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure of her in them since about 2009! 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Words mean different things in different contexts, as you know.

And said

Quote

"different interpretations of those terms"

 

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

[the article said] there will be significant overlap between those at risk of dying with coronavirus and those at risk of dying anyway during the year'.

So in terms of a future retrospective examination of the stats, everyone accepts there will be an overlap between those who died with it and those who were at risk of dying this year, anyway. The article writers thinks that overlap will be "significant" (statistically). So in my view, rather than argue that "most people wouldn't have died anyway" - something he absolutely didn't claim, surely it's better to ask "how significant might the overlap be?". The tweeter responding, who HV quoted posted Flu data that shows that sometimes you can see the harvesting effect and sometimes it doesn't happen. And that's from the less lethal Flu. Crank up the lethality of a disease, and the effects tend to be more noticeable, obviously, in terms of death rates and therefore there's likely to be more of a possibility that it will take more of those "at risk" because of underlying vulnerabilities. Therefore more likely there will be some of the (yuk, again) "harvesting".

As I said the tone of the article is off - it clearly overlooks the awful amount of people not "at risk" who will have died as a consequence of all kinds of factors and failings, but its key theory is not one to be dismissed or deleted. IMO. In essence, it's kind of what underpins (for right or wrong - wrong I think) the approach Sweden has taken, or the UK was going to take before it changed course - "protect the most vulnerable (at risk) and let the rest catch it" - as a policy for the UK in particular that was horribly wrong. If the health serve could have remotely coped with an ensuing wave of people turning up at hospital, it would have been still wrong, but less catastrophically so.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

And said

Quote

"different interpretations of those terms"

 

And yet you used a reference to what I said to reinforce the point you were making thus implying that my use of the term was the same as your use.

Again, you know this - but you're choosing to ignore it or hide behind a phrase that you've used elsewhere in your post.

Edit:

Was the rest of that post aimed towards me or @HanoiVillan?

If it's the former then I have no interest in discussing whatever you might think you're on about - I'd just prefer it if you didn't misuse what I had written to support a point you're trying to make.

Edited May 1, 2020 by snowychap